Today is a good day to code

Another Possible Twist on Intel Mac

Posted: December 31st, 1969 | Author: | Filed under: Apple, Microsoft, Uncategorized | Tags: , | No Comments »

Another Possible Twist on Intel Mac

Picture of Irv Owens Web DeveloperAgain, I am engaging in idle speculation on the heels of the underwhelming Apple media event, as well as Steve Jobs pulling out of the keynote. Many people have begun to wonder why indeed Apple is not sticking with the PowerPC architecture. It isn't clear whether or not IBM can make a 3 GHz G5 part, or whether they can get a chip's power requirements low enough to deliver a G5 PowerBook. In fact, it is pretty clear that a dual-core 2.5 GHz part would be at least as powerful as a similar part from Intel. Now, I must preface this by saying that I don't truly believe this one myself, but I am, as I often do, pondering the possibilities.

Let's say that in a bizarre parallel universe, Apple after releasing the multi-button, multi-function mighty mouse that is fully compatible with computers running Windows, decides that they can make more money out of building iPods and computer hardware than they can in releasing software. They have realized that what makes their products compelling is their design, and not in actuality their operating system.

The result of this revelation. Apple decides to produce all of their iLife applications as well as GarageBand for the PC. They will continue to sell Macs of all types and iPods, but they decide to phase out OS X in favor of pre-installing Microsoft's Vista. Since most of their profit comes from hardware, to the shareholders this seems like a good move. It would also explain why the Mighty Mouse is designed to work so well with PCs, and why Apple has been so explicit about not doing anything to prevent users from running Windows on their Macintoshes.

Now, why this would be a very bad move. On my very long drive back from Las Vegas, I was listening to the TWiT podcast. They brought up the fact that CP/M was a lot like Apple way back in the day. They had the leading operating system for PCs and they locked it into their hardware. Eventually IBM decided to get into the game with an operating system that would run on any intel based hardware, regardless of the vendor. Soon, Microsoft wrote an operating system that was superior to the one that IBM made, but was company agnostic, it didn't care who's hardware it was running on as long as it made the system requirements. After a while, all anyone said about CP/M was “CP/M who?” Apple's current strategy of lock-in is similar to CP/M's. This strategy obviously didn't work for CP/M, and isn't working for Apple. Without the iPod Apple's computer division isn't doing all that well. If they licensed their OS, they could do at least as well as Microsoft. But they would have to drop their hardware line. What they could be thinking about is that they could be like Dell and sell hardware with the OS preloaded. They could then focus on their hardware margin. But here's where this would destroy Apple. The problem is knock-offs. Whatever they came up with, they would have something like a one week lead on the design, before it was reverse engineered and sold on the market here for hunderds of dollars less. Right now, even though there are cases that look very similar to the G5, no-one, even Microsoft, has been able to reverse engineer the operating system to any truly successful level. Just a few thoughts….

IE7 Using CURI to Handle URI Objects

Posted: December 31st, 1969 | Author: | Filed under: Microsoft, Uncategorized | Tags: | No Comments »

IE7 Using CURI to Handle URI Objects

Picture of Irv Owens Web DeveloperWhen some people think of the issues plaguing much of Microsoft's software, they often think that it is the result of lazy coding. Sometimes that is the reason there are issues, other times it could be the deadlines the team had to meet, or it could be that no one actually thought that the potential bug could be a real issue. One of the issues that web developers have had to work around since IE 5 came out was the 2KB limit on URL strings. Another issue was that hackers had the ability to send a malformed URL string to IE to fool it into thinking that their site was a trusted site. Then they could wreak havoc on your computer by sending IE awful Active X commands to trash your system.

IE 7 so far doesn't look like it has a bunch of sexy features, but under the hood Microsoft is really working hard on this release. From the partial standards compliance to running IE under a reduced permissions sandbox if you will, they are really working hard to try to get people to trust the internet again. If that wasn't enough, Microsoft is building tools into IE to detect if a site is on a list of “bad” sites that Microsoft will keep. But one of the coolest enhancements to me is the CURI object. Basically it is a struct that allows a programmer to handle it as such. Since it is not a string, it is possible to validate the CGI variables apart from the rest of the URI. If someone were to try to slip a malformed URI down the pipe, the validation of that CGI string would fail as would the attack. In IE 5 and later, the CGI string was handled as a string and passed around the code. String variables give the developer limited abilities to validate parts over other parts. There are many sub-string functions and libraries out there, many are built into the development languages, but they cost the developer in performance. Was Microsoft lazy, who can say, but it seems as though they are working hard to make IE 7 everything that 6 should have been.

Microsoft's IE Blog