Jim Allchin, a senior Microsoft Corp. executive, walked into Bill Gates's office here one day in July last year to deliver a bombshell about the next generation of Microsoft Windows. "It's not going to work," Mr. Allchin says he told the Microsoft chairman. The new version, code-named Longhorn, was so complex its writers would never be able to make it run properly.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
It's a very sweeping statement to make that they ARE hiding the good APIs. The burden of proof is on YOU to prove they ARE, not the other way around.
I'm afraid not, deluded MS fanboy. I always know someone has lost when they ask me to prove something that they started otherwise.
First of all, it was a part of the DoJ case where that actually came out and secondly, it's just plain and simple logic - what's stopping Microsoft from doing this? Err, nothing, that's what. There are hidden APIs in Windows, that has been established. We're all just supposed to trust Microsoft and you that they're competing on a level playing field with everyone else? Yer, whatever.
There are hidden APIs in Windows, whether you think people should be using them or not. Microsoft does not want to release them, but of course, Microsoft's product groups like Office etc. can still get access and knowledge to them because they are a part of Microsoft, and there's no reason they can't. You prove to me Microsoft's products like Office, Exchange, SQL Server etc. has not been using anything like these (or have not been using Windows code itself directly) and we'll call it quits. I can tell you the outcome though - you won't be able to.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-06
Sigh, why am I bothering responding to this after the name-calling.
"I always know someone has lost when they ask me to prove something that they started otherwise."
I started it? Someone made claims that Microsoft keeps their good API from the public. I asked for proof, and none has been provided. I also agreed that there is undocumented API, but explained that does not automatically mean it is a BETTER api deliberately hidden from the public.
" it's just plain and simple logic - what's stopping Microsoft from doing this? Err, nothing, that's what."
So because they can, they did? Ok, simple logic, sure.
" There are hidden APIs in Windows, that has been established."
I already agreed with that. Undocumented API exists, but not for the same reasons you think.
"We're all just supposed to trust Microsoft and you that they're competing on a level playing field with everyone else? Yer, whatever."
As opposed to automatically assuming they are doing evil. No. You should only make accusations when you have proof.
"There are hidden APIs in Windows, whether you think people should be using them or not. Microsoft does not want to release them, but of course, Microsoft's product groups like Office etc. can still get access and knowledge to them because they are a part of Microsoft, and there's no reason they can't."
You're making a claim with no proof, again.
"You prove to me Microsoft's products like Office, Exchange, SQL Server etc. has not been using anything like these (or have not been using Windows code itself directly) and we'll call it quits. I can tell you the outcome though - you won't be able to."
The burden of proof is on YOU, since you are the one making the accusations.
Member since:
2005-07-06
It's a very sweeping statement to make that they ARE hiding the good APIs. The burden of proof is on YOU to prove they ARE, not the other way around.