| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
MSN 8 Asks Users to Pay for Some Online Services | |
|
||
| Time: 16:00 EST/21:00 GMT | News Source: Gartner | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
Microsoft's decision to move MSN to a partial for-pay model reasonably extends the trend in which content and application providers seek financial legitimacy by countering the popular mid-1990s assertion that information ("content" is the more common term in 2002) "wants to be free." The precipitous decline in competition among Internet information and interaction hubs makes the for-pay business model more defensible than ever — the critical issue here. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 51 through 75 of 1161 Prev | First | Last | Next |
The time now is
9:56:56 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #51 By 2459 (24.233.39.98) at 9/22/2002 4:13:47 AM |
|
I'll give ya 1201 before I go, Bob.
Jedi -- Changing your wallpaper and using screensavers was impossible without third-party tools on the Mac once. Show me a Mac with fast user switching, a journaling file system, and a remote GUI interface without third-party tools. Later. :-) |
| #52 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 9/22/2002 4:17:18 AM |
|
Lol! If I were a mac user, I'd be hurt now.
Jedi - if you had phrased your argument correctly to begin with I would have responded differently. You said you wanted a way to switch themes for free. You can change your themes for free. What you didn't say is that you wanted to get free themes. There is a HUGE difference. If you want additional themes for Windows XP, you can get Plus!. For me, Microsoft has provided enough in Windows XP for my needs. As far as making new XP visual styles, I've never done it and don't know anything about it. |
| #53 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 9/22/2002 4:22:24 AM |
|
Well, g'nite bro. I still don't know what your point is. Every time I answer you, you just dodge and go somewhere else. All I can suggest is, if you want to use Microsoft products, make sure you send email to Microsoft and let them know what you want in their products. Make sure you state your case more clearly than you have in your posts tonight, though, or they might not have a clue what you are asking for.
I don't know much about XP themse, as I said. |
| #54 By 2459 (24.233.39.98) at 9/22/2002 4:28:25 AM |
|
Last post (for real this time). The patch floating around that resolves the issue also removes the digital signature from a system dll. Hopefully, you will never get a virus/worm that replaces that dll.
Limited themes prevented increased support issues and offered a supported way (Stardock) of obtaining themes. Look to longhorn for possibilities of increased theme extensibility. I'm not saying longhorn will definitely offer this, but since the UI is being reworked anyway, MS can better integrate this functionality from the start. I'm hoping they use my idea of making an extensible theme API that uses XML and .NET languages for total extensibility, also providing warnings on changes and a quick way to revert, similar to the display properties warning dialogs. |
| #55 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 9/22/2002 4:34:25 AM |
| I have been so satisfied with XP's default theme, that I've never looked for new ones. I guess I am more intersted in my computer being functional than being pretty. That explains why I am not a Mac user. :-) |
| #56 By 5444 (208.180.245.190) at 9/22/2002 1:01:22 PM |
|
Jedimaster,
Classify 3rd party software. I can download one file and it will accept many many themes. and it is free. And it is the same file as the one provided by MS, minus the fact the one installed by MS forces digitally signed themes (for stability reasons) and the other file doesn't require ms digitally signed themes Is it native, yes themeing is native, if I want to apply Non MS themes I only have to download 1 file. but this is with the understanding that these user provided themes may not be as consistant or may cause stability issues. IOW I don't need to download the entire Styles XP package. I only need to get the dll file. El |
| #57 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 9/22/2002 1:02:21 PM |
|
Sigh... what a stupid thread.
#104 - "A 32 bit extensions and graphical interface for a 16 bit shell to an 8 bit operating system originally coded for a 4 bit microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that can't stand 1 bit of competition." Can you even define what a 32 bit operating system is? |
| #58 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 9/22/2002 5:54:24 PM |
|
Here is an interesting thought about web standards. When AMD wanted to give Intel some competition, they studied the x86 architecture and basically cloned it. Real recently decided it wanted to do the same to Windows media player, so it reverse engineered the streams of the asf/wma/wmv and cloned them. Microsoft got its start in the days of DOS by cloning the popular API of the day.
What's my point? If Mozilla or any competitor wants to eat up IE's market share, it should do everything that IE does and more. That means, it should display the same pages that IE displays - the same way IE displays them - and more. It should say, we do everything IE does, but if you but the right DOCTYPE at the top of the page, we can do more than IE because we support fully the following standards that IE doesn't. I can tell you that I as a web developer don't care about Mozilla at present. I code my pages to IE because IE has more than 96% of the market. It isn't worth my time (or my clients' money) to have me code for other browsers. If IE's market share begins to slip (and when IE was the underdog, the magic number was 30%), then I'll change my mind and have a different policy. If Mozilla or any other browser wants to catch up with IE, and they don't follow the formula above, I'll be rather surprised. The other option, perhaps, is that IE will support all the standards Mozilla does (in almost supports them now anyway) and drop its very handy extensions, so that will equal them out. I don't see the second option happening. A third option is a forced occurrance due to legal action. Since both Sun and AOL are suing Microsoft over the browser monopoly thing, perhaps legal action could change the market as well. |
| #59 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 9/22/2002 7:26:15 PM |
| Well, jedi, I guess you can have everything you want in Windows XP, can't you? Tee hee. |
| #60 By 3653 (65.190.70.73) at 9/22/2002 7:40:43 PM |
| OMG, this thread is SOMETHING. I missed the last 24 hours and 75 posts. jedimasterk, you wanted me to show you the link to Lucas using Windows servers. Well, I found it (I hope you appreciate the time it took me looking through my stack of eWeeks next to the toilet. Its in the Sept 9th issue, on page 7... entitled "Support lags for new P4". |
| #61 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 9/22/2002 8:04:40 PM |
|
Wow, I just read a few of the messages and it looks like I was attacked at least twice without even posting! That's incredible.
So here's my post. :) |
| #62 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 9/22/2002 8:12:30 PM |
| You really are something, soda. I have like half the posts on the thread (well at least a quarter) and still could barely get myself singled out for attack. I just don't get it. |
| #63 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 9/22/2002 8:16:46 PM |
| Regarding visual styles in Windows XP. Maybe I've been under a rock (or just not caring to chaneg from the default blue) for the last year or so, but I never knew there was a controversy about visual styles. Why is it that 3rd parties can't produce new visual styles for Windows XP and display them without modifying system dlls? Can't Microsoft certify a visual style for use with Windows XP as it does for hardware and software? Maybe I am missing a few pieces here, so perhaps my questions or conclusions are faulty. Can somewhat that knows what's up explain the visual styles thing - from a technical level and not from a bitter opinion level? ;-) |
| #64 By 5444 (208.180.245.190) at 9/22/2002 8:40:50 PM |
|
Bob,
The short answer is. uxtheme.dll was added to the MS beta late in the cycle. (I am sure it was in development for a bit, but it was added late in the cycle) To control this the officialy dll only recognizes MS signed Themes. One it was late in the beta cycle and they didn't put the resources to add tons fo themes. and two as has been evidenced by applying themes today that it can make your system unstable. Here are the other issues. and probably where it will remain a 3rd party deal. Although I believe that MS should work closely with the themeing community to make it a option under the OS. SOME themer are creating themes and "borrowing" different Icons and syles that match the look and feel of a certain other OS. Now I don't know why you would want your PC to look like that other computer. but that is a choice. If MS went and made a community of themes themselves these particuliar themes wouldn't be allowed to exist. (as a matter of fact this certain other company has sued sites to remove those themes) There isn't any real controversy to it. the 3 or 4 that are available from ms are OK. I perfer Rhodium's look and feel best of all the themes I have seen. I think it is more that uxtheme.dll is going to be a one shot deal XP only, because the UI system in Longhorn is suppose to change entirely anyway. well since other sites are listing it now. It is suppoe to use technology from Anarch to allow for 2d 3d and video layers. http://www.anarch.com if you want to look at it from the web point of view. look at some of the examples you can begin to see a UI use. although I hope MS doesn't get that fancy in its use. The specs for this technology match what was listed at winhec earlier this year and what they discribe of the UI in some areas match what this offers. it is dx accelerated. etc etc. But this will be the new UI, GDI+ will still be there. it will be interesting if this layers below gdi+ and above the dx layer. it could easily be implemented and run todays aps. El |
| #65 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 9/22/2002 9:35:05 PM |
|
Thanks for the info El. It makes sense to a point why things are the way they are. I still don't see why Microsoft can't certify visual styles and digitally sign them as it does hardware and software. It even signs drivers for use. Why not visual styles as well?
I suppose I'm glad that all this will be changed in Longhorn, but Longhorn is several years away. For those of us with Windows XP, we don't get to change visual styles without a little system hack until then. This doesn't seem like a good solution to me. If this is the biggest gripe I can find with Windows XP, though, (and so far it is), I still say it is a dang good operating system and well worth the cost. |
| #66 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 9/22/2002 9:35:38 PM |
| Lol @ RANT! |
| #67 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 9/22/2002 9:48:17 PM |
| If there is a valid reason for it, it is worth discussing. |
| #68 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 9/22/2002 9:49:48 PM |
| What's the record for the longest thread? Seems to me it is in the 130's. Is that right? |
| #69 By 2 (24.54.153.247) at 9/22/2002 11:34:56 PM |
| No, I think it is like 180-200# |
| #70 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 9/22/2002 11:55:33 PM |
| Yikes! I don't think this will be a record breaker. Come all Active Whiners, come here and complain and set a new thread record! |
| #71 By 2459 (24.233.39.98) at 9/22/2002 11:57:36 PM |
| Where's SJ when you need him? :-) |
| #72 By 5444 (208.180.245.190) at 9/23/2002 12:07:52 AM |
|
Bob,
I wouldn't really consider the uxtheme.dll a hack. TGTsoft made a version of it to do their shell and program to make new Themes. While Window blinds takes it a different way, it makes it own dll that steals control from the uxtheme.dll program at least for the xp optimized versions. While I agree that perhaps there should be a MS program to authorize themes there would be some issues to it. One. who would create them and test them before they are sent to ms. IOW even the developers or hobbiest would still have to have a modified theme that would work on non MS signed themes. Unless they make a tool that would sign the files automatically then you by pass the files being officially signed by MS. Would the general hobbiest, read home user, have the capability to make themes to send in to get tested, or would it only be a few developers. Themes are interesting as it is art work and the like more than programming. Graphic designers realm. Another issue would be copywrite issues. etc etc. I don't think that MS wants to really get involved in that issue. for those that say the Mac is themeable. that is bull, APPLE controls it more than MS Linux is about the only themeable systme from the OS up. that has a the GPL so artists donate their art to the projects. Or a community like TGTSoft or Stardock. remember both have been issued orders to remove Apple themes. El |
| #73 By 61 (65.32.170.1) at 9/23/2002 12:16:21 AM |
|
jedi:
Once again.... MSN8 itself is FREE.... let me say that again, FREE. What they want money for is some of the services that come with MSN8, which you don't neccessarily have to buy..... And what the hell makes you think that you deserve anything for free? Microsoft is a company in a capitalist society, meaning, it has to make money. Just because you a cheapscape doesn't mean Microsoft should be giving stuff away for free..... BTW, Microsoft executives (and Microsoft employees in general) don't get very high yearly salaries, however, they do get stock options to compensate for that.... compare what Gates and Balmer are getting to what Ellison or McNealy. |
| #74 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 9/23/2002 12:17:43 AM |
|
Hmm, perhaps you are right El. I call it a hack because it circumvents or alters the intended operation of the system. In affect, the visual style engine is hacked either in the case of a system dll being alter, or in the case of control being wrested from the system display engine.
I suppose there are more issues here than I had thought about. I guess I think that though I don't like what I term the hack solutions, they are the only solutions. Perhaps if Microsoft had simply popped up a warning when applying unsigned visual styles this could have been avoided. I like the option for signed drivers presented with Windows 2000. You can use both signed and unsigned drivers. You can also put your system in a mode to only accept signed drivers. Perhaps a similar system with visual styles would have been preferrable. As far as copyright goes, in my senario of Microsoft certifying and signing visual styles, they would naturally reject any blatant copyright violations and they would have a provision in their signing license that they bore no responsibility to verify that the visual styles abide by copyright rules. Since I doubt Microsoft will begin to certify visual styles, I suppose how exactly it may have occurred is rather moot. |
| #75 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 9/23/2002 12:18:56 AM |
| n4cer, though Jerk would aid us in reaching a new record, I much prefer him not participating. I get tired of having to ignore his posts and his rediculous arguments. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 51 through 75 of 1161 Prev | First | Last | Next |
The time now is
9:56:56 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
