Oh brother. *rolls eyes*

I only have two questions. What planet does Microsoft live on? And how are they enjoying their recent visit to Earth?
My first assignment with Unix was at IBM in the late 1980s. It involved a mix of PC-RTs and AIX PS/2 machines. We had no server, as each machine functioned as a combined client+server.
The concept of a machine that is a dedicated server came from the old MS-DOS and Novel Netware days in which low-cost computers were so crippled that they couldn't smoothly run server applications and client applications at the same time.
The IBM security folks were bedeviled by our network. Because of some bureaucratic edict, they were required to ensure that the owners of all networks registered their network servers. But we didn't have a dedicated server, and they could not get it through their brains that a network of PCs could exist without a server. To them, a network without a server was like a body without a head.
So, after all these years, and with Microsoft's push into the enterprise, their operating systems are still stuck in the early 1980s with the ancient concepts of dedicated client and server machines.
Wow! I am so underwhelmed.

An easy explanation? (By Portuno)

Let me break this down into a simple diagram so the less technically astute characters like kalafella can go away educated.

The Alcatel-Lucent's 1625 LambdaXtreme Transport says it can send multiple channels of digital data through a single optical fiber across long distances. The transport does this by sending multiple wavelengths (different color channels) of light through the fiber and matching up the different channels at the other end.

The Alcatel-Lucent's 1625 LambdaXtreme Transport has two speed settings 10Gbps and 40Gbps. The machine can send X number of channels through at 10Gbps and Y number channels through at 40Gbps.

BUT, it can't send ANY signals through at 100Gbps.

So Verizon has some method of sending 100Gbps through a single fiber with only ONE wavelength of light. IMPOSSIBLE they say. In fact, this 100Gbps between Tampa and Miami is a historic event and no other telecommunications company can lay claim to it. Only Verizon. And one can assume this means even if other telecomms owned the Alcatel-Lucent's 1625 LambdaXtreme Transport, THEY could not duplicate what Verizon has done. Otherwise, it would have been a Alcatel-Lucent PR and not a Verizon PR, would it not?

So, how did they do it? Well, this is just a diagram of one way it can be done:

Take an image and divide that image into 12 squares (say 3x4). Each square can be either black or white (1 or 0 aka on or off) to send a "digital" bit. Number the squares 1 thru 12. Make squares 1 thru 10 the individual channels and make squares 11 and 12 a frame synchronizer with the squares alternating on or off (black or white, 1 or 0).

Using this method and projecting that image with a single wavelength of light, the divided squares act as a parallel data buss sending a separate frame of data with each shift of the 11 and 12 bits.

So one "frame" of this image would be "bits" 1 thru 10 being a particular pattern corresponding to a sequence of 10 serial bits and bits 11 and 12 being 1 and 0 meaning "here's one parallel data frame".

Then the next frame would be bits 1 thru 10 being the next particular pattern corresponding to the next sequence of 10 serial bits and bits 11 and 12 being 0 and 1 meaning "here's another parallel data frame". This is overly simplified as one would likely have other bits for data detection and frame synch but you should get the basic idea.

So now you can send 10 times the ordinary amount of data by sending it in parallel instead of the serial method used in each channel of the Alcatel-Lucent machine.

So, how does the Alcatel-Lucent machine fit in the PR?

You set up the above pixelated image to change one "frame" after another at 10Gbps (the maximum throughput of the Alcatel-Lucent machine). Each image pixel 1 thru 12 (10 data bits and frame bits 11 and 12) is injected into each of 12 separate Alcatel-Lucent channels which are transported long haul resultsing in a combined 100Gbps feed down the long haul fiber.

Then you take the exiting data from the 10 separate channels (synched up to the 2 frame bits 11 and 12) and project them back into a single fiber as a single wavelength as the pixelated image you started out with. Then you can discriminate the resulting image carried on the single wavelength being sent through the "short haul" section of the fiber and VIOLA, GIMME A BEER you have your 100Gbps signal ready for injection into the receiving equipment.

That may not be how Verizon did it but Verizon is using some means of combining multiple channels of the Alcatel-Lucent machine and only Verizon can do it.

Sorry if it sounds complicated, but that's pretty darn simple although I could probably reword it to make it flow a bit easier.

If you don't get it say so but don't make stupid comments like kalafella. People who know a whole lot more about the world will be laughing at you if you do.

MUCH MORE AT URL:
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_V/threadview?m=tm&bn=33693&tid=1422&mid=1422&tof=2&rt=1&frt=1&off=1

Microsoft wants to sell us a home server that handles all your media and information, wow, sounds good... but wait... why on earth would I like to have a windows server at home? windows viruses can harm my children health, they can turn off the refrigerator if I don't update the system on time or interrupt my wireless TV transmission to tell me that connection was lost.... Please servers are for companies, personal computers and laptops are for home. Stop Microsoft now that we can, then they will control every aspect of our life..., unplug the server idea and cut your wifi connection with microsoft bank account. This is nothing innovative, those servers come with bugs (features according to Microsoft) and are not worthy... Buy a Terabyte hard drive and connect it to you computer or lan and share everything, it would be cheaper.

Wow,
we will not only produce a swath lame marketing dribble but will also sell it to you for $5.95!!! After all we ARE microsoft, we might be crap at first but YOU DON'T BET AGAINST MICROSOFT! The 800 pound gorilla remember?? So go ahead spend the $5.95 on the book, you know you'll have to sooner or later.

I dearly hope and wish that the last page of the book reads:
"Dear avid Microsoft fan or certified partner,
Thanks for supporting us in anything we do. You may now get off your knees as we've zipped up for now. Oh and yeah you got some in your hair."

Looks like the VCSY merger talk was accurate.

By: waitin_on_news
10 Jan 2008, 12:19 AM EST
Msg. 206968 of 206968
(This msg. is a reply to 206937 by tepe.)

tepe's ignoring what he see's on Dec 31st.
Because it was executed on 12-31-07, it will have to show up on the year end report if not in a Press Release before then! Thanks Vertical! That will make buying more at these prices feel GREAT! ESPECIALLY KNOWING HOW IT WILL EFFECT TEPE! lololololololololol!$!$!$

Emily Patent still alive:

Date Transaction Description
12-31-2007 Change in Power of Attorney (May Include Associate POA)
09-20-2007 Mail Non-Final Rejection
09-17-2007 Non-Final Rejection
07-15-2007 Date Forwarded to Examiner
07-15-2007 Date Forwarded to Examiner

I am now throwing my hat into the ring of Presidential hopefuls. My campaign slogan will be, "I-man and his irrelevant posts: America can do better."

My only platform is to ensure that legislation is passed that prohibits I-man from having Internet access so we can protect our children from his innane VCSY load of dung each day.

Hey Joe. Do you know what this I-Man thing is? Is this some sort of automated posting on blogs to beef up stock prices? Isn't there any way it can be blocked. I put up with it, and "sort of" learned to block it out, but it distracts me. Probably because it is like spam on your blog, and I hate spam. If possible, please block I-Man. I would not consider that censorship, since it is automated and never on topic.

Thanks.

Awww! The book is so kewt! See it online here: http://www.stayathomeserver.com/book.aspx

Regarding, "If so, there's a lesson for the Windows client team: Windows Vista needs better marketing, too."

If there's a lesson for Microsoft here, it's build a product that people need. I paid nearly $1000 to upgrade all of the Windows boxes in my house from 98SE to XP. "DLL hell" in 98SE was sucking my time. I was rebuilding one or another computer almost once a week. The conversion to XP paid for itself quickly - though I very much resented having to pay for a bug-fix for "DLL hell" -- a bug that Microsoft introduced for the purpose of disabling the legacy APIs used by OS2. Despite my resentment, I forked over the money for XP.

Now, there's Vista. My resentment is still there and, guess what? The computers I have, some running XP and some running Linux, do everything I need. My XP boxes are relatively safe behind layered defenses - making Vista's marginal improvement in security an insignificant advantage. Vista fixes no bugs that are sucking my time. Vista provides no new features I need. I will happily not spend money on a new computer running Vista and I will happily not pay to "upgrade" any of my present computers to Vista. There's nothing I am doing now that Vista does better - and many things (DRM, phones home, WGA, performance) that it does worse. I don't need Vista and I won't pay for it just for "curiosity."

I built a mini-ITX server for my home LAN. It has a 500 gb hard drive and runs Ubuntu server. With available free ssh software for Windows, files can be "dropped and dragged" to the server from any PC. This solution is adequate for me and my, admittedly, technically adept household. However, it is apparent that a product that seamlessly integrates with Windows PCs on a home network to provide an automated backup solution is potentially attractive to households and SOHOs whose residents aren't geeks. And, by the way, it's built on the proven and reliable XP/Server 2003 SP2 codebase. Home Server is a product that fills a need. Vista, no matter how it might be marketed, does not.

Windows Server 2008 Behind 'Slow' Microsoft.com

"The company is stress testing "Longhorn" but Web research firm Alexa said Microsoft's main page lags behind 75% of sites on the Internet in terms of page load times."

Everybody's missing the main issue here. The title of the book should be "Mommy, this is why there is a server in the house." Most kids know more about this stuff than their parents.

Oh brother... another Microsoft box in my house that I have to constantly update, pay the MS tax, and have to re-validate if I decide to trash it and do a clean install.

Here's a much simpler solution that works great for me (and costs nothing unless YOU decide to donate time or money to them): http://www.freenas.org/

Why NOT use Windows Home Server List

ISP's are blocking WHS
www.mswhs.com/2007/10/22/att-comcast-time-warner-uploads-and-downloads-to-time-out-automatically/

WHS DATA CORRPTION
www,support.microsoft.com/kb/946676

WHS Corrupts Backup Files with unexpected Reboot
www.mswhs.com/2007/11/19/should-i-re-boot-whs

WHS Shared Folder risk of RIAA lawsuits!
www.myhomeserver.com/?p=35

The M$ sales propaganda is brilliantly deceptive: "I admire a server secure enough to stay at home with the kids".

Of course, a Windows server is just about as insecure as a modern server can get, especially when compared with Linux and BSD servers. Do you want a virus and porn-spam magnet for your kids at home? No way!

So should we expect just as much deceptive marketing from Microp$oft in the post-Gates era?

Sure looks like it!

I'm with Brian on this one.. I have 4 boxes at my house, mix of gentoo and Ubuntu systems. The small form factors I put 1 drive in each. The couple towers I have used to have multiple disks but now have 1 internal hard disk (with the size of new hard disks, I don't need many.) I have one external 1 TB drive permanently hooked up to one machine too. None are dedicated servers -- max CPU usage while serving is like 3%, so if a friend is over and "his" machine starts serving files while he's using it, it's not going to slow things down noticeably. I make sure any files on my notebook are non-unique (i.e. backed up or already are copies of videos etc. I have on the desktops).

Windows Home Server sounds OK I guess.. but.. 1) I don't want to pay for something I can do for free (barring just installing some distro, there's some NAS-specific setups available). 2) Software whose whole point is to serve files corrupting files is pretty embarrasing to say the least. 3) If I wanted to spend cash on a home fileserver (as opposed to putting free software on some old box) I'd probably get one of those little NAS boxes to save on power.