PDA

View Full Version : Linux servers switching to Windows Server 2003


Asher
17-07-2003, 19:00:26
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2003/07/15/windows_server_2003_approaching_100000_active_site s_8000_sites_switch_from_linux.html

Yes indeedy, Linux is going to dominate all!!!!!!

Asher
17-07-2003, 19:05:49
Also, it is four times cheaper to develop Windows devices than Linux devices (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/31804.html)

Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
17-07-2003, 21:22:27
Page Not Found

The page you have requested can not be found.

Please use the Search News box to find what you are looking for.

If you have any questions, please contact the Netcraft Webmaster



----

Are they running Windows Server 2003?

Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
17-07-2003, 21:27:08
Page Not Found

The page you have requested can not be found.

Please use the Search News box to find what you are looking for.

If you have any questions, please contact the Netcraft Webmaster



----

Are they running Windows Server 2003?

And did you read the second article?

Sean
17-07-2003, 21:38:55
http://tinyurl.com/h2cf

Asher
17-07-2003, 23:33:50
Originally posted by Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
And did you read the second article?
The one about Colt experimenting with configurations and rebooting their servers about once a day? Yes, what about it?

Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
17-07-2003, 23:40:28
Thanks Sean.

Asher: Who's doing what now?

Asher
17-07-2003, 23:57:15
Oh, that second article.

Yes, I read it. :D

Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
18-07-2003, 01:25:15
I'm wondering how much impact Microsoft's "priority pricing" scheme has to do with that (you know, the sluch fund they've got going to convince people to buy cheap Windows instead of go Linux?)

That said, we're purchasing Windows Server 2 3/1000th k for our DB server at work :)

No longer Trippin
18-07-2003, 05:33:13
It is cheaper because companies that make all these devices already have drivers for 2000 (and it's variants) and XP. All they need to do is tweak those drivers like XP's are just tweaked 2000 drivers, or vice versa. Quite a few (to say the least) Linux drivers aren't even released by the manufacturer of the device but by someone who needed the device to work with Linux.

Slush fund? MS brings in 20 billion a year, 1 billion is overhead, the rest is fucking profit (monopoly my ass). Sony brings in over 200 billion a year yet only see's 8 billion in profits. Shit isn't that right there enoguh to show they are taking damned good advantage of their dominance in the market when they can rake up that much cash that quickly. Only a monopoly could do that as it can price stuff out the wazoo.

2000 was the first OS they made worth purchasing (though it still should have been half that cost, even more actually, same with XP). They have all these sevurity holes and the patches to fix one hole on the same file will create a new hole. WTF are they doing with the other 19 billion? Burning it in the cause of global warming?

Asher
18-07-2003, 06:00:54
Slush fund? MS brings in 20 billion a year, 1 billion is overhead, the rest is fucking profit (monopoly my ass).[/quote]
MS brings in $28.3B a year, not $20B.
The cost of revenue is $5B, not $1B. ;)
But net income is about $8B, which is the true profit. $8B on $28B in revenue is decidedly different than $19B on $20B in revenue...

Sony brings in over 200 billion a year yet only see's 8 billion in profits. Shit isn't that right there enoguh to show they are taking damned good advantage of their dominance in the market when they can rake up that much cash that quickly. Only a monopoly could do that as it can price stuff out the wazoo.
Erm. That doesn't show it's a monopoly, it shows that it's an IP company that makes software with extremely low cost of production, while Sony makes bigass expensive equipment and has to deal with inventory and transportation, etc.

If you look at comparable software makers, MS' profit margin is usually smaller than the other guys. MS is just on a bigger scale.

Profit margin has absolutely nothing to do with monopoly status, and everything to do with the type of product you're making.

Do you think Brut is a monopoly because they have, say, $100M inrevenue and $100,000 cost of production? :D

They have all these sevurity holes and the patches to fix one hole on the same file will create a new hole.
While still amazingly having less security holes than Linux, with far more use and far more hacker visibility.

No longer Trippin
18-07-2003, 06:32:18
And MS just released a patch for what is described as one of the biggest security holes known to ever exist in their Operating System - check MS site for 2003 advanced server patches if you don't believe me. Basically you can do whatever you want once in (and it isn't all that hard which is the sad part - just took awhile to find it due to it was an area MS had really worked on to seal up). The best part, it is for 2003 Advanced Server and we all know MS has been trying to claim it's software is hacker proof with is PR, especially with 2003 Server. Seems a fix they made to stop people from overflowing the buffer to get commands through now will let you just stroll right in, browse around, delete a few things here and there, and practically do whatever the hell you want - and since it's on the server, you'd have access to all workstations connected to it. That is a messy one. Might have less holes than Linux, but Linux is FREE.

As for using revenue as a detector of a monopoly, in some instances it can show it. This one it does. They have no competition on the consumer market, dwindling competition on the server market, and little to no competition in the Office Apps area. Yet they are still charging so damned much for so little.

Brut has countless companies competing with it, MS really doesn't have any real solid compeditors left in the home market - your also talking cost of production, not total overhead - I doubt the CEO works for 100,000 and does everything. Plus he gets all the fragrances they need along with bottles, shipping and marketting for free? Sorry, I smelled the bullshit coming off that one from a mile away. The only place MS is still challenged (and increasingly less so as they get stronger there) is the server side of operating systems.

Oh, I forgot, your the MS apologist from Apolyton.

Asher
18-07-2003, 14:09:31
Originally posted by No longer Trippin
And MS just released a patch for what is described as one of the biggest security holes known to ever exist in their Operating System
Holy Hyperbole, batman!
It's a simple buffer overflow in legacy NT code for RPC, it affects NT 4.0, Win2K, WinXP, and all Win2003 variants. It is not just for advanced server, nor is it particularly special. It's the first "critical" security update for Windows 2003 since its launch three months ago, and was pushed through the auto-update mechanism before it was publically known about.

The best part, it is for 2003 Advanced Server and we all know MS has been trying to claim it's software is hacker proof with is PR, especially with 2003 Server.
You again seem to be confused, the closest I can see to this is them claiming this is the most secure Windows ever. Which is a far cry from saying "hacker proof".

Might have less holes than Linux, but Linux is FREE.
The vast majority of companies who are in the server market don't use freebie Linux distros. They get stuff like Red Hat Advanced Server, which is priced identically to Windows 2003 Server.

Brut has countless companies competing with it, MS really doesn't have any real solid compeditors left in the home market
What a dubious argument -- of course Brut isn't a monopoly. I was using it as an example of why it's incredibly ridiculous for you to use profit margins and revenues to determine monopoly status. Which it is, since by the same criteria Brut is a monopoly.

your also talking cost of production, not total overhead - I doubt the CEO works for 100,000 and does everything. Plus he gets all the fragrances they need along with bottles, shipping and marketting for free? Sorry, I smelled the bullshit coming off that one from a mile away.
It wasn't bullshit, they were numbers pulled from my ass, considering Brut isn't even its own company. It's a hypothetical example.

Oh, I forgot, your the MS apologist from Apolyton.
And you're the notorious guy who acts like he knows what he's talking about, but most of the time doesn't. I know your type. :D

No longer Trippin
18-07-2003, 16:26:54
I never said it was a new thing, hell, most people have known about the damned hole for ages now - just there were (and are if not on 2003) and are easier ways to get into the server and do more damage. Hacking hoe users and workstations isn't the big threat, it is large servers being hacked, then shit happens.

Remeber when Billy-Boy touted the password protection on his 2000 systems was "hacker proof" unless they get the account password. Well somebody with two dozen compters of p3's down to even some 486's was able to crack it in under two weeks. After he figured out how, he was able to cut that time down drastically - thats why they went back and changed the password code as it wasn't secure at all. This wasn't a group of people, this was ONE person who did that. I don't trust anything that comes out of MS because they feed people bullshit so much. Like Windows ME for example. Isn't that one sorry piece of software. Let's make an OS that is even buggier than 95 with USB 2.0 support (that was a nightmare, but ME made it seem like a dream). Generally a company takes revenue to improve their products, MS doesn't do it because it doesn't need to because of market share - that is a monopoly. If you can shove shit out that even admins know they haev to get even though it will be buggy as all hell on first release (as those other billions just go into buying out Bush to let Ashcroft let MS free with little more than a tarnished image which doesn't hurt it. Again, why doesn't it hurt it? They have a monopoly.

Then the fact the Internet Explorer was part of the OS - which was why they claimed ME was buggy when is you uninstalled IE and even cleaned it's the registry of any mention of it, 98 worked just fine (well fine as 98 ran to begin with). Some people with too much time on their hands did this, but it proved yet again MS is full of shit.

Might have been pushed through the system, but most companies disable automatic updates thanks to MS inability to write patches correctly. If everyone was using automatic updates and the fact that most people who exploit holes use holes that they have patches for, then that either means the patches don't work, or most admins disable it - which one would you like to pick?

No, not hacker proof, but Billy wants the companies to think that way. Only the people in the IT dept. will know it comes with holes, the idiots who are in charge of buying it think they are now completely safe thanks to some creative advertising (you ever got a copy of it, along with the misc. BS they hand out to clients which sell the OS?) I have, and it is touting it more as a solid security solution for servers. If you can just run around the buffer overflow, that is not security - and it took them now how many years to fix this? Let's say they didn't know about it until after 2000 was on the market a bit, that is still around 3 years. That is fucking horrible the fact that they knew how to fix that one problem but didn't. If they would, then they would have caught this one before release.

Hmm, maybe I said it was so nasty because they could hack advanced server then roam around the workstations (not many run on the 9x kernel anymore) as they pretty much all use the NT kernel, which would be 2000, XP, and 2003. Just it is the worst for the server because of microsofts "trust" iniative.

Do you know how many administrators turn off automatic updates? Most of them do, as MS patches tend to need to be patched as in fixing one hole they have this uncanny ability to open another up in the same part of the OS they just "fixed."

Brut is that nasty assed cologne, I have no idea who the fuck makes itm it, if it was them or not. I didn't go grab a copy of Forbes to check as I don't want to and as I don't wear it - I fugred you would at least use something that is a real source to counter my arguements, nope, just more bullshit.

And they don't reboot nearly as often. Look up the top 50 servers that have had the highest uptime without a restart, not many from Microsoft on there.

So MS servers are hackable, get hacked much more often, and the community of hackers knows that MS doesn't give a shit. If they have all that cash on the side, they could afford more than just a couple more beta testers. My point is if they used that profit then most of these bugs wouldn't appear. Also the fact that MS is still toying with subscrition service for everything because "we need the money to pay for patches" is utter BS. They have more than enough money. They have the largest proportion of gross revenue over overhead than any other company in the top 500 - yet they need more to fix patches. MS can kiss my ass.

The fact that Linux has holes has to do more with how it is setup by people than the OS itself. It does have it's holes, but it's omre rugged than 2000 adv. server if the admin really knows what the hell he is doing - with all these paper certs and CS "degrees" you'd think companies could find people who know what they are doing, sadly most don't. Sadly that goes for MS and Linux. Until people know how to configure a system they won't do it right, thus making more holes. Though most are smart enough to turn autoupdate off, and those that used to use it don't after that debacle with them releasing a patch and if it was installed automatically or according to instructions it fixed the hole, but then the patch after that to fix a hole coming from the same FILE actually ruined it. You have to install them backwards fdor it to work right. This was for all your NT kernel systems. If MS would know how to patch shit and quit the act that it needs more money they would come off as a much better company.

Hell most people who work in the IT field generally wait until the first SP comes out for an OS before they even think of loading it onto their system. Then of course SP4 for 2000 Advanced Server would crash the system on certain networks and everyone gets a day off as they are rolling back to the old setup and installing the security patches one by one as by then MS knows which ones conflict if installed wrong so they tell you if you need to install another patch first, even if it was released later.

Come back when you get a clue kid as to MS is just there to make a buck off you and make you think you care. 2000 and XP are the only consumer operating systems they've made since DOS that I'd run. "Nobody will ever need more than 640k." Seems Bill doesn't even know that simple little "law" in computers that was first applied to speed and now can be applied to other hardware as well with a little loosening or tightening of the time it takes to double the speed (now also space and internal bandwidth).

If MS took even a quarter of those profits that are just going to who the hell knows where and put it into the software they make, you wouldn't see 99% of the holes present - and the software would be worth the cost (though 900 for office xp is damned ridiculous considering it's basically the same engine since 95 that has just been constantly tweaked minus an overhaul that was needed to keep as all those tweaks were making things messy). If 1 billion in overhead can get you a respectable OS now (like 2000 and XP), then another billion should do more than find most of the holes before release. Then the OS would be worth what they are charging to corporate clients, as of now it isn't. It really isn't worth it to the home user as many have info which shouldn't get out (like credit card numbers). I pay for my operating systems, but I curse the amount they charge for it as it is overpriced coming from them. Yes, I can see an OS being worth 150 dollars, but to see it be buggy as hell on release, and also to know that it's full of holes drops that value down like a rock. I'll go to Linux before I pay them a subscription fee to use my own computer.

Come back with a clue next time - and a real company to cite. I'm not about to go run to the mall to see who makes Brut, nor should I have had to google it up as you should be citing facts - but now I know better with you. You'd be a good politician with all the smoke and mirrors your throwing out there.

Want proof of MS profits, my source was from Forbes, yours was out your very own ass.

Asher
18-07-2003, 16:38:59
:lol:

My MS profits come from their annual reports.

Jesus man, you're pretty clueless with this whole thing.

Your entire post rests on two premises, both of which are patently bullshit:
1) MS never claimed Windows was hacker-proof.
2) You're not using correct MS finance figures.

You've got lots of words, but nothing to say aside from misdirected rhetoric. You'd be right at home on Slashdot.

And here's the MS profits "from my very own ass": http://biz.yahoo.com/fin/l/m/msft_ai.html

It's funny that it was your figures that came out of your ass, and mine are real, and you tell me mine are bull. ;)

For the last fiscal year:
Total revenue: $28,365,000,000
Cost of revenue: $5,191,000,000
R&D: $4,307,000,000
Admin expenses: $6,957,000,000
Tax: $3,684,000,000
Net income: $7,829,000,000

Asher
18-07-2003, 16:41:41
And my problem, again, isn't with you labeling MS as a monopoly.

My problem is with you using profit margin and revenues to determine monopoly status, which is absurd.

Asher
18-07-2003, 16:43:57
And:
The fact that Linux has holes has to do more with how it is setup by people than the OS itself.
This is true with every OS. The vast majority of Windows hacks come from weak passwords, poor configuration, and social engineering.

Hell, the flaw you're saying is so incredibly evil can't be exploited so long as the server is behind a firewall. Which is pretty standard stuff as far as I'm concerned.

And they don't reboot nearly as often. Look up the top 50 servers that have had the highest uptime without a restart, not many from Microsoft on there.
And zero from Linux. Do you have a point?

Seems Bill doesn't even know that simple little "law" in computers that was first applied to speed and now can be applied to other hardware as well with a little loosening or tightening of the time it takes to double the speed (now also space and internal bandwidth).
What you're referring to is Moore's law, and it says absolutely nothing about processor speed. Showing your ignorance in software AND hardware now, how many more fields dare you enter?

And that quote was from the 80s, and was meant to apply to the current year and state of computers. He obviously didn't say 640KB would be enough for anybody, ever.

You also don't seem to be aware that Linux hacks are on the rise, and Windows are on the decline (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/55/26177.html).

Darkstar
18-07-2003, 17:04:57
The RPC security hole is from UNIX. Specifically, SUN, actually, Trip. That's legacy code to allow Window boxes to communicate with UNIX boxes.

If Microsoft is a monopoly due to profit margins, that makes most successful companies monopolies. MS is also not a monopoly in the sense that it is the only game in town. The accepted figure in court for the number of new machines that got immediately reformated with some flavor of LINUX was 15%. That's a lot higher margin then APPLE, for goodness sake. (And the last serious study into number of new LINUX boxes versus new MS OS boxes was 36% versus 64%).

In the anti-trust suit, it was found legally to have benefited the American consumer, in keeping DOWN the price of OS, bundled software (Office), and certain extras. Keep in mind that if you go buy another OS for an Intel box, you are going to pay a lot more then for Windows OS. Unless you go LINUX. Additionally, it was found to have a higher level of trustable security (less hack prone), lower cost of maintence, lower cost of upgrade, etc.

Only in percieved power, can MS be classified a monopoly. They are the creators of the data standard for MS Office format, but they have not been defending their IP (Intellectual Property) of it in the slightest.

And the bigger MS gets, the more likely it is to finish commoditizing itself, so we can factor it out.

MS is a serious bitch slapper, but it still isn't as nasty a player as Oracle. You need to quit splattering so much shit about it without checking out whether that's just your brown snot, or theirs. I'm not saying their shit don't stink, just that they are not at this time, deserving of your undivided hatred and bitching. :)

They are all shitty. MS rates about the middle of the lot. You can find better, but you can also find lots worse.

Sean
18-07-2003, 17:09:57
(And the last serious study into number of new LINUX boxes versus new MS OS boxes was 36% versus 67%)
Wow, check that out. Are Apple -3%?

Darkstar
18-07-2003, 17:31:25
Sigh.

Trip, you are *way* off base.

Most admins don't bother with patching the holes because they haven't the time to test the patches *with their set up*. I'm not talking about their flavor of Windows. I'm talking their soup of supported programs.

Here's an example: I've been without a proper functioning workstation because work tried to change out a program that they consider has to be on all machines here. A stupid ass remote monitoring program for when dumb ass users cannot figure out how to click on the buttons on the screen. That update screwed up a few choice DLLs on my system, frying out a couple of tools I actually need to use. Now, my little workstation is off getting low level disk testing because everytime they put their 'base' load (a cocktail mixture of the worst shit you wouldn't believe) on that system, it continues to break (as the tool is updated now on their 'base' load).

There's plenty of studies out, by white hats, black hats, gray hats, linux lovers, ms lovers, and the criminally insane, that show that's the standard shit driving admins nuts. They don't have time to maintain systems (which is why they begged for automatic updates). And they don't have time to test the updates (which is why they generally turn them off).

Most Windows holes that are exploited fall into the catagories of: unpatched, bad configuration, bad passwords, social engineering. It's the same as with any other crackings. Hell, 5% of all passwords in the world are: "password". Give me a break! Even with rules like "All passwords must have a mixture of alpha and numeric" you still end up with "p4ssw0rd" or some other variant. Most hacks are WEAK PASSWORD hacks. (36% is the average figure from the white, black, and gray hats published speeches, papers, and email.)

Also, MS could spend 100 Billion on security and bug chasing, and you'd still say their products (OS, Office, etc) are buggy as hell. And you always will, so long as you use their products. Go off and use another 'commercial' OS and their tools for a while. Go ahead. You'll find that it's just as bad. The more lines of code, the more likely that there will be accidents (typing or logic), and that there will be unplanned interactions between modules. With Windows XP Core being some 4.5 million lines of code, there isn't enough time in the world to debug it all. Ever. And OSes are just going to GROW.

As far as that BS about "being able to take IE out without breaking the system", the majority of those demos did not remove the majority of IE. The majority of IE is in the DLLs. Which are shared across more then IE. MS ran list of all the code that had to be removed to remove "IE". Windows stopped functioning because that is a large chain, and a part of the IE dlls are shared with the kernal. With those gone, their was nothing able to run at all. Remember that... you can DELETE the program "ie.exe" off your machine, but that isn't the majority of IE code.

Just calm down. Talking how shitty all OSes are is fine. Talking about what you find particularly shitty is fine as well. But you are not dropping much reality in most of you rant against MS. You are spouting off a lot of proproganda which is not based in reality. They've done a lot of shitty things, and their products are not perfect. Lots of reasons to bash on them. Just use the truth, not proven proproganda that was not based on reality or truth.

And on the RPC matter... they were looking for SUN to fix their shit so they could stay interoperable, weren't they? That's how it seemed to me. That's a very old exploit, if I remember my black hatter knowledge correctly. There's still over a dozen 25+ year vulnerabilities left in UNIX..

No longer Trippin
18-07-2003, 17:34:41
Yeah, but there is Apache based systems, and they, while not free, are able to stay up without constant reboots - also have far fewer holes than Linux. I was making the point if I wanted software that someone could walk into, I can get it for free, and it isn't touted as being virtually hacker proof as Bill is. Your taking that to it's untmost literacy. As for revenue, I at least stated my source. A real one, wow. Not something made up.

Have you gotten the PR bullshit, or read it that goes to small clients that sell their OS - it is utter bullshit. I'm sure they are more truthful to their corporate customers, but they know that many small shops won't understand half of what they are saying, and those that do would hvae to push it anyhow. I had a friend who ran a small comp shop. Was an MS distributor. He kept on putting 2000 on there, he actually recieved an email from MS TELLING him to start using XP for home usage systems. Naturally he didn't and he was dropped as an OEM carrier of MS software after a few more emails. Their reason was that he wasn't buying enough, yet they were building over twice as many computers than anyone in the parish - and they never lost their lisence. When forced to pay retail (or near retail for it) his cost went up a good bit - then he started losing customers as they could get the nearly the same computer for a little bit cheaper down the road so to speak.

As for windows hacks on the decline, I sure as hell hope so with everything being MS.

I see your very selective of what points to argue. Can you explain to me then after all these years outlook is still a pile of garbage. Much of what is done that is malicious by outlook can easily be fixed by changing the default settings of outlook and the rest would just be to "wisen" the bloody program up so it knows not to cheerfully run automated request which would just mean they would have to tighten the coding up since most of it is there to prevent the damned countless emails that have stuff which isn't friendly. They have the potential to do it, yet they take their time. They know a home user and most people at work only know the basics of Outlook, yet they set the defaults to leave the door wide open to attacks of that nature.

Moore's law does RELATE to speed (why do you think smaller die sizes are fsater than large ones?) - it's just commonly applied to CPU's because they have scaled the most visibly to the average end user.

If MS is turning 7 billion in profit, they can easily afford to shore up their products, but they'd much rather leave people under the impression that they need money to keep up with patches - hence why they've been toying with subscriptions - though with all the negativity attached it they have so far chosen not to.

Those flaws also came from the unhackable password that bill touted until somebody cracked it with all the power a quad Xeon system at the most. Hence why they had to change it.

Still 7 billion in just spending money and they say they need more? Sony beings in ten times as much and has 7 billion in spending money. MS is just a damned money grubber. I have no problem with monopolies, I have problems with monopolies that abuse their position - and that is what MS does. They need to take about half that 7 billion at least and throw it back into RnD. The fact that a company with only 25 billion in earnings is on par with a company with 200 billion in earnings in spending money is pretty screwed up. If Sony had that same proportion of revenue your looking at around 50-75 billion. They could BUY OUT all their compeditors. What does MS do and still do, that's right, they buy out compeditors. And those are much cheaper than the ones Sony would have to buy out. I look at that 7 billion in revenue as a war chest. They are smart enough to not corner every aspect of the market and now still leave other companies that have better products alone now for the most part as they have realized that buying everyone out is detrimental to staying as one company. So now they just throw the inferior product that they bought from someone (along with the company) knowing that most people aren't going to go out and get what is needed.

Oh, and XP touted as having a built in firewall... too bad it doesn't work like one. That's why ZoneLabs and Norton are still in business (well norton as anti-virus maarket as well to fall back on) - the built in firewall isn't even there because they had to make it so open to work with all the software.

I do see that they've worked hard in making an OS - as with all the combo of hardware out their today, they at least have 99% of the hardware not conflicting and able to run. That is an accomplishment. Just if they could turn that accomplishment to their security side, I'd have not a damned gripe about MS. Sure, you'd still get the occassional hack, some of those may be huge as it would be only the big fish doing the hacking then, but at least you'd cut down on much of the easy access crap to get into a computer. It would just be like the occasional peice of hardware not liking the OS with the components it is tied together with. Something that rarely happens, not something that is commonplace. MS has the ability to fix these issues. Seems they have done a good job on 2003, but thats for companies and government usage, so they made sure it was rugged. If Longhorn is of the same quality that 2003 has displayed then Longhorn will be 100% worth 150 to 200 dollars. If it's like XP, drop it down to 75 to 100.

The only thing I like about Microsoft is that at least I don't to keep a CD key (well their OS's and Office Apps require it - but that's no biggie, those are big ticket items, especially when you get into 2000 Server and Adv.). If they can get the game, I'm sure they can get the code to crack it. At least MS realizes this, the rest of your game publishers don't at all.

Darkstar
18-07-2003, 17:38:03
That's just the margin of error in their stats, Sean. But I'll fix it for you. ;)

Apple, according to their own reporting, sells less then 2% of all new PCs in the US. OS X got them a whole month up to 6%, and brought them up to 3% for their best quarter, but the sales of units have leveled back out, last I read.

Asher
18-07-2003, 17:41:21
I'm selective with my arguments because most of yours are absolutely laughable and don't need any counter-arguments.

You're way out in left field man.

And of course Moore's Law relates to CPU speed, I was just telling you Moore's Law states nothing about CPU speed, merely transistor count. Speed tends to correlate.

I would love to stay and debate more, but I'm going to be gone all weekend at the SO's house. See you sunday night. :D

Darkstar
18-07-2003, 17:56:06
MS dropped some interesting tidbits a while back. Like, 95% of all the pirated "Activated" keyed products were from *2* numbers, passed around. They are obviously deciding on how to fix that.

MS also does drop a lot of their cash into R&D. Right now, they are focused on a couple of near and long term goals, but they are dropping billions into it. You should take a look at their financial statements, and see what's on it. And what's going on with MS research.

As for their business tactics... they don't buy out most of their competition. They like to buy out or partner up with a couple of the "biggest" players in whatever little field they are interested in, but after that initial buying/partnering, they then dump money into the product line until it dominates its market, or they decide that the market niche isn't worth it. That's their general strategy. As long as the corporate world is stuck on MS's Office, and like to get MS Office from MS, they can maintain that strategy until the end of time.

As for Outlook, MS has closed out all the easy security fuck ups they committed with it. Like having it default to running every single thing it possibly could, treating everything that showed up in the inbox as from a trusted host, etc etc etc. Most of the exploits you see now are OLE exploits (sending an email of a Virused Excel spread sheet, which exploits a hole in Excel), java exploits, external trickster references, or social engineered exploits (attaching a trojan or virus to a file named 'your credit report.zip.exe' or some shit like that).

MS can of course go a few gazillion miles in making a more secure OS and secure product. But security isn't about making something as protected as Fort Knox. It's about not simply letting the uninitiated into somewhere. Anything past that... is government required for government work. :) Just like your house, Trip, if someone is willing to 'break a window' or 'break a door', they can get in. How tight do you want your computer? Fort Knox? That will cost you... and not only in money and time to develop, but also in what you are allowed to do on the machine. The more flexible it is, the less secure it will be. I do understand that when you are online, you machine is accessable to everyone else online, but that's why we have all these giffy devices like hardware firewalls and whatnot. To put up a fence around our machine to keep the unwassed masses away from our machines.

Can they do better? Sure. Will they? For a time, at least. So long as they think there is a percieved issue that they need to do better, they will work on it.

Will they always be top dog? I do not think so. But the next guy will be just as bad. They always are... if not worse.

Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
18-07-2003, 19:42:38
Originally posted by Darkstar
That's just the margin of error in their stats, Sean. But I'll fix it for you. ;)

Apple, according to their own reporting, sells less then 2% of all new PCs in the US. OS X got them a whole month up to 6%, and brought them up to 3% for their best quarter, but the sales of units have leveled back out, last I read.

I would be interested to see what effect the release of the G5 will have on Apple's sales this quarter.

Deacon
19-07-2003, 03:04:05
Smokin' new hardware never hurts. :)

No longer Trippin
19-07-2003, 03:31:22
First off, I had a long response and comp crashed on due to a damned IRQ conflict. Probably one of the ones that has several devices on it instead of the third that are empty. So I'm not retyping it, I'll be brief, I think.

Asher: Doesn't transistor count pertain to CPU's and chipsets? The more transistors, the faster your gonna get. Didn't know one without any transistors.

DS: I see MS improving, just as they did after WinME with stability issues, they had 2000 come out which was stable long as you didn't run games (but that wasn't it's intention at first as it was being built alongside ME pretty much). They just realized they needed to focus on stability more. That's why 2000 actually turned out really good on that side after SP1 (well SP 2 for gamers). XP was an extension of that. With the antitrust suit, I think MS finally realized it was Goliath and David would bring it down if other issues weren't addresses as then Oracle, Novell, and friends would bring them to court saying they are controlling the market with a product that is about equal to ours (thus using their muscle). But if they plug up as many holes as they can find, and concentrate when writing the OS to be more secure then they really can't be accused of muscling anybody as their product would be better. And yes, I know Unix has holes, all OS's do. Just when your at the top, your the target. Just look at all the malicious crap floating around, most of it is aimed at microsoft software as that is what is most prevalent (so you pay to be a target if your joe sixpack and think a firewall is something for buildings not computers. With 2003 it seems they have addressed this issue rather well since the security exploit that was found was from an area they had went over, just some people who weren't kiddie scripters and knew what they were doing found a way around it. Only one real security issue in the time it's been out. That is great. I hope they carry that to Longhorn, then I'd happily pay the cost of the OS as then it would be really solid then. The OS price is about right if they improve on it especially. 150 would be no issue if longhorn is close to 2003 in terms of security. It's just shelling out the money for Office which is a killer.

What does bother me are those things they could fix that they don't, like the excel hole. If it's a hole, then it should be able to be patched. If it's taking advantage of excel's core, well with the price of Office XP, they can rewrite the damned thing so that is no longer an issue. Also checked my XP copy of Outlook (as I never used it after 2000's - which I had used only for a while) and it does seem they changed the defaults for those who wouldn't know what to seal up. MS is headed in the right direction, that I agree to, just that it should have been here already with the revenue it is making.

MS got their wakeup call, I just hope they don't hit the snooze button. If admins only have to deal with security issues once and awhile, then you'd see patch usage go up drastically. When admins have to check MS site daily, that's when they can't keep up and just give up.

Oh, and yes, Oracle is a bitch, that I agree to completely. The place I worked at before moving ran their shit. It was stable and rarely crashed, but when it did, generally it wasn't pretty and you'd get ZERO help from Oracle about the problem unless you have major cash, then they care. MS is turning around, just it's taking them sometime - as they only started to address security issues in full force with 2003 server. If that continues to longhorn there are going to be plenty of unhappy kiddie scripters and even a few old timers who know what they are doing. As if they find a hole and exploit it, chances are it will be fixed rather quickly and since it wouldn't be a new patch every other second, they would be applied, so they would slowly choke themselves out of the system. Sure their will always be holes, but stopping them before it hits the shelves is better than stopping them after.

Just what bothers me is that it took them being dragged to court to really sit down and think that they need to build a better OS to not be threatened. If a monopoly doesn't abuse it's status then generally it is left alone. They can keep OS prices the same, though eventually companies will get tired of shelling out the huge wads of cash of the next Office due to the fact that they are forced to go that way due to how Word especially will save things. 98 can't read 2000, get the idea. If they cut the price some (and they can afford to), it wouldn't be as much of a budget hit to companies and even individuals as it is now.

Qaj: The G5 will bring some old diehard mac fans back, but unless it truly stomps Intel like it did in the questionable benches, nobody else will want it. Only one drive period, though it is "super," EXTREMELY high cost for what your getting as always with mac, and the hassle of if something breaks your gonna have to get it from them most likely. So they may grab a bit of the market back, but this is nowhere near what Mac needs to get itself out of the nitch it is in.

Darkstar
20-07-2003, 06:51:33
Trip,

Actually, you get doubled efficency every 18 to 24 months. In the PDA department, instead of doubling the SPEED, you are seeing a halfing of the power comsumption. Seriously.

And Microsoft didn't get all serious about security because of the anti-trust suit. It is because of broad band penetration, and "Always On". If they don't squeeze out the holes automatically, on home systems, they kill the internet the next time someone writes the next "Slammer". They *predicted* a Slammer worm striking many months before, got Billy Boy to understand it, and think about the implacations for his home. It's all network computers running it, so if it crashes, people cannot get food from the fridge, use the toilet, watch tv, etc. That's where MS wants to be in the future. In every single device from your skin (at a maximum distance from you), outward. They HOPE to be the OS that runs on your implanted cell phone in 30 years. But they cannot do that if any ole script kiddie can kill the entire world network by using the latest flavor of the "Slammer".

All they've done with the anti-trust matter is to promise to run everything they want to do for the next 7 years past a committee made of a Justice Department Yes Man, a MS Yes man, and some outside, neutral goon. That and allow people to present whatever they hell they wanted on boot up. That's about all of it. Oh, and about 5 billion in various politicians personal "charity" funds.

No longer Trippin
20-07-2003, 07:48:41
I never mentioned PDA's. You don't want those running that fast anyhow as how are you going to keep them cool and also they don't need the speed. In CPU's for PCs you generally see it more speed oriented, though it does consume less power at a higher speeds due to shrinking die sizes. That may be the AMD killer as they aren't near perfecting the .09 micron process while intel is pretty much ready to gear up for production of them with a little more work.

So what your saying DS is that for MS to change, bill's house of wiring hell has to be threatened? :)

Darkstar
20-07-2003, 08:32:53
I was pointing out the PDA's getting more energy efficent, rather then faster, as an example that they don't always go for 'faster', Trip. In the beginning of PDAs, they did just shoot for faster. Now that they can make a CPU for them at 400 MHz, they are shooting for more energy efficent, as at 400, they run fast enough. They have such a tiny graphics, and nothing else really pushes the CPU hard.

I don't think there is much need for 99% of all the computer users around to need faster power then what we have now. Not until we are doing some serious 3D modelling in real time, anyways. ;)

re: Bill's house
Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. :D

No longer Trippin
20-07-2003, 10:56:47
Yes, at first they did want to speed up the PDA's. Now they are going for energy efficientcy. At first they were using the decreased die size for speed since it would run cooler, then they went to efficientcy as a PDA doesn't need much processing power when they were able to drop down to a smaller process along with optimizing the chip more as they became more familiar with what it really needed and what was something it could do without.

I agree about the power. A P4C 3.2ghz stomps pretty much anything that's within the price range of the individual consumer. Even the 2.4C can run nearly on par with the 3200+, the 2.8C stomps it into the ground, and the 3.2C, it isn't pretty to say the least. With Intel readying prescott and the Althon 64 still will be released on the .13 micron process along with being relatively slow even though it has massive bandwidth (especially for an AMD chip) the core isn't powerful enough to take advatage of it. I have to agree in the fact that as of right now, only high end 3D workstation apps and some servers, but by a long shot, not all.

So much is due to come out within a year if it isn't out already. PCI - X, .09 process, the prescott, A64, DDR 2, SATA 600 - though that one might take more than a year, but SATA is most likely evntually going to take SCSI's place in the long run unless SCSI has some speed breakthroughs to keep up - though the drives will most likely have to be spun even faster to take full advatage of a 600mhz bus. Until then it's like using an ATA 133 Hard Drive, it isn't faster than 100, hell, 100 isn't all that much faster than 66 except on burst from the cache of the drive. Right now CPU's are just getting faster on the consumer end as Intel and AMD are battling it out. If AMD goes under I can see them slowing down a bit as for 3D workstations, SMP takes care of speed (though they still share the same memory bus (thus each one gets half what it really needs - though Intel is changing that) and on the consumer end, the only people who need anything close to a 2.4 or 2.8C are hardcore gamers, even then, the GPU is the bottleneck.

I know someone who was running 8 SETI@homes all from a quad intel board that supported hyperthreading. The loss of performance was marginal compared to running it seperately. That was with the B core chips, the C's are just massively powerful as it gives the Intel chips what they have needed at the higher speeds, bandwidth to keep that l2 cache full. Couple them with DDR400 and they are blazingly fast. Of course Rambus released it's 3.2ghz yellowstone (which could run 1:1 ratio with the 3.2C) - but with such a high latency and the fact that Intel wants nothing to do with it, I doubt many (if any at all) will be made to support it as DDR is proving itself and with DDR2 on the horizon RAMBUS is wasting money.

Honestly I couldn't tell the speed difference at all (looking at frame rates even with all effects disable) btw the stock 2500 Barton 1.83 ghz and when I had it clock up to 2.4 ghz. Games just don't need the horsepower even at high resolutions right now. Doom3 might wind up pushing it, but Carmack is known for pushing the envelope.

Okay, well we're at least clear on what encourages billy to improve things. :D

Asher
20-07-2003, 21:33:07
Asher: Doesn't transistor count pertain to CPU's and chipsets? The more transistors, the faster your gonna get. Didn't know one without any transistors.
This logic is painful on so many levels.

Transistor count and speed simply are related, they are not the same thing. Transistor counts increase faster than performance does, because efficiency is continually lost with the more transistors you have. Not to mention how much a design change can influence performance.

Scabrous Birdseed
20-07-2003, 21:54:47
Wooo! Masses of text! Dizzy! Wooo!

Deacon
22-07-2003, 05:07:03
The Rambus story is a warning for stupid companies. Don't piss off Intel. Don't piss off major RAM makers. Don't charge an arm and a leg when the competition is catching up. They could have been a contender if they had just kept Intel from dumping them.

Are there any multiprocessor x86 systems out there that use multiple memory busses?

No longer Trippin
22-07-2003, 06:39:11
Intel doesn't have one nor does AMD (for an SMP platform) - at least to the average company. Intel might have a board that allows for multiple memory busses, but if they do, it's only for the big buck corporate clients and the government. Though I doubt it as the performance increase a dual or quad Xeon setup would gain from that would be bloody massive. That along would ruin AMD's Opteron as you wouldn't need 64 bit computing if you have a combined memory bus speed of either 1600 or 3200, assuming Intel has released the Xeon with the 800 FSB.

Rambus does have yellowstone ready for shipping. Runs at 3.2 ghz, though it is currently aimed at workstations and servers (mainly due to cost)... but the fact that it can run at a 1:1 ratio with a P4C 3.2 ghz would be like giving it a huge L3 cache with slower access speeds (still fast mind you). Just the Rambus memory has a high latency compared to DDR. Also the fact that Intel isn't going to release a chipset for it means they will have to count on SiS or ATI (as they are designing a chipset for Intel last I read). So it would be a nitch market. The ram is awfully expensive though so no company is going to want to shell out that for a workstation when DDR works just fine. Once DDR2 comes out then Rambus still may have the speed lead, though not price competiveness. Also only a few rare boards if any will handle it. So even if DDR 2 is slower, it will have the price advantage and at the speeds ram is running now, and will run in the future with DDR2, while it's slower, it's cheaper, and DDR2 will catch up with it again if it doesn't nearly catch it on release.

Rambus memory design was before it's time. If they had introduced the memory in the past year, then they would control the memory market for Intel pretty much. But since they played their hand to early, that are paying dearly for it. They should have stuck to DDR for revenue and worked on something like yellowstone... with the 3.2 ghz cpu, Intel would love having that as their memory, and it would be cheaper since a lot more of it would be sold as it would be endorsed and supported by Intel... But they didn't do things right, hence the hideous cost of a module set (since you have to fill every slot - even if it's just with a pcb with traces for the signal path for the other three slots). That is also a downside.

Intel doesn't need to go with dual controllers with each feeding a chip yet as at 800 fsb halved (assuming a dual board and a 800 FSB Xeon - if they have them out - never looked), DDR 400 will feed the chip the max amount of bandwith that the chipset will allow... and DDR 400 is more than fast enough to keep that critical l2 cache full. If it wasn't enough then you'd see them change it, but even running at 400mhz, back to the A cores speeds, you still have tons of improvements with the C core other than the FSB. Fab size is the biggest one, as the first p4's were .18 IIRC, now they are .13 and are just running tons faster. Long as Intel can keep the l2 cache full for SMP setups then it won't need to get the chips up to their full potential.