BetaArchive Logo
Navigation Home Screenshots Image Uploader Server Info FTP Servers Wiki Forum RSS Feed Rules Please Donate
UP: 25d, 7h, 47m | CPU: 26% | MEM: 5556MB of 10770MB used
{The community for beta collectors}

Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 34 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 PostPost subject: Will Microsoft Put The Colonel in the Kernel?        Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 7:00 pm 
"The kernel meets The Colonel in a just-published Microsoft patent
application for an Advertising Services Architecture, which delivers
targeted advertising as 'part of the OS.'
Microsoft, who once teamed with law enforcement to protect consumers
from unwanted advertising, goes on to boast that the invention can 'take
steps to verify ad consumption,' be used to block ads from competitors,
and even sneak a peek at 'user document files, user e-mail files, user
music files, downloaded podcasts, computer settings, [and] computer
status messages' to deliver more tightly targeted ads."

Source.


Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 7:06 pm 
Administrator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:47 am

Posts
12473

Location
Merseyside, United Kingdom

Favourite OS
Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate x64
If M$ even so much as HINT at putting targeted ads, or even ads of any sort built into the kernel they can say goodbye to me. Ill be moving to another OS.

_________________
Image

BetaArchive Discord: https://discord.gg/epK3r6A


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 10:08 pm 
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Mon Sep 04, 2006 1:06 pm

Posts
1004

Location
USA
Andy wrote:
If M$ even so much as HINT at putting targeted ads, or even ads of any sort built into the kernel they can say goodbye to me. Ill be moving to another OS.


Ditto. A company like that doesn't deserve any ad revenue at all! Ads on the web annoy me a lot, I would be throwing my computer if they were on my desktop, or on the sidebar in a My Computer window.

_________________
Old-Computer
BetaArchive VIP | Ex-OSBA Member


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 12:24 am 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Aug 19, 2006 1:25 am

Posts
590

Location
Israel
Andy wrote:
If M$ even so much as HINT at putting targeted ads, or even ads of any sort built into the kernel they can say goodbye to me. Ill be moving to another OS.

So ads will make you switch, but DRM, WGA and other annoyances won't? Not to mention underground business tactics, constant dishonesty, copyright misuse and false patent claims. If you weren't the admin, I'd say you're a hypocrite :D


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 2:46 am 
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Posts
2393
Someone would just release a patch to remove ads if there were any built-in to Windows - seems unlikely they would do such a thing though, given how much money they already make (unless they released free or very cheap editions of Windows that had no ads).

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 2:48 am 
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 1:57 am

Posts
400
ActiveDesktop anyone? Remember when you first launched Windows 98 and you got spammed with MSN and Disney icons on your HTML desktop?

Basically, yeah. Ubuntu or Mac OS X works fine for me.

_________________
Since January 2005, I've been in the Operating Systems Prototype Community. I've enjoyed learning more these past four years about the development of the Windows and Macintosh operating systems, as well as learning of new user-based projects that optimize system performance.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 3:04 am 
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Thu Aug 31, 2006 2:45 pm

Posts
1432

Location
UK

Favourite OS
Longhorn 4074
If Windows will have ads im sure someone will make a tool that will remove it...
If there will be no tool like that im going to move to ubuntu or gentoo...


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 3:39 am 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Fri Dec 29, 2006 6:40 am

Posts
1513
wlm could be totally modified even when it's a single exe with a few dlls. Windows is made of thousands of files, bartPE and nlite could modify the os to a lite edition or pe, why cant they just remove the ads?


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 8:46 pm 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Aug 19, 2006 1:25 am

Posts
590

Location
Israel
XDude wrote:
wlm could be totally modified even when it's a single exe with a few dlls. Windows is made of thousands of files, bartPE and nlite could modify the os to a lite edition or pe, why cant they just remove the ads?

The whole problem is that the ads will be in the kernel, which is a lot harder to modify.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 1:45 am 
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Thu Sep 07, 2006 4:31 am

Posts
63

Location
New York, USA
i would stop using windows if microsoft ever did this


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 3:16 am 
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri Aug 18, 2006 4:30 pm

Posts
1524

Favourite OS
Mac OS 9.2.2
This would push me over the edge. I'd wipe all the PCs and go with w2k.

_________________
Image
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC; en-US; mimic; rv:9.3.2) Clecko/20120101 Classilla/CFM
"Stupid can opener! You killed my father, and now you've come back for me!"


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 3:28 am 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Feb 24, 2007 4:14 pm

Posts
6612

Location
United Kingdom

Favourite OS
Server 2012 R2
Fireware wrote:
This would push me over the edge. I'd wipe all the PCs and go with w2k.


Yeh, i would have to agree with you. I certainly wouldn't get an OS with advertising, even if it was free. And knowing MS, i would be far from free, i bet.

_________________
BuildFeed - the ultimate collaborative NT build list - Windows Longhorn - a look at a defining Microsoft project


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 1:38 pm 
It seems such a ludacrist thing to do as far as reputation's concerned, I
wouldn't be surprised if they just applied & paid for such a technology in
the event of someone else wanting to use it for whatever reason, meaning
that the whomever that someone else was then couldn't use it as it's
already copyrighted...
Unless of course there's something on the drawing board that has yet to
see the light of day, & the beta scene...


Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 2:59 pm 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Fri Dec 29, 2006 6:40 am

Posts
1513
so we paid for an os that cost a few hundred bucks to look at ads? It's even more expensive in europe. ms should know that if they done this, that os is going no where.
ads are really stupid things thats messing up the internet, theink of how many spam emails sent each day, thats like millions dollars wasted everyday, with something like this, the ads will use abit of the bandwidth for sending data around just to waste money, time and cause fustration.
and i'm sure crackers will be able to patch the kernel too, but what else will be there, data theives and spywares?
doesn't microsoft know that windows is one of the worst os made, considering vista as a piece of "you know what".
I sense that this will cause more exploits giving hackers a head start.
people wouln't upgrade and microsoft, you know where windows is going.

maybe its time for microsoft to scrap windows and build something completely from scretch because windows is almost 22 years old.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 3:05 pm 
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri Apr 20, 2007 7:05 am

Posts
201

Location
USA
it's an act of desperation by microsoft
if they go through with this, they go down with tis >_>
personally I hope they implement the idea

_________________
Image

If you're havin' IE problems, I feel bad for you, son - I got 99 problems but a browser ain't one. - DJ Danger Mime


Image
include email


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:24 pm 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Aug 19, 2006 1:25 am

Posts
590

Location
Israel
XDude wrote:
maybe its time for microsoft to scrap windows and build something completely from scretch because windows is almost 22 years old.

They are working on a new OS (Singularity), but I'm not sure when, if ever, they'll release a version of it to the public.

Being old doesn't make an OS bad. Just look at UNIX, or IBM's z/OS. The problem with Windows is that it wasn't designed to be expanded, and because of that, it keeps getting patched. Remember how stable and clean NT 3.5 was? Now compare it to Vista. From a programmer's point of view, Windows is just an old codebase full of dirty hacks (e.g. the way .NET is implemented, or how XP's theme engine works).


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 3:03 am 
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Tue Jun 19, 2007 11:04 pm

Posts
124

Location
In front of a Thinkpad
Fireware wrote:
This would push me over the edge. I'd wipe all the PCs and go with w2k.

I did that a long time ago. The only XP system I have left is my Thinkpad. I only do that so I can test stuff, such as themes.

BTW, anyone know of a hack to let the Windows 2000 32-bit installer run on XP?

_________________
http://ubuntu.com
^Ubuntu 8. New installer. Why the heck didn't they do this years ago?


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:02 am 
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Thu Oct 05, 2006 2:21 am

Posts
112
Technically, Windows NT was first released in 1993. It has a different kernel and underlying base than 9x/3.x (DOS). NT did copy some interface code from 9x and 3.x from the first version up to 2000, but XP and Vista don't have equivalent DOS-based OSes, making their UIs basically original.

Remember, UNIX first came about in 1969, Linux in 1994. X1 first came out in 1984, as did the first iteration of Mac OS. Windows is actually fairly new from a certain point of view. OSX came about in 1999, but it took things from OS9 (like 16-bit Windows -> NT), and it was based on Nextstep from 1989.

A lot of these OSes have fairly long histories, but that doesn't mean they're unusable yet.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:13 am 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
@blahsucks-two
The first Linux kernel (v.0.01) was released in September 1991.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:32 am 
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Thu Oct 05, 2006 2:21 am

Posts
112
Ah, sorry about that. My mistake.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 3:31 pm 
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri Sep 01, 2006 10:04 pm

Posts
1022

Location
The Ephemeral between existance and non-existance: AKA "being"

Favourite OS
Rhapsody, BeOS
Windows 95 wasn't DOS based it was just made to be very DOS compatible with the emulator integrated. Windows 9x was at its core designed to run Portable Executables.

If anything Windows 9x is more OS/2 based because the interal *vxd files are collections of linears which were OS/2s way to address 32bit and 16bit....
-=-=-=

I think MS has too many adds already trying to sell me upgraded versions of Vista :P

_________________
Image
Part Time Troll - HPC Enthusiast - Spelling Master - Old Fart


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 9:09 pm 
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Mon May 07, 2007 11:08 pm

Posts
399

Location
Copenhagen, Denmark

Favourite OS
Microsoft Windows 95 OSR 2.1 RTM
Windows 95 with IE 4.0:
Image

From http://toastytech.com/evil/nolisten.html

_________________
My gaming machine: AST Advantage 6066d. Cyrix 66MHz 486DX. 4MB RAM. 512KB Cirrus Logic onboard graphics. Creativa Vibra 16 ISA. 520MB HDD, 3.5" FDD, 40x CD-ROM. MS-DOS 6.22/Windows 3.1


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 10:32 pm 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Aug 19, 2006 1:25 am

Posts
590

Location
Israel
blahsucks-two wrote:
XP and Vista don't have equivalent DOS-based OSes, making their UIs basically original.

I didn't say XP's UI wasn't original. I said it was poorly implemented.

blahsucks-two wrote:
A lot of these OSes have fairly long histories, but that doesn't mean they're unusable yet.

That's exactly my point. UNIX (in its many iterations) is almost 40 years old, and is still one of the most stable and extendable OSs around. Windows NT isn't even 15 years old, and is the least usable mainstream OS.

Just look at NT's USB stack. Even with Vista, it's still not true Plug-and-Play. Whenever you insert a new device, even one as standard as a USB keyboard, it installs drivers, adds it to the registry, and only then activates it, with the whole process taking at least taking 20-30 seconds. In every other OS, it barely takes a full second. Both OSX and Linux (if you, like most people, use a hotplug manager; if you like loading drivers manually, that's your own problem :D) keep a list of supported devices and their corresponding drivers in memory, and load the appropriate driver when necessary. When I plug a USB keyboard (on Gentoo Linux, with hotplug running), it's already active, even before I get back to my chair.

Frozenport wrote:
Windows 95 wasn't DOS based it was just made to be very DOS compatible with the emulator integrated. Windows 9x was at its core designed to run Portable Executables.

I call BS. Windows 95 didn't have a DOS emulator. I didn't need one, as it was built on top of DOS. Since DOS was already loaded, all was necessary was to load the DOS program to memory and execute it in a VM86 (a virtual 8086 task running in protected mode), just like it was since Windows/386. Windows 95's executable loader is nothing more than an updated version of Win32s.

Frozenport wrote:
If anything Windows 9x is more OS/2 based because the interal *vxd files are collections of linears which were OS/2s way to address 32bit and 16bit....

No way. VXDs existed since Windows 3.0, which first came out in 1990. OS/2 wasn't 32-bit until version 2.0, which came out in 1992.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 4:44 am 
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Thu Oct 05, 2006 2:21 am

Posts
112
Oh, I wasn't really responding to what you said about the XP UI. I just added that in as a sidenote. Sorry if it was confusing.

Anyway, NT's USB stack could be said to be a special case. After all, it was added later on. UNIX, as a primarily server OS, had to deal with hotswapping earlier and more. Not only that, Linux is, of course, not as "ingrained" as Windows is as far as some of its code goes.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 7:49 am 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Aug 19, 2006 1:25 am

Posts
590

Location
Israel
blahsucks-two wrote:
Anyway, NT's USB stack could be said to be a special case. After all, it was added later on. UNIX, as a primarily server OS, had to deal with hotswapping earlier and more.

NT started off as a server OS. UNIX started as a gaming OS. What's your point?

blahsucks-two wrote:
Not only that, Linux is, of course, not as "ingrained" as Windows is as far as some of its code goes.

That's called Spaghetti Code, and it's not because of age (Linux is older than NT, at least as far as releases go) or size (the linux kernel is about 50 times bigger, as it is a monolithic kernel). It's because it was rushed to the market, just like any other MS product.


Top  Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 34 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next




Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All views expressed in these forums are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the BetaArchive site owner.

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

Copyright © 2006-2018

 

Sitemap | XML | RSS