For the last 20 years or so, Microsoft has been playing the same old game. Sure, they morph and adapt along with the times, and they expand into new markets. But basically they are in the software business and one of the main ingredients in their recipe has been always this: “Keep the data format proprietary and take advantage of it.”
Data data bo bata
bonana fana fo fata
fee fi mo mata
data. — Shirley Ellis
Of all the protocols and file formats they have invented, could you count how many have been opened? Not many, apparently. Sure, if you count the simpler stuff like INI, BMP, or WAV it may add up a bit, but what about mailboxes (DBX, Outlook Express), relational databases (MDB, MS Access), finance databases (MNY, MS Money), documents (DOC, MS Word), file server protocols (CIFS), filesystems (NTFS), or even help files (CHM, HXS)? And among those that are “opened”, there still exist undocumented parts reserved by the Redmondians to be used if necessary. Even their NT syscalls are undocumented and being kept secret.
Yes, Microsoft has found the secret to software success. It’s not the code that matters, it’s the data. Anybody can create another OS or word processor, but if your customers’ data are in your hands, you can make them stick with you. You can always be competitive. You are always one step ahead of your competitors. No matter how much your software sucks.
This strategy should perhaps be followed by commercial software makers when they think that they are an early player in the market. However, this strategy should be realized and scoffed upon by Microsoft customers all around the globe.
Recently Microsoft stated that all current software is wrong. It shouldn’t be one software for mail, another for editing documents, another for IM, etc. It should be one big honkin’ program to do all of our stuff. Well, the giant is up to its old tricks — that is the data game. Because we all know it isn’t like that at all. It’s our data that needs to be in one big honkin’ place. And it should be in a common, open standard format so that all software, no matter who the vendor is, can access our data. For, you see, most of our computing mess currently is actually caused by duplication of data and inconsistencies between them.
So, in effect, Microsoft wants one program to maintain all our data (and thus creates the ultimately competitive program and ultimately locks us up in it). But what we really need is one [copy of] data that is accessible from all programs (and thus we are not tied to any programs/vendors). Microsoft knows scenario number 2 is bad for business, so it lies through its teeth and say that scenario 1 is what we need.
Microsoft also states in their press releases that Office 11 will store your data all in XML? (Hm, I thought Office 10 has already done that to some degree.) As much as this might sound nice and open, things will still stay in the same game. XML is just an encoding format. The difference would only be like: previously our data was in binary, now it will be encoded in MIME64/uuencode/something like that. The file format will still be as proprietary as ever. Don’t expect we will be able to read and understand your XML Office files with human eyes.
So be afraid when Microsoft finally offered us the big honkin’ thing. The file format will be proprietary as hell. Microsoft wants all our documents, all your emails, all your chat logs, all your income and tax data. Are we willing to submit those data to Microsoft by storing them in a proprietary format that only Microsoft software can parse and process?
About the author: Steven is a software developer residing in Bandung, Indonesia.
But I have to disagree on different parts. CIFS for example for a long time have been a open standard. Just recently Microsoft forbid the use of its patents with GPL. But these patents are only useful for Windows.
Besides, kau benar-benar dari Bandung? Cool.
Since it’s early days MS has been making money by selling software that would provide some sort of hardware abstraction or interface.
In pre-DOS days revenues came from BASIC (although MS had other *great* products such as CP/M tools, money came from basic). Later qbasic and DOS and more recently Windows line of products.
In fact until about eight years ago, people were using wordperfect and turbopascal/c.
MS is a publicly traded company. I think if author bothered to check reports that microsoft filed over the years, he would see that he is not on target.
Bintang and Gudang Garam! Bagus!
One of their main ingredients has been being better than the competition. Do I now get “But [insert name of fav OS here] is way better than Windows!” replys? Consider this, whatever reason you have to consider your favourite OS to be better than Windows, it is a subjective opinion only valid for yourself. The vast majority considers Windows to be better for them for different reasons.
The well used car analogy: OS X is a Ferrari and Windows is a bulky slow and ugly Chevy, thus the sleek Ferrari obviously must be better… unless you are able to easily repair the cheap Chevy which has a big trunk for all you need.
OS X is a Ferrari and Windows is a bulky slow and ugly Chevy, thus the sleek Ferrari obviously must be better… unless you are able to easily repair the cheap Chevy which has a big trunk for all you need.
I agree. Many people compare uptimes as a major reason to switch to a Unix based OS. To extend your analogy further, it is akin to comparing the top speed of the Chevy with the Ferrari. Sure, its fun to brag that your Ferrari can go 200mph (uptime 2 years), but the person driving the Chevy doesn’t care!
Actualy We had MS Office 2.0 during the Windows 3.0 and 3.11 WFG (1991-93ish LOL) Then it was repackaged Office 95 adding Outlook, and Access as the additions. All around 10 to 12 yrs ago. Granted in 95 most people were using WP 4-6 (in the IBM clone side) Once Office 97 came out many people moved over to that and Outlook 98 was a free update. I agree that they did a brilliant thing with file converters etc. Even in 2.0 you could convert from the most common Data systems (WP, DBASE, FOX, etc.) Don’t the others have file converters? I don’t really know since I was a big fan of WYSIWYG and Word Perfect 5.0 didn’t cut it, when compaired to MS Word 2.0, WP 6.0 did give it a run for the money though. So the 8 year is feasable for those buisness which don’t progress very quickly.
Actually open software is a reality. Open data not.
IMHO XML would be the solution. Why there are so much word processors formats? Why there are so much personal contact formats? Could not be easy if everyboby’ll use the same format?
“Microsoft also states in their press releases that Office 11 will store your data all in XML? (Hm, I thought Office 10 has already done that to some degree.) As much as this might sound nice and open, things will still stay in the same game. XML is just an encoding format. The difference would only be like: previously our data was in binary, now it will be encoded in MIME64/uuencode/something like that. The file format will still be as proprietary as ever. Don’t expect we will be able to read and understand your XML Office files with human eyes.”
Does this guy have a source on this? Is he basically saying the actual structure of the documents will be the same? (i.e. a proprietary binary format) only that binary format will first be encoded in ASCII then structured as an XML document? If so, what’s the point of using XML, it only makes the file size bigger.
I would certainly hope this isn’t the case… I can’t imagine that Microsoft would be so stupid to do what I just stated. It will be interesting to see specifically how the XML produced by these applications will be structured.
“IMHO XML would be the solution. Why there are so much word processors formats? Why there are so much personal contact formats? Could not be easy if everyboby’ll use the same format?”
Standardization usually only comes from necessity. There are needs for common languages, for common networking protocols, for common graphics formats. While a common word processing format would be nice different word processors have different features and it would be hard to find a common way to express them (think of the challenge of creating a common intermediary graphics format for all image manipulation programs… complete with support for layers, etc)
Word processors are document editors and thus must use a file format which facilitates that end. The issue of intercompatibility often arises from those documents not being published in a format designed for that end (such as PDF)
Business has standardized upon MS Word documents as the standard format for documents which are being edited. If you ask me the only solution for competing word processors is to adopt this format as your own. Make your word processor use .DOC natively as its own file format, and continue reverse engineering the format until this becomes a viable option.
Microsoft can make proprietary alterations to the format, but they must retain a certain degree of backwards compatibility for the sake of their own applications. This can be leveraged to Microsoft’s disadvantage, and new features can be added as discovered.
As long as humanity does not understand at the mass consciousness level that WE are all ONE that we are all sons and daughters of God and as long as humantiy does not understand that “intellectual property” is nothing more than an illusion (which sureley creates much fear) and as long as these conditions remain there is need for so called “dark forces” which MIRRORS humanity her faults of her own illusionary thinking based on fear. Point.
“intellectual property” is certainly more than an illusion! It puts food in the mouths of millions of people…
What do you do for a living? are you a farmer, or do you rely on some kind of service you can provide others (because of your proprietery intellect lets you)? How would you feed yourselft if you couldn’t provide this service? (if you lost your “intellectual property” for instance)
OS X is a Ferrari and Windows is a bulky slow and ugly Chevy, thus the sleek Ferrari obviously must be better… unless you are able to easily repair the cheap Chevy which has a big trunk for all you need.
I consider reliability to be the most important aspect of computing. Obviously you are not doing anything important on your computer if you don’t mind it crashing all the time.
A ferrari would be a SGI workstation and Linux would be the Chevy. Windows would be like selling a Yugo for USD 80,000 because it put so much crack into the air that you became addicted to it.
Ok,
So I’ve seen several people use cars to describe Operating Systems. But I don’t think any of them are extremely accurate, because people keep alluding to the Ferrari, which I’ve always heard spends more time in the dealerships garage than mine.
But if we’re going to insist on attempting to shove the OS into a car analogy, let’s try to put a little thought into each one of them and what each of them do for the user.
“A ferrari would be a SGI workstation and Linux would
be the Chevy. Windows would be like selling a Yugo for
USD 80,000 because it put so much crack into the air
that you became addicted to it.”
Linux
Let’s start with Linux, in my humble opinion, it is more like an 18 wheeled tractor trailer type of semi. It can be large and unwieldly, but it has enough torque to pull a tree from the ground at the roots. It has the ability to haul heavy loads from one side of the country to the other, and there are plenty of diesel mechanics that know how to strip down the engine to bear components and rebuild when needed, which is something like every few hundred thousand miles.
Mac OS X
The new UNIX based Mac OS is similar to a German import, a BMW (since so many people love to say they are in the same niche.) Just like that BMW, it is a very stable platform. Very good looks, very responsive, very easy to handle and a lot of just plain pure fun to drive. Even if it doesn’t beat a Corvette off the line, or in the quarter mile. However, when you need to take it to the dealer, you’ll find out that all the imported parts to fix it are rather expensive. But since you don’t have to have it fixed that often, it might not matter.
UNIX
Many of the UNICES (UNIXES?) can be said to be the most like a Chevy truck. Again, good for hauling, good for pulling, not necessarily cross country and back on a regular basis, because they are not as comfortable as the semi. No camper / sleeper, etc. And the venerable Chevy 350 V8 has been around for forever and a day, so long in fact that every one and his brother in law that have been into mechanics (computers?) can strip it down and rebuild it without thinking twice about it.
DOS
DOS is your standard no frills super cheap sub-compact. Probably *not* unlike a Yugo or maybe the Chevy Chevette. There are no power options, not even steering or brakes. The windows crank down and sometimes get stuck half way. It has a tendency to not start every time (OS crashes) but after four or five tries it’s ready to go and is capable of putting along until the next time you need to start it cold.
Windows 9x
The Windows 9x family is probably the most like the early mini-vans. Mainly slow and not very responsive, but pretty reliable for the most part. Capable of carrying a decent family load (home vs server OS requirements) around town. Great for picking up groceries, or getting the kids to soccer practice. Plenty of them on the road, so parts for them are plentiful. And every third party automaker under the sun has some little thing to spruce them up to make them “different” from your neighbors. Tinted windows, neon license plate cover, TV for the kids in the back seat, individual stereos, reclining captains chairs. You name it, it’s there.
Windows XP
Windows XP, based off of the NT style of kernel, is more like the craze in the US for Sport Utility Vehicles. Everyone sees an SUV and thinks it must be a four wheel drive, even though over half of them are really only standard two wheel drive models. Everyone drives these things *like* they are a Ferrari, and they even have decent get up and go. Though when you really need to stop, look out, the brakes aren’t rated for at speed lane changes. More and more people are buying the SUV and replacing the family mini-van. It’s a status symbol. To have the newest and greatest SUV 9000 is a site to behold. (Akin to everyone thinking they need a P4 7 Ghz just to run IE.) People in SUV’s are typically a bunch of “Keep up with the Jones” types. The neighbor buys a new one, so they have to buy a new one, even if they don’t need one. So they donate the minivan to a church or a school and go on about their business.
This is only my opinion though, and as a disclaimer, the opinions outlined in this post whether fact or fiction, have nothing to do with my employer or religion.
It began with the forging of Great Programs.
Three were given to the coders. Immortal, wisest and fairest of all beings.
Seven to the hackers. Great coders and craftsmen of the Unix platform.
And nine, nine programs were gifted to the race of dumbusers who above all else desire power.
Within these programs was bound the strength and will to govern each computer. But they were all of them deceived. For another program was made. In the land of Redmond, in the fires of Mount Tech Support, the dark lord Bill forged in secret a last program to control all others.
One Program to rule them all, One Program to find them, One Program to bring them all and in Redmond bind them.
The sword has been broken and only opensource can fix it…
If you want a well written OS – car analogy go to http://www.cryptonomicon.com and read “in the beginning was the commandline” also around on other sites and available in print by Neal Stephenson.
I’d appreciate it if someone who’s part of the beta program can post an update of how transparent or opaque this format is. I realize they’re not going to release the schema, but if they’re using separate tags for each piece of data the way they’re supposed to, a reverse engineering effort should be feasible (although far from trivial due to the size of the format).
As some have said, having a proprietary data format doesn’t help you lock in customers until you already have customers. This isn’t some chicken-and-egg conundrum. You’ve got to move product first, then when you reach a certain critical mass, the proprietary file format can help keep them. (“All I have are Word documents.”)
So, smarty, how did Microsoft get the customers in the first place?
“”As long as humanity does not understand at the mass consciousness level that WE are all ONE that we are all sons and daughters of God and as long as humantiy does not understand that “intellectual property” is nothing more than an illusion (which sureley creates much fear) and as long as these conditions remain there is need for so called “dark forces” which MIRRORS humanity her faults of her own illusionary thinking based on fear. Point.””
The evolution of civilisation, that thing which we take so much for granted, would have been impossible without “intellectual property”. Humanity has always existed as a bartering society. The basic concept of “You do something for me and I will do something for you” is as prevalent and meaningful today as it was when we first stepped out of the trees. Just because money has become the intermediate mechanism in the bartering process does not mean that we no longer operate in a bartering system. The same rules apply, if you can do nothing for me then you rely on my charity, my love of humanity, to do something for you. Human beings in the main are not so consistently unselfish that you can survive without developing means to barter for their services instead of relying on their charity.
“Intellectual property” provides the means for those whose value to humanity is in their thoughts, not their actions, the means to ensure their survival. Did Socrates farm? Did Einstein herd sheep? Did Rutherford build houses? No, and yet their achievments, their “intellectual property” allowed them to continue doing their work and further humanity’s knowledge. If they had been forced instead to do more common work to survive would they have been able to do so much? There is as much worth in building a house as building a physics theory, the world needs both professions. The emphasis there should be on the word both, you can’t do advanced physics while worrying about having no house, and you can’t build houses while contemplating advanced physics. People should be judged by their skill at their chosen profession, not profession itself.
An object’s worth is defined by the value others place upon it and correspondingly an object without value is worthless. Now in the opensource community developers are bartering programs for reputation and recognition, but there is still a transaction taking place. There are worthy opensource programs and worthless opensource programs, and that difference is decided by how well the individual program services the community’s needs. Nobody could argue that all programs have equal worth, and by making that distinction between programs we head right back into the barter system. This is a GOOD thing, because it encourages improvement and competition.
Don’t bring God into these discussions about free “intellectual property”. There is not a religion in the world that doesn’t offer a reward after life to those who follow the dictates of its “intellectual property”. A bargain with God is still a bargain.
So, smarty, how did Microsoft get the customers in the first place?
Backpacking with the acknowledged Big Hulk of the business (IBM). With Microsoft providing the OS, and business customers struck with rapturous awe at the three letters I-B-M on the front, it was only a matter of time.
“A bargain with God is still a bargain.”
God forgives….Gates doesn’t. :^)
>So, smarty, how did Microsoft get the customers in the first place?
If you intend the “mass-customer”, expectially in the w95 era, of course thruogh ingnorance, selling as a new invention features that were on the market since years by other vendors. Marketing does miracles…
I’m sorry, but can we please keep the gods out of it.
He/she/they are not relivent to OSNews.
>>>>God forgives….Gates doesn’t. :^)
No, only anti-MSFT zealots doesn’t forgive. Gates gave away $24 Billion, and anti-MSFT zealots who doesn’t even under Grade 6 math would give out conspiracy theories left and right on how Gates is doing it for more profit.
Microsoft, Bill Gates are pragmatists and they will work with whoever that will give them an advantage. Along with the Gerstner-era pragmatist IBM, they have been working very closely on cornering all of the web’s xml protocols. All of the OS/2 stuff are under the bridge.
SUN and Oracle — those are the companies with CEO’s who don’t forgive. Sun’s biggest competitor is IBM, not Microsoft. Oracle’s biggest competitor is IBM, not Microsoft. SUN and Oracle will try to hurt Microsoft without getting any benefit to their own shareholders — meanwhile, they are not looking at the ball and IBM is gaining on their market shares.
The ugliness of the microsoft file formats (at least the office ones), hasn’t only been that they are proprietary, it’s that they are quite bad…
Before the days of RAM, broadband, and gigabyte drives, (i.e. when you needed to use your computing resources efficiently), I remember creating relatively simple word and powerpoint documents, and having the files be 500KB to 5MB in size! When the imported graphics totaled less than 100KB! This made life extremely difficult, and struck me as completely rediculous (they can’t even compress their own data?)
Recently I head that this was because the programmers merely copied the internal data structures directly from memory to disk, instead of coming up with a real structured data format. I don’t know if this is 100% true, or if it was, if it’s still true, but it explains a lot (and you get the closed format for free).
Another example is the post-office format used by Outlook. Why not just store emails individually like UNIX? Because the FAT disk format (another Microsoft design) can only store a finite number of files. With hundreds or thousands of little email files, you could easily run out of space on a disk, long before it was “full”. So pack all the files together, and why not add the calendar and contact info as well. Again, the more complex you make the format, the harder it will be for others to use, especially if you don’t volunteer the information. (My personal peeve about this format – you can archive selected data to another .pst file very easily. However, if that file is not on a writable disk, OUTLOOK WILL NOT OPEN IT. Forget copying off to a CD (unless you copy it back every time you want to access it). Thanks MS).
Corporate mandate or poor programming? Napoleon said never attribute malice where incompetence would suffice. But at some point Microsoft definitely saw the light. People would quickly grow tired of MS’s upgrade-every-two-years business plan if they could move their data elsewhere. MS makes as difficult as they can, while trying not to look like a monopoly.
Tip of the day: many employers, etc. will accept only “Microsoft Word” files. As long as you don’t need images or other tricky content, create a plain text or rich-text file using any other software, and rename it .doc. Word will open it just fine, and it will be small enough to email
.
MS XML will probably be as “readable” as MS RTF.
RTF is a simple example of a “readable” format that few people can read reliably, and in a feature complete way, even though there is a document describing the format.
However, on the other hand, RTF is “simple” enough that it’s fairly easy to extract worthwhile data out of the document, but not necessarily all of the formatting.
MS can save files in XML format, but not actually document or even provide a DTD for the format.
In the end, this move will make Office documents less opaque, but not necessarily easily interchangable with other programs.
Windows 9x
The Windows 9x family is probably the most like the early mini-vans. Mainly slow and not very responsive, but pretty reliable for the most part
Reiiable, don’t make me die from laughing, please.
I thought staroffice could read ms office formats? People only use what they know about, thats why most only use windows. They need to start having ads for linux. Some linux geeks say windows users are stupid, they aren’t they just don’t know about linux.
Linux:
<p>
It’s more of a kit of thousands of parts, all available, that you build around the engine. You can build your own, or buy a preconfigured vehicle that you are free to play with to your hearts desire. Much like a kit car.
You americans shoudn’t really make car/OS comparisons, you people can’t even use a clutch so shut up.
What he says is so obviously true. Still, plenty of people will run around debating it like there’s something to debate. Wake up dumbos, MS’s interests are directly contrary to yours. That wasn’t always true. In the early days, MS provided a very valuable thing – a standard. Computers aren’t worth very much as islands.
But the world has outgrown MS and needs open computing standards. That leads to competition and innovation.
As certain tech has matured (is a word processor really cutting edge anymore?), we don’t need MS as the sole provider. One company to rule them all. NO THANKS.
I like the car comparison.
BeOS Car
A nice cab with a great car stereo which makes the driver look good and the car makes the chicks go wild.
It’s like no one has ever seen a BeOS car without 3 good looking chicks in there.
Brand of car doesn’t really matter, just that it’s a winner behind the wheel =)
What if the European Union (or some other major) government body mandates Open File formats for all official business?
This is not as unrealistic at it seems. The EE is notoriously protectionist, pan-European and obsessed with privacy – all threats to MS.
Wait, y’all forgot about BeOS!
If OS’s are cars, BeOS is the BATMOBILE!!!
Not only can it do everything way better than other cars can… it can FLY too!! And, it has a tractor beam!! And an ‘invisible’ button! And it’s amphibious! And best of all, my grandma could drive it!
Unfortunately, it’s also a car that was only briefly for sale, and most people have never even seen or heard of it… sigh…
OK, back to the topic of data formats…
You americans shoudn’t really make car/OS comparisons, you people can’t even use a clutch so shut up.
i know it’s off topic, but: 🙂
And concerning the OS X comparison: I would rather compare it with a Rolls-Royce: Looking good, but no responsiveness at all. And the price… 🙂
Have you ever driven one and put your foot flat on the gas pedal? Obviously not. Thats V8/V12 power. Huge torque. Vroom…
>>>If OS’s are cars, BeOS is the BATMOBILE!!!
If OS’es are cars, BeOS is the decades old British roadsters.
It’s always broken and leaking somewhere, but their owners swear by them.
Mac OS X, like someone said is a BMW. Jobs even uses a BMW as reference for design (if the film was true in that aspect… *sigh*).
Linux, I agree with another poster, is a parts kit. Some assembly required, but you can build a roadster, a tractor, a scooter, a Segway(TM)(C)(R)(etc) — or, with some patience, the Enterprise 🙂 , warp drives and all.
Windows is your family car, inherited from your father. It stops at every corner for no apparent reason, emitting fumes from under the hood, you know how the old beast behaves… so you just sit, start to chat with your girlfriend and when
she despairs, you just look cool and say: “Nah, it’s nothing. Just wait some moments for it to cool down and I’ll restart it. It’s easy to use when you know it…”
And if you just think about dumping it, your father comes by and says: “You ingrate! I lend you my fine, beautiful car and you whine instead of being happy to be motorized when many are walking on bare feet! It’s broken because you don’t know how to handle it! If you only knew where I and this car have been!”
So you just say you were kidding and “of course” you gonna keep that “wonder”.
So, Rolls is Solaris then, crappy when your not doing much with it (<8 proc boxes; workstations), but when rev. that engine (8+ boxes; nice big servers) Vooommmmm.
Intellectual property is useless if not shared and built upon collaboratively by others.
And I most certainly do know how to use a clutch.
actually i know about linux and i dont use it because its not as good as win xp..
if microsoft was still pushing windows 98.. i would probably be using linux.. but they aren’t.
i know its hard to believe.. but win xp is actually a very good OS.
“Wait, y’all forgot about BeOS!
If OS’s are cars, BeOS is the BATMOBILE!!!
Not only can it do everything way better than other cars can… it can FLY too!! And, it has a tractor beam!! And an ‘invisible’ button! And it’s amphibious! And best of all, my grandma could drive it!
Unfortunately, it’s also a car that was only briefly for sale, and most people have never even seen or heard of it… sigh…
OK, back to the topic of data formats…
”
ahh beos was good.. but dont think you’ll drive it along all the roads that microsoft drives. beos hardly has any roads (software). So while it does everything better than all the other cars, we’ll never know because we can’t drive it very far. who knows how much faster 3d games would have ran on beos. if only there were 3d games, and a 3d subsystem that worked on beos.
go start hacking
> > Don’t expect we will be able to read and understand
> > your XML Office files with human eyes.”
>
> Does this guy have a source on this? Is he basically
> saying the actual structure of the documents will be
> the same?
Yes, and I doubt it.
Microsoft officials have been repeatedly quoted that opting for XML was not done with data interchange in mind, and there is more than one way to ensure this.
If you want sources, mail me and I could dig them up. It was in the German c’t magazine, somewhere recently.
> The ugliness of the microsoft file formats […] hasn’t
> only been that they are proprietary, it’s that they are
> quite bad…
> […]
> Recently I head that this was because the programmers
> merely copied the internal data structures directly from
> memory to disk, instead of coming up with a real
> structured data format. I don’t know if this is 100%
> true…
Microsoft claimed in court that, opening their file formats would give their competitors an unfair opportunity to find out how the Microsoft software works internally. So your idea holds some merit.
> Another example is the post-office format used by
> Outlook. Why not just store emails individually like
> UNIX? Because the FAT disk format (another Microsoft
> design) can only store a finite number of files.
Hello-oh! Unless I am mistaken, an inode table also has a limited size. (At least, several older Style Guides speak about it.) Otherwise, why does a ‘quota -v’ tell you how many files you are allowed to have?
You also get more fragmentation (mails are not multiples of [block size] bytes long). (Note: There are two kinds of disk fragmentation, one you can “defrag”, the other hits you harder the larger your block / cluster size, and there’s nothing you can do about it.)
PS: Regarding the Batmobile. Try taking your family into holiday in that stupid two-seater. Not to speak of how much gasoline that jet engine eats up. 😉 See, that was the point the original poster made: No car serves all purposes.
PPS: Well, not yet. I am working on it. (The OS, not the car. 😀 )
I can’t stand articles like this. For as much as people like Apple, they have a much longer history of being proprietary. One can even argue that if MS has 95% market share (or whatever the figure is), then 95% of the people already has access to their files. “Proprietary” becomes a rather useless term. Who really needs to know the inner workings of a file format.
If you want to talk proprietary,
– look at companies such as Apple, whose iPod didn’t support these 95% of potential users (until one year later when someone hacked it).
– look at Apple’s support of VGA or other PC type of monitors.
– look at how Apple protects the Quicktime/Sorenson codec.
– for that matter look at the bad webdesigners whose websites that don’t allow small browsers to enter (ok, maybe that isn’t strictly proprietary, but its still annoying as hell!)