Re: 5 years is a long time
> What predictions for 2015 were this soothsayers making 5 years ago?
1547 posts • joined 27 Apr 2009
> What predictions for 2015 were this soothsayers making 5 years ago?
> 2002 (and SP in 2005)
Actually a decade earlier:
> The RPi platform is a WindowsIOT target. Has been for months.
Only the RPi2 with 1Gb RAM an quad core ARM7 900MHz.
Not the RPi A or B and not the Zero, which are dual core ARM6 and only 256Mb or 512Mb.
Windows 10 IoT is not like Windows 10 at all, in fact it requires a full Windows 10 PC to develop on.
> Or just remote in.
> Huh !!!! there is a link missing in that chain that he is complaining about.....
You can SSH in using the USB connection, or use a USB 'Terminal Cable' to GPIO pins.
> a compute with _NO_ network connectivity is rather useless in this day and age.
And yet many people find Arduinos to be useful.
This is a 'maker' device. Build it into a robot, wear it on your coat, run your plant watering system, ... Development can be done on-board (with TV and keyboard) or by connecting using SSH. Or develop on Pi 2 and deploy to Zero.
Think of it competing with the BBC thing or Arduino rather than a PC - it is only $5.
As an IoT device it can use 1-wire or I2c. You could add Bluetooth or WiFi.
> Microsoft could have strangled it at birth
Microsoft had strangled Netscape. They did it by giving IE away** (which also killed off Spyglass*). MS also killed off many other partner/competitors by buying them and dumping the product or using vapourware to stall the market.
Firefox and other open source and GPL (or similar) licenced software has survived simply because it has evolved so that it _can't_ be killed by Microsoft. They could buy the company or otherwise kill it but the software can be forked and will survive. In fact the whole FOSS industry can be seen as 'natural selection' with Microsoft as the predator.
Apple only survived because Microsoft's claws were clipped by an anti-trust suit at the time it was vulnerable (now MS couldn't afford it), Google has survived because MS didn't notice it until too late.
* Spyglass wrote IE and would be paid by a few dollars for every copy _sold_. Microsoft claimed it never sold any copies even though it became part of Windows.
** Not only making it available for download but _forcing_ installs of it with Windows 98 (and later). After installing 98 the first boot would ask if you wanted to install IE - and the Cancel button was greyed out. There was no escape, rebooting simply asked again.
> I do agree that the Surface is a good laptop.
I disagree that it is a good _lap_top. It may be fine when used on a flat surface, such as a desk.
For putting on a lap: the weight distribution is wrong, the length between front of keyboard and back of stand is too great, the screen size is too small for when it is positioned at the knees, the screen angle has inadequate adjustment, the keyboard/screen joint is too flexible, the edge of the stand digs into the flesh if shorts are worn, it is too unstable to use for touch, ...
> The obvious solution for Microsoft would have been to evolve Windows CE/Windows Mobile, and adding a touch-friendly UI.
Windows Phone 7 was CE based with a touch friendly UI. Look how well that worked.
CE was the MS-DOS of the ARM world. It could not support more than a single core (which is why MS asked such inane questions as "why would you need dual core?"**. It had no multitasking capability (hence 'tombstoning'), it had something similar to MS-DOS TSRs.
** Dual, Quad and Octocore is not so much about computing power as battery saving - cores can be turned off, the more you have the less battery draining standby is. This is why MS 950XLs have Octocore.
> How is City of Munich going with their migration back to Windows/Office?
It never started.
> these devices would have been impossible to produce until relatively recent years never mind what OS you might install and whether or not it was fit for the purpose.
The Nokia/Maemo tablets were available to buy 10 years ago this month. I still use my N800 occasionally.
> So just like the id that gets passed to Google Analytics by pretty much every website you go to then.
> Whereas all they are is a big huge private hire taxi company trying to use legal semantics to get around taxi laws.
Not at all. A 'taxi' is a vehicle with a taximeter. Uber does not use taximeters.
Uber operates under the 'private hire' laws and uses technology to get around the limitations of those laws. Using this technology, and staying within the bounds of 'private hire', they can provide a service that is as good as, or better than, taxis.
The solution is not to cripple Uber, but for taxis to adopt similar technology. For example by creating a 'hail taxi' app and feeding the data into the taxis so that clients can get taxis faster than just waiting on the curb for one to randomly drive past.
Introducing a forced 5 minute delay will increase the average trip time (though by less than 5 minutes). To achieve the same number of trips per day will thus require _more_ cars. This will increase the congestion.
In theory the Uber mechanism should decrease wait time, and thus average trip time (when calculated from customer starting to want to make the trip) compared to other mechanisms. Thus there should be a decrease in the number of cars required for a given number of trips. However, having a more efficient system increases the demand. For example, if the service time drops below the time taken to walk to the destination then more will take the service.
> Once upon a time, there was only one mainstream database architecture.
Once upon a time, the mainstream were using hierarchical database systems, then network (CODASYL) database systems (eg IDMS). There were also 'inverted file system' databases such as Adabas (original).
While SQL became the mainstream database language, the underlying 'architecture' of different database systems is quite varied.
> RISC OS 2, which lasted until the A3000 (the last officicial Beeb).
You can still get RISC OS and run it on a Raspberry Pi2
> CLI too in many cases can be very inefficient.
Microsoft went out of its way to make the CLI useless. While DRI gave CP/M-86 through DR-DOS (and all its other OSes) decent command line editing and recall, MS did its best to make its inefficient. Windows 95/98 did actually have doskey.com that gave a halfway decent command editor but it was not installed by default and not even in the manual.
At the 1983 COMDEC, Paul Allen outlined what features the 'next' version of MS-DOS (2) would have, including a help system (finally in MS-DOS 5) and command line editing. But they saw GEM being demonstrated and then started writing Windows 1, dropping most of what Paul announced.
> the DRDOS/Win3 incompatibility was the old-MS at its worst -
What makes you think that these tricks are only done by 'old-MS'. 'new-MS' just hide them better.
> refused to allow DR (as a rival) to have pre-release access to win3 and then used an undocumented response from some DOS command to cause it to crash on DRDOS
Actually DRI did have pre-release access, and had it running fine on DR-DOS, but when Win3.x was released MS had added the AARD code. This produced warning messages that it wouldn't work correctly. DRI rushed out an update that defeated AARD, but, even though Win3 ran better on DR-DOS, and had much more memory available, the damage had been done.
> Windows 1.0 (all the way up to 3.1.1) wasn't an operating system but just a DOS GUI?
Windows 1 was more of a graphics library with a few simple plug-ins. It could be static linked into your application so that it could run on a bare MS-DOS system. This was used by PageMaker:
"""Until May 1987, the initial Windows release was bundled with a full version of Windows 1.0.3; after that date, a "Windows-runtime" with no task-switching capabilities was included. Thus, users who did not have Windows could run the application from MS-DOS."""
> at the time we called this 'Widows for Wombats'.
Later 3.11 became 'Windows for Warehouses'. The new Windows (later called 95) had been announced and was supposed to be delivered by April but was delayed. Buying of 3.11 all but stopped though it was still being manufactured*. It was reputed to have filled several warehouses before manufacturing eventually** changed to Win95.
* Previously, when OS/2 Warp was about to go into full production, Microsoft went to all the diskette manufacturers and bought the total production for the next six months. This restricted the availability of OS/2 and was still being used when Win95 went RTM.
** Bill Gates is reputed to have said that "Windows 95 will be out before Christmas, but we may have to delay December for a couple of months".
> Novell DOS 7 had pre-emptive multitasking
DRI had pre-emptive multi-tasking, multiuser and networking systems since 1978 with MP/M, MP/M2, MP/M-86, Concurrent-CP/M-86, Multiuser-DOS and various other derivitives. It was demonstrating Concurrent-CP/M-86, with full pre-emptive multi-tasking using virtual screens*, when MS announced MS-DOS 2.0.
DR-DOS was originally built from Concurrent-DOS source code by removing multi-tasking and multi-user. It was preceeded by DOS+ which left in some multi-tasking.
DR-DOS 6 added task-switching so multiple tasks could be loaded and switched between using EEMS (only the foreground task would run). Novell-DOS added back multi-tasking but it was a very poor imitation of Multiuser-DOS.
> It basically could do most of what Win 95 could do, except that it was command-line and not a GUI,
DRI's GEM GUI had sold a million copies before Windows 1 was released. It then wound up on Atari 512s as TOS.
* A keystroke combination switched the screen between the running programs. On an IBM PC 8088 it required an EEMS memory card, such as a AST RAMPage. To do the context switching. It only required a small register block to be changed to 'bank switch' the program. The OS could recover disk access time to give CPU time to other programs (which Windows 3.x couldn't do).
> If you boot up a clean OS install with a monitor attached it will output video.
Yes it will. That is because the boot is preset with an app that will display the IP address of the device so that the required Windows 10 PC can be connected to it.
It is not the Win10 OS that is doing the display, it is the UWP app.
> You can copy the SD cards without needing a windows PC,
Not just with W10IoT on a RPi2.
> and you can install / uninstall / change boot app via a web browser running on any other computer.
By "change the app" I was indicating an edit/compile cycle. But even changing the boot sequence to run a different app requires another computer.
> Microsoft has never suggested that W10IoT will be a drop in desktop OS.
When Microsoft announced Win10 for RPi the news boards were full of:
"""Microsoft says it’s "delivering a version of Windows 10 that supports Raspberry Pi 2. ... With the pricing of the Raspberry Pi 2 and Microsoft’s free copy of Windows 10, you could have a full PC for just $35 later this year. We’ll have to wait to hear more information from Microsoft on how Windows 10 will function on the Raspberry Pi 2, but the company says it’s planning to reveal more "in the coming months." It's likely that this version of Windows 10 will only run modern universal apps, as the Raspberry Pi 2 includes an ARM-based processor."""
Now, I knew what MS had done with the Galileo board and that RPi would be much the same, but MS did not make this clear, nor did they with RT. Many believed they would be running Photoshop on their RPi.
> the Pi originally had 2 core 800Mhz and 512Mb.
No. The Pi originally had a single core 700MHz and 256Kb.
"""performance is similar to a 300 MHz Pentium II of 1997-1999"""
This is more than most used for Windows 95 or 98, or OS/2.
>> The Windows IoT thing doesn't even have a display.
> That's strange, I've got mine hooked up to a screen and its quite happily rendering to it.
Windows 10 IoT does not "have a display". UWP _apps_ running on W10IoT may "have a display".
That is: there is no OS GUI.
> I wish people would criticise MS for the stuff they do (there's enough of it) rather than making things up. Like the guy down the page who says you need a windows PC to drive the Pi when you use W10 IoT - you don't. You only need one for the initial imaging. After that they run stand alone.
A full Windows 10 PC is stated as a requirement. This is required _each_time_ you image the RPi2 SD card and each time that you need to change the app.
As a comparison a RPi2 with, say, Raspian can be used to develop the app as well as run it, no 'PC' required at all, and can even be used to develop Arduino apps and load then to the Arduino.
> The W10 image for RPi's is 67MB. That's fairly stripped down from the 10's of GB's that a clean install takes up on PC.
According to Thurrot: " the download arrives in the form of a 500 MB-ish ZIP file." and it requires an 8GB class 10 SD card.
> Using Windows would mean needing a 128MB (2Gbit) flash device to store OS + application, versus a 16MB one for Linux.
The 67Mb is presumably the download size. This is compressed. W10IoT on RPi2 requires a class 10 8GByte SD card. It is reported to fail on slower cards* and won't fit on a 4GB card.
* presumably there is some sort of timeout problem.
> The W10 image for RPi's is 67MB. That's fairly stripped down from the 10's of GB's that a clean install takes up on PC.
There are Linux distros that will boot and run off a floppy disk (1.44Mb)*. They require 16Mb or so of RAM because they use much of this as a RAM disk, but the system includes firewall, gateway, web server, DNS, and much else. 67Mb and requiring 1Gb RAM is not 'cut-down' except in the sense that it doesn't do much - it can only run a single app.
> Windows IoT (and, indeed the Pi) is pitched at a level of functionality above your bog standard microcontroller where some level of intelligence is needed in processing sensor data, where relatively complex networking could be involved or where there may be a requirement for some level of security.
W10IoT on the RPi2 may find some usage as a dedicated single-use device, such as a Point of Sale terminal, or a Kiosk. With a screen and keyboard, switch it on and it comes up into the UWP app - and can't do anything else. The downside for MS and OEMs is that this would replace a PC with full Windows. W10IoT is designed to communicate via Azure, so perhaps the main point of this is to change the revenue stream from OS sales to cloud.
> Why did they not give away the Pi 2 instead?
Mainly because the RPi2 was not available at the time when MS decided that it must have something in this market. They could not get their cut-down GUI-less OS small enough to run on a RPi1.
> A look at the instructions for using it for W10IoT shows that you need a PC or Laptop running full Windows 10 to "drive" it. It is like using a kitchen stool as a step ladder to reach the top cupboard; it can do the job and is probably the most convenient thing to use, but it is not a step ladder.
Not only that, but you need a fork lift to put the kitchen stool into place.
Windows 10 IoT is using a RPi2 to emulate an Arduino - an Arduino nano can be bought for $2-$3 - but it still requires an Arduino, or similar, to get analogue input.
One of the 'deficiencies' of the Galileo board, compared to the RPi2, is that it has no display capability. For typical IoT, and for many embedded systems, this is not a problem. But for Win10IoT MS want to promote 'Universal' apps and with no display what is the point of these?
> the effect of the aerodynamic surface on the weight for the current conditions can be calculated,
You are obviously not a sailor or a glider pilot. If you were then you would know that wind never does what you would want it to do. Changes in speed and direction are generally unpredictable, especially where there are buildings (terminals, hangers, control towers, ..) and other vehicles that have devices designed to move air around in great quantities (propellers, jet engines).
In addition, the buffeting of the wind could change the static friction in the system from acting in one direction to the other and the expected change in loading could actually show the reverse.
> Static Friction is static and known, therefore you should be able to adjust for it.
No it isn't. A typical undercarriage leg has a hydraulic ram with the plane at one end and the wheel at the other. Seals, linkages and dampers provide friction - both dynamic and static. As the weight on the leg changes, due to loading, unloading or to the effects of wind or other, the static friction will resist movement of the ram in _either_ direction. Or it maybe that sometimes the ram is actually in the appropriate position for the weight and there is zero static friction at that time.
The indicated weight may be plus maximum static friction, or minus maximum static friction or anywhere in between.
> And if it fails in flight?
If all electricity fails in flight (including all backup systems) in a modern airliner, then it will not be flying much further, and not being able to recharge the iPad (which was the actual point raised) will be the least of the problems.
>> " It is not like pilots randomly walk into unknown planes with random devices and get surprised by electricity not working."
> Sure it is.
No. It is airline pilots walking into the airline's aircraft with the airline's certified devices. There will not only be the correct power available, but there will also be a backup for the case of a failure. If the 'electricity is not working' it will be fixed before the plane is allowed to take off.
> consumer stuff without real keyboards
The fault in the input did not arise from use of the keyboard. According to the report the weight calculation was done, as it has been for decades, using pencil and paper (notebook) and the fault was 'not carrying the 1' when adding up several figures. This incorrect figure was then entered into the iPad app.
> If you can measure the pressure of the wheels, then for sure one could completely automate this..
No. 'Pressure' is force per unit of area. You would also need to measure the area that the wheels happened to cover on the ground, which is rather difficult to do. As an experiment you could change the pressure in your car's tires and then reflect on whether the car's weight has changed.
Also, aircraft have devices (called wings) that are designed to change the amount of their weight that rests on their wheels. These work, to varying degrees, even when the plane is static and there is a wind blowing.
> I can't believe that airlines are using consumer stuff without real keyboards really designed for media browsing.
The primary function of these devices is to hold all the manuals and check lists that used to weigh many Kg as physical books in the cockpit (ie media browsing).
They have a secondary use as doing calculations that previously was done manually with paper and pencil and was more error prone, such as checking manifests and calculating weights.
> iPad and Surface are equally good.
It is likely that the airline chose the iPad, developed the applications for it, and deployed them before Microsoft noticed that people were buying these and decided they needed to get into that market.
> And how do you know that even if the charger is available the electrical system/outlet/whatever will be online and able to power it?
The pilots work for an airline, the airline owns the planes (or leases them) and the iPads. It is not like pilots randomly walk into unknown planes with random devices and get surprised by electricity not working.
>> 2) They need a product with a rich and vibrant software ecosystem and numerous developers that are familiar with writing software for that device.
> I'm sure there are plenty of developers for both iOS and Windows
Microsoft touch devices have been through several iterations of development styles, mostly incompatible. With phones in recent times there was WM6.5 with the devices and apps completely dumped for WP7, which were then dumped for the incompatible WP8. Now W10M has a different development system with 'Universal' apps. Windows RT was not quite the same as WP8. Tablets have gone from 'Windows for Pen Computing' through Silverlight and several others to now the new 'Universal'.
There may be millions of 'Windows' developers, but they could all develop in many different ways, many of which are obsolete.
> but a static measure of weight while the plane is sitting at the gate should not be affected by friction in moving parts
You have not heard of 'static friction' then ?
> Is there not a load sensor on each wheel support? Add them all together, and lo and behold, you have the weight.
It may be accurate enough to know whether the plane is on the ground or in the air, but adding together the 'readings' will not give you the 'weight' but only some figure that will be less accurate than a transposed input.
This is because landing gear has dampers and seals that have high friction. Their design is optimized to reduce bounce and absorb changing load conditions, the antithesis of that required to measure weights.
> Also, there's a question about what's going to be done with all the data spewing from these devices.
"""Denny said the longer-term value is what he's trying to develop for: that the behaviour of 30,000 compressors becomes a data set that goes a long way to forecasting what's going on."""
It seems that what MS is aiming for is to have billions of IoT devices all sending their data through Azure where they can scrape it and sell it. The 'forecasting' is of no use to the butcher, it won't tell him the date and time his compressor will fail, he only needs to know, quickly, that it has failed when it does. The 'forecasting' would be done by collecting the failures and selling this data to the manufacturer (and meanwhile charging the butcher for this service).
The '10' in Windows IoT is the increase in cost (10 times) that a Windows IoT solution will have over a rational solution.
> hoping that using just one name will confuse users enough for them to buy the products in spite of some of them still being 'not quite Windows'.
In much the same way Microsoft are advertising Continuum as "It’s a PC-like experience that’s powered by your phone". It is _not_ a 'PC-like' experience. It is a 'Windows RT' like experience (possibly without the touch) because it is still ARM and thus is still 'not quite Windows' and certainly not like Windows on a PC.
> IBM broke its' promise to support Windows 32 bit applications
OS/2 Win3.11 could run Win32s for 32 bit Windows programs. However, Microsoft 'updated' the Win32s DLL to include a completely spurious memory access that was outside the 2Gb limit of the OS/2 virtual memory. This prevented later versions of Win32s to run.
Microsoft had also delayed the release of Windows 3.11. IBM had the rights to run any released version of 3.x inside OS/2 but anti-trust ruling had required that products not be announced more than 3 months prior to release. IBM had OS/2 with 3.11 announced and ready to ship but MS delayed releasing 3.11 for 3 months and IBM had to ship with 3.1.
I can well see that MS has dropped Android simply because Google could do exactly that to Microsoft - make it so Android apps won't run on Win10M.
> The so-called 'app gap' only exists in the imagination of teenage scribblers from the fourth estate and/or AAPL fanbois.
The 'app-gap' is likely to get worse now. Developers that were working cross platform probably dumped their WinPhone ports when they heard they could run their Android ports on Win10M without the effort. Now that has been dumped they may feel betrayed and not restart WinPhone porting to the new 'Universal' apps for 1.7% global market share.
Full time WinPhone developers may have moved to Android rather than to UAP in the expectation that this would keep their current market and expand it to the 80% market. Now they too may feel dumped on, as they did when WP7 killed WM6.x and when WP8 dumped WP7.
> If I were running the show I'd ditch the toxic Windows and Microsoft brand names and start afresh in the hope of gaining some traction in the consumer market.
They tried that with Kin (actually a Danger product) and Zune. Look how well that worked.
> leaving market share in the 4%-10% range ?.
Windows Phone is currently in the < 2% range (some say 1.7%) and falling.
Smartphone OS Shipments Q3 of 2015
Android . . . . 84.2%
iOS . . . . . . . 13.5%
Windows . . . . 1.7%
Blackberry . . . 0.2%
Tizen . . . . . . . 0.2%
Others . . . . . . 0.1%
Total . . . . . . 354.7M
Source: TomiAhonen Consulting Analysis 30 Oct 2015, based on manufacturer and industry data
This table may be freely shared
> People are happy if they are told something runs on Windows.
People bought Windows RT devices and found that 'runs on Windows' did not work, and were not happy.
> Having a phone/tablet that is "the same as Windows" on their computer is a good thing in their eyes, because they don't have to learn another OS to use it. Users like familiar, even if it's not exactly optimal.
You have the chronology wrong. Windows Phone brought out a completely new UI (Metro) that was not 'the same as Windows' and did users did not buy it. Consultants advised Microsoft that the reason that it was failing was because of the unfamiliar user interface. MS in its wisdom came up with a scheme to make it 'the most familiar UI in the world' by forcing it down everyone's throats with Windows 8.
Users did not like it - because it was unfamiliar, and, mostly, rejected Windows Phones because it was like the 'hated' new, unfamiliar, Windows UI of 8.
> This is why Microsoft are finally getting the idea and getting rid of the umpteen sub-versions of "not quite Windows" that confused and annoyed users.
They are _not_ getting rid of the umpteen sub-versions, they are merely getting rid of the umpteen different names (RT, Phone, IoT, PC Desktop) and hoping that using just one name will confuse users enough for them to buy the products in spite of some of them still being 'not quite Windows'.