arstechnica.com— The third generation of Microsoft's Zune portable media player product line has been talked about and speculated for quite a while now, but very little has managed to leak out of Redmond, until now.
Sep 1, 2008View in Crawl 4
I still have a 2nd gen Zune and love it. Screen is large, big HDD, no stupid clicky wheel that makes navigating a nightmare! Not to mention I NEVER have to use itunes.
RE: " While the iPhone wins on user interface, Microsoft still wins on features and rules on developer tools. "An MS .NET developer has started comparing MS CF development Vs iPhone development :" Microsoft's Visual Studio does not encourage MVC (Model-view-controller). It's too easy to stick code in views, for example, making development “spaghetti-friendly.” In contrast, Apple's Xcode “bakes in” MVC principles. There is no real choice in doing things in sloppy ways, and “that's a good thing.” ... DirectX Mobile, a 2D programmable graphics engine that is not easily available to controls. The iPhone uses Quartz 2D, which is available to controls. ... Direct3D is extremely low level and not hardware accelerated. ... In contrast, the iPhone uses OpenGL ES. As with Core Animation, everything is a view on OpenGL, and graphics are hardware accelerated on the iPhone. ... iPhone presents a choice of layers to develop at, based on developers' needs, while with Microsoft's Compact Framework, there's "often no choice in layer available."... Compact Framework is built on Windows Mobile, and shares too much in common with Win32." He described the design as a "palace on a trash heap." AND FINALLY, THE CONCLUSION :Hoffman reportedly summed things up by contrasting Windows Mobile using a "crushed down version of Win32" with an "inconstant user experience," while the "iPhone is the single best mobile development platform ever." According to the attendee's notes, he also said that "writing Mac applications has made my Windows apps better."
RE : " It's like being in the Soviet Union. Windows Mobile is in the free world. "That's quite an interesting statement, equating Windows with "free" as and then using "Communist like" for a company like Apple that (along with Sun) has bought into, adopted, and is throwing money into open source development.Unless of course you agree with the idiots that agree with Microsoft's statement that Open Source is a commie plot?Current Open Source projects that Apple directly funds and/or directly contributes code back to are : amavisd-new, Ant, apache2, apache1 (Server Only), apr, apr-util, autoconf, automake, awk, Axis, bash, bc, BerkeleyDB (aka SleepyCat), bind9, binutils (c++ filt), bison, bonjour-py, bsdiff, bsdmake, bsdmake-mk, bzip2, CFrameworks, Chess (used to be sjeng), clamav, cron, cscope, CUPS, curl, cvs, Cyrus IMAP Server, diffstat, distcc, doc_cmds, colcrt, checknr, getNAME, makewhatis, DSPasswordServerFramework, DTrace, efax, Element Tree Library, emacs (similar to vi), enscript, expat, fcgi (same listing as mod-fcgi), fetchmail, file, flex, freeradius, gas, gcc, gdb, glibtool, gm4, gnudiff, gnumake, gnuserv, gnutar, gnuzip, gperf, gpt, graphviz, grep, groff, gutenprint, ImageIO, International Components for Unicode (ICU), iodbc, ipfw, jabberd, jdiff, Junit, Kerberos KfM-6.0fc5, Kerberos Administration System
And......?None of the changes that fact that Apple:- Controls who gets to develop for the iPhone.- Controls whether you get to distribute your app AT ALL.- Can remotely delete an app from your iPhone.Nor does the iPhone have anything to do with Open Source.Apple keeps iron-fisted control. Windows Mobile lets developers and users do what they want - independenty of Microsoft.>>> (List of Unix commands and technologies.)You could make a similar list for Microsoft, with equal honesty.Microsoft was originally a Unix shop. It's first OS was Unix for PC's - Microsoft Xenix. They moved away from it to avoid paying royalties to AT&T.Xenix had some interesting enhancements (multiple virtual consoles -- later inherited by Linux, record-locking facilities for database programming, user-friendly menus, etc). Linux essentially replicated all the major design decisions that Microsoft put into XENIX for the PC but using an independent codebase.The first Unix-based OS marketed by Apple was produced by Microsoft.
RE: " Microsoft was originally a Unix shop. It's first OS was Unix for PC's - Microsoft Xenix. "I know all about Xenix, I built a few Xenix servers in my time but Xenix was NOT built by Microsoft.As with ALL things Microsoft (including DOS), Microsoft bought Xenix by licensing AT&T's " Version 7 Unix " back in 1979. Microsoft contracted a group of people to port this to Intel and called it "Xenix".Also, RE : " The first Unix-based OS marketed by Apple was produced by Microsoft. "You may be talking about A/UX ( Apple Unix ) which was a mash up of UNIX System V and BSD Unix.BUT : Microsoft was not involved, and MS has NEVER produced any Unix based OS. Even Xenix was a port of AT&T's "Version 7 Unix".
FM transmitter? No way. FM transmitters sound crap. If you want one for your car (that's the only reason I can think of) you're better off just getting one that plugs into your cigarette lighter socket and acts as a holder/FM transmitter.In the device it would add to the cost and battery usage (as well as cause the player to seem crap due to FM transmitter sound quality)
Roger, the Xenix port to Lisa had no MS involvement, and was not even the same Xenix that Microsoft bought.As for : " they [ Microsoft ] ported it [ Xenix ] over to the PDP-11 8086, 68000, etc., subcontracting much of the work to SCO. ""Porting" a product by just recompiling it does NOT mean you wrote it. MS didn't even do the porting process, and subcrontracted this effort as well.I still don't understand how you think that MS did anything else but just buy a product and have other people re-compile the source code.MS did NOT build anything.In fact, apart from BASIC (back in the days of "micro-computers" MS have not built ANYTHING without either acquiring through a buy-out or without partnering with other companies that actually did all the work.Even Windows NT had huge chunks of OS/2 code in it that were part of the MS / IBM partnership. ( EVEN THEN, MS still had to hire some engineers from Digital in order to complete the first Windows NT kernel ).
randaiiSep 3, 2008
wow chobo you are awfully windy. and you sound a little bitchy.
gamben0Sep 3, 2008
I still have a 2nd gen Zune and love it. Screen is large, big HDD, no stupid clicky wheel that makes navigating a nightmare! Not to mention I NEVER have to use itunes.
mrbitchSep 3, 2008
RE: " While the iPhone wins on user interface, Microsoft still wins on features and rules on developer tools. "An MS .NET developer has started comparing MS CF development Vs iPhone development :" Microsoft's Visual Studio does not encourage MVC (Model-view-controller). It's too easy to stick code in views, for example, making development “spaghetti-friendly.” In contrast, Apple's Xcode “bakes in” MVC principles. There is no real choice in doing things in sloppy ways, and “that's a good thing.” ... DirectX Mobile, a 2D programmable graphics engine that is not easily available to controls. The iPhone uses Quartz 2D, which is available to controls. ... Direct3D is extremely low level and not hardware accelerated. ... In contrast, the iPhone uses OpenGL ES. As with Core Animation, everything is a view on OpenGL, and graphics are hardware accelerated on the iPhone. ... iPhone presents a choice of layers to develop at, based on developers' needs, while with Microsoft's Compact Framework, there's "often no choice in layer available."... Compact Framework is built on Windows Mobile, and shares too much in common with Win32." He described the design as a "palace on a trash heap." AND FINALLY, THE CONCLUSION :Hoffman reportedly summed things up by contrasting Windows Mobile using a "crushed down version of Win32" with an "inconstant user experience," while the "iPhone is the single best mobile development platform ever." According to the attendee's notes, he also said that "writing Mac applications has made my Windows apps better."
mrbitchSep 6, 2008
RE : " It's like being in the Soviet Union. Windows Mobile is in the free world. "That's quite an interesting statement, equating Windows with "free" as and then using "Communist like" for a company like Apple that (along with Sun) has bought into, adopted, and is throwing money into open source development.Unless of course you agree with the idiots that agree with Microsoft's statement that Open Source is a commie plot?Current Open Source projects that Apple directly funds and/or directly contributes code back to are : amavisd-new, Ant, apache2, apache1 (Server Only), apr, apr-util, autoconf, automake, awk, Axis, bash, bc, BerkeleyDB (aka SleepyCat), bind9, binutils (c++ filt), bison, bonjour-py, bsdiff, bsdmake, bsdmake-mk, bzip2, CFrameworks, Chess (used to be sjeng), clamav, cron, cscope, CUPS, curl, cvs, Cyrus IMAP Server, diffstat, distcc, doc_cmds, colcrt, checknr, getNAME, makewhatis, DSPasswordServerFramework, DTrace, efax, Element Tree Library, emacs (similar to vi), enscript, expat, fcgi (same listing as mod-fcgi), fetchmail, file, flex, freeradius, gas, gcc, gdb, glibtool, gm4, gnudiff, gnumake, gnuserv, gnutar, gnuzip, gperf, gpt, graphviz, grep, groff, gutenprint, ImageIO, International Components for Unicode (ICU), iodbc, ipfw, jabberd, jdiff, Junit, Kerberos KfM-6.0fc5, Kerberos Administration System
rogerstrongSep 7, 2008
And......?None of the changes that fact that Apple:- Controls who gets to develop for the iPhone.- Controls whether you get to distribute your app AT ALL.- Can remotely delete an app from your iPhone.Nor does the iPhone have anything to do with Open Source.Apple keeps iron-fisted control. Windows Mobile lets developers and users do what they want - independenty of Microsoft.>>> (List of Unix commands and technologies.)You could make a similar list for Microsoft, with equal honesty.Microsoft was originally a Unix shop. It's first OS was Unix for PC's - Microsoft Xenix. They moved away from it to avoid paying royalties to AT&T.Xenix had some interesting enhancements (multiple virtual consoles -- later inherited by Linux, record-locking facilities for database programming, user-friendly menus, etc). Linux essentially replicated all the major design decisions that Microsoft put into XENIX for the PC but using an independent codebase.The first Unix-based OS marketed by Apple was produced by Microsoft.
mrbitchSep 8, 2008
RE: " Microsoft was originally a Unix shop. It's first OS was Unix for PC's - Microsoft Xenix. "I know all about Xenix, I built a few Xenix servers in my time but Xenix was NOT built by Microsoft.As with ALL things Microsoft (including DOS), Microsoft bought Xenix by licensing AT&T's " Version 7 Unix " back in 1979. Microsoft contracted a group of people to port this to Intel and called it "Xenix".Also, RE : " The first Unix-based OS marketed by Apple was produced by Microsoft. "You may be talking about A/UX ( Apple Unix ) which was a mash up of UNIX System V and BSD Unix.BUT : Microsoft was not involved, and MS has NEVER produced any Unix based OS. Even Xenix was a port of AT&T's "Version 7 Unix".
djgreedoSep 9, 2008
FM transmitter? No way. FM transmitters sound crap. If you want one for your car (that's the only reason I can think of) you're better off just getting one that plugs into your cigarette lighter socket and acts as a holder/FM transmitter.In the device it would add to the cost and battery usage (as well as cause the player to seem crap due to FM transmitter sound quality)
mrbitchSep 12, 2008
Roger, the Xenix port to Lisa had no MS involvement, and was not even the same Xenix that Microsoft bought.As for : " they [ Microsoft ] ported it [ Xenix ] over to the PDP-11 8086, 68000, etc., subcontracting much of the work to SCO. ""Porting" a product by just recompiling it does NOT mean you wrote it. MS didn't even do the porting process, and subcrontracted this effort as well.I still don't understand how you think that MS did anything else but just buy a product and have other people re-compile the source code.MS did NOT build anything.In fact, apart from BASIC (back in the days of "micro-computers" MS have not built ANYTHING without either acquiring through a buy-out or without partnering with other companies that actually did all the work.Even Windows NT had huge chunks of OS/2 code in it that were part of the MS / IBM partnership. ( EVEN THEN, MS still had to hire some engineers from Digital in order to complete the first Windows NT kernel ).
electrifriedSep 14, 2008
why dont they sell zunes internationally?? they really should think bout dropping the prices too