In recent years, Microsoft has focused on three big tasks: building robust security into its software, resolving numerous antitrust complaints against it and upgrading its Windows operating system. These three tasks are now starting to collide.
On August 27th the firm said that the successor to its Windows XP operating system, code-named Longhorn, will go on sale in 2007 without one of its most impressive features, a technique to integrate elaborate search capabilities into nearly all desktop applications. (On the bright side, Longhorn will contain advances in rendering images and enabling different computing platforms to exchange data directly between applications. ) It is a big setback for Microsoft, which considers search technology a pillar of its future growth -not least as it competes against Google.
The firm’s focus on security championed by Bill Gates himself--took resources away from Longhorn, admits Greg Sullivan, a lead product manager in the Windows client division. Programmers have been fixing Windows XP rather than working on Longhorn. In mid- August, Microsoft released Service Pack 2, a huge set of free software patches and enhancements to make Windows XP more secure. Though some of the fixes turned out to have vulnerabilities of their own, the patches have mostly been welcomed. Microsoft’s decision to forgo new features in return for better security is one that most computer users will probably applaud.
Yet ironically, as Microsoft slowly improves the security of its products---by, for instance, incorporating firewall technology, anti-virus systems and spam filters its actions increasingly start to resemble those that, in the past, have got the firm into trouble with regulators. Is security software an "adjacent software market", in which case Microsoft may be leveraging its dominance of the operating system into it Integrating security products into Windows might be considered "bundling" which, with regard to web browsing, so excited America’s trustbusters in the 1990s. And building security directly into the operating system seems a lot like "commingling" software code, on which basis the European Commission ruled earlier this year that Microsoft abused its market power through the Windows Media Player. Microsoft is appealing against that decision, and on September 30th it will argue for a suspension of the commission’s remedies, such as the requirement that it license its code to rivals.
Just last month, the European Union’s competition directorate began an investigation into Microsoft and Time Warner, a large media firm, on the grounds that their proposed joint acquisition of ContentGuard, a software firm whose products protect digital media files, might provide Microsoft with, undue market power over digital media standards. The commission will rule by January 2005. Microsoft, it seems, in security as elsewhere, is going to have to get used to being punished for its success. Its Windows monopoly lets it enjoy excessive profits but the resulting monoculture makes it an obvious target for viruses and regulators alike.
It is implied in the third paragraph that ______.

A:computer users care a lot about the security of the operating system B:programmers are disappointed about the shift of the firm’s focus C:more resources are being engaged in the development of Longhorn D:patches and enhancements are perfect and popular with the users

Text 2
In recent years, Microsoft has focused on three big tasks, building robust security into its software, resolving numerous antitrust complaints against it and upgrading its Windows operating system. These three tasks are now starting to collide.
On August 27th the firm said that the successor to its Windows XP operating system, code-named Longhorn, will go on sale in 2007 without one of its most impressive features: a technique to integrate elaborate search capabilities into nearly all desktop applications. (On the bright side, Longhorn will contain advances in rendering images and enabling different computing platforms to exchange data directly between applications. ) It is a big setback for Microsoft, which considers search technology a pillar of its future growth—not least as it competes against Google.
The firm’s focus on security—championed by ]Bill Gates himself—took resources away from Longhorn, admits Greg Sullivan, a lead product manager in the Windows client division. Programmers have been fixing Windows XP rather than working on Longhorn. In mid- August, Microsoft released Service Pack 2, a huge set of free software patches and enhancements to make Windows XP more secure. Though some of the fixes turned out to have vulnerabilities of their own, the patches have mostly been welcomed. Microsoft’s decision to forgo new features in return for better security is one that most computer users will probably applaud.
Yet ironically, as Microsoft slowly improves the security of its products—by, for instance, incorporating firewall technology, anti-virus systems and spam filters—its actions increasingly start to resemble those that, in the past, have got the firm into trouble with regulators. Is security software an "adjacent software market", in which case Microsoft may be leveraging its dominance of the operating system into it Integrating security products into Windows might be considered "bundling" which, with regard to web browsing, so excited America’s trustbusters in the 1990s. And building security directly into the operating system seems a lot like "commingling" software code, on which basis the European Commission ruled earlier this year that Microsoft abused its market power through the Windows Media Player. Microsoft is appealing against that decision, and on September 30th it will argue for a suspension of the commission’s remedies, such as the requirement that it license its code to rivals.
Just last month, the European Union’s competition directorate began an investigation into Microsoft and Time Warner, a large media firm, on the grounds that their proposed joint acquisition of ContentGuard, a software firm whose products protect digital media files, might provide Microsoft with undue market power over digital media standards. The commission will rule by January 2005. Microsoft, it seems, in security as elsewhere, is going to have to get used to being punished for its success. Its Windows monopoly lets it enjoy excessive profits— but the resulting monoculture makes it an obvious target for viruses and regulators alike.

It is implied in the third paragraph that （）

A:computer users care a lot about the security of the operating system B:programmers are disappointed about the shift of the firm's focus C:more resources are being engaged in the development of Longhorn D:patches and enhancements are perfect and popular with the users

Text 3
The dot-com collapse may have been a disaster for Wall Street, but here in Silicon Valley, it was a blessing. It was the welcome end to an abnormal condition that very nearly destroyed the area in an overabundance of success. You see, the secret to the Valley’s astounding multiple-decade boom is failure. Failure is what fuels and renews this place. Fail are is the foundation for innovation.
The valley’s business ecology depends on failure the same way the tree-covered hills around us depend on fire——it wipes out the old growth and creates space for new life. The valley has always been in danger of drowning in the unwelcome waste products of success—— too many people, too expensive houses, too much traffic, too little office space and too much money chasing too few startups. Failure is the safety valve, the destructive renewing force that frees up people, ideas and capital and recombines them, creating new revolutions.
Consider how the Internet revolution came to be. After half a decade of start-up struggles, for example, hundreds of millions of Hollywood dollars were going up in smoke. It all seemed like a terrible waste, but no one noticed that the collapse left one very important byproduct, a community of laid-off C-H- programmers who were now expert in multimedia design, and out on the street looking for the next big thing.
These media geeks were the pioneer of the dot-com revolution. They were the Web’s business pioneers, applying their newfound media sensibilities to create one little company after another. Most of these start-ups failed, but even in failure they advanced the new medium of cyberspace. A few geeks, like Silicon Graphics founder Jim Clark, succeeded and utterly changed our lives. In 1994 Clark was unemployed after leaving the company be founded, doggedly trying to develop a new interactive-TV concept. He approached Marc Andreessen, the co-developer of Mosaic, the first widely used Internet browser, in hope of persuading Andreessen to help him design his new system. Instead, Andreessen opened Clark’s eyes to the Web’s potential. Clark promptly tossed his TV plans in the trash, and the two co-founded Netscape, the cornerstone of the consumer Web revolution.
Like the interactive-TV refugees and generations of innovators before them, the dot comers are already hatching new companies. Many are revisiting good ideas executed badly in the ’ 90s, while others are striking out into entirely new spaces. This happy chaos is certain to mature into a new order likely to upset an establishment, as it delivers life-changing wonders to the rest of us. But this is just the start, for revolutions give birth to revolutions. So let’s hope for more of Silicon Valley’s successful failures.

The most favorable business ecology in Silicon Valley is characterized by（）

A:its waste products of success. B:its abundance in constructive failures. C:its solid foundation for innovations. D:its laid-off dot-com programmers.

Text 4
The dot-com collapse may have been a disaster for Wall Street, but here in Silicon Valley, it was a blessing. It was the welcome end to an abnormal condition that very nearly destroyed the area in an overabundance of success. You see, the secret to the Valley’s astounding multiple decade boom is failure. Failure is what fuels and renews this place. Failure is the foundation for innovation.
The valley’s business ecology depends on failure the same way the tree-covered hills around us depend on fire it wipes out the old growth and creates space for new life. The valley has always been in danger of drowning in the unwelcome waste products of success too many people, too expensive houses, too much traffic, too little office space and too much money chasing too few startups. Failure is the safety valve, the destructive renewing force that frees up people, ideas and capital and recombines them, creating new revolutions.
Consider how the Internet revolution came to be. After half a decade of start-up struggles, for example, hundreds of millions of Hollywood dollars were going up in smoke. It all seemed like a terrible waste, but no one noticed that the collapse left one very important byproduct, a community of laid-off C++ programmers who were now expert in multimedia design, and out on the street looking for the next big thing.
These media geeks were the pioneer of the dot-com revolution. They were the Web’s business pioneers, applying their newfound media sensibilities to create one little company after another. Most of these start-ups failed, but even in failure they advanced the new medium of cyberspace. A few geeks, like Silicon Graphics founder Jim Clark, succeeded and utterly changed our lives. In 1994 Clark was unemployed after leaving the company be founded, doggedly trying to develop a new interactive-TV concept. He approached Marc Andreessen, the co developer of Mosaic, the first widely used Internet browser, in hope of persuading Andreessen to help him design his new system. Instead, Andreessen opened Clark’s eyes to the Web’s potential. Clark promptly tossed his TV plans in the trash, and the two co-founded Netscape, the cornerstone of the consumer-Web revolution.
Like the interactive-TV refugees and generations of innovators before them, the dot-comers are already hatching new companies. Many are revisiting good ideas executed badly in the 1990s, while others are striking out into entirely new spaces. This happy chaos is certain to mature into a new order likely to upset an establishment, as it delivers life-changing wonders to the rest of us. But this is just the start, for revolutions give birth to revolutions. So let’s hope for more of Silicon Valley’s successful failures.

The most favorable business ecology in Silicon Valley is characterized by（）

A:its waste products of success. B:its abundance in constructive failures. C:its solid foundation for innovations. D:its laid-off dot-com programmers.

The dot-com collapse may have been a disaster for Wall Street, but here in Silicon Valley, it was a blessing. It was the welcome end to an abnormal condition that very nearly destroyed the area in an overabundance of success. You see, the secret to the Valley’s astounding multiple-decade boom is failure. Failure is what fuels and renews this place. Failure is the foundation for innovation.
The valley’s business ecology depends on failure the same way the tree-covered hills around us depend on fire—it wipes out the old growth and creates space for new life. The valley has always been in danger of drowning in the unwelcome waste products of success—too many people, too expensive houses, too much traffic, too little office space and too much money chasing too few startups. Failure is the safety valve, the destructive renewing force that frees up people, ideas and capital and recombines them, creating new revolutions.
Consider how the Internet revolution came to be. After half a decade of start-up struggles, for example, hundreds of millions of Hollywood dollars were going up in smoke. It all seemed like a terrible waste, but no one noticed that the collapse left one very important byproduct, a community of laid-off C++ programmers who were now expert in multimedia design, and out on the street looking for the next big thing.
These media geeks were the pioneer of the dot-com revolution. They were the Web’s business pioneers, applying their newfound media sensibilities to create one little company after another. Most of these start-ups failed, but even in failure they advanced the new medium of cyberspace. A few geeks, like Silicon Graphics founder Jim Clark, succeeded and utterly changed our lives. In 1994 Clark was unemployed after leaving the company be founded, doggedly trying to develop a new interactive-TV concept. He approached Marc Andreessen, the co-developer of Mosaic, the first widely used Internet browser, in hope of persuading Andreessen to help him de-sign his new system. Instead, Andreessen opened Clark’s eyes to the Web’s potential. Clark promptly tossed his TV plans in the trash, and the two co-founded Netscape, the cornerstone of the consumer-Web revolution.
Like the interactive-TV refugees and generations of innovators before them, the dot-comers are already hatching new companies. Many are revisiting good ideas executed badly in the ’90s, while others are striking out into entirely new spaces. This happy chaos is certain to mature into a new order likely to upset an establishment, as it delivers life changing wonders to the rest of us. But this is just the start, for revolutions give birth to revolutions. So let’s hope for more of Silicon Valley’s successful failures.

The most favorable business ecology in Silicon Valley is characterized by（）

A:its waste products of success. B:its abundance in constructive failures. C:its solid foundation for innovations. D:its laid-off dot-com programmers.

Text 2 In recent years, Microsoft has focused on three big tasks, building robust security into its software, resolving numerous antitrust complaints against it and upgrading its Windows operating system. These three tasks are now starting to collide. On August 27th the firm said that the successor to its Windows XP operating system, code-named Longhorn, will go on sale in 2007 without one of its most impressive features: a technique to integrate elaborate search capabilities into nearly all desktop applications. (On the bright side, Longhorn will contain advances in rendering images and enabling different computing platforms to exchange data directly between applications. ) It is a big setback for Microsoft, which considers search technology a pillar of its future growth—not least as it competes against Google. The firm’s focus on security—championed by ]Bill Gates himself—took resources away from Longhorn, admits Greg Sullivan, a lead product manager in the Windows client division. Programmers have been fixing Windows XP rather than working on Longhorn. In mid- August, Microsoft released Service Pack 2, a huge set of free software patches and enhancements to make Windows XP more secure. Though some of the fixes turned out to have vulnerabilities of their own, the patches have mostly been welcomed. Microsoft’s decision to forgo new features in return for better security is one that most computer users will probably applaud. Yet ironically, as Microsoft slowly improves the security of its products—by, for instance, incorporating firewall technology, anti-virus systems and spam filters—its actions increasingly start to resemble those that, in the past, have got the firm into trouble with regulators. Is security software an "adjacent software market", in which case Microsoft may be leveraging its dominance of the operating system into it Integrating security products into Windows might be considered "bundling" which, with regard to web browsing, so excited America’s trustbusters in the 1990s. And building security directly into the operating system seems a lot like "commingling" software code, on which basis the European Commission ruled earlier this year that Microsoft abused its market power through the Windows Media Player. Microsoft is appealing against that decision, and on September 30th it will argue for a suspension of the commission’s remedies, such as the requirement that it license its code to rivals. Just last month, the European Union’s competition directorate began an investigation into Microsoft and Time Warner, a large media firm, on the grounds that their proposed joint acquisition of ContentGuard, a software firm whose products protect digital media files, might provide Microsoft with undue market power over digital media standards. The commission will rule by January 2005. Microsoft, it seems, in security as elsewhere, is going to have to get used to being punished for its success. Its Windows monopoly lets it enjoy excessive profits— but the resulting monoculture makes it an obvious target for viruses and regulators alike.

It is implied in the third paragraph that （）

A:computer users care a lot about the security of the operating system B:programmers are disappointed about the shift of the firm's focus C:more resources are being engaged in the development of Longhorn D:patches and enhancements are perfect and popular with the users

In recent years, Microsoft has focused on three big tasks: building robust security into its software, resolving numerous antitrust complaints against it and upgrading its Windows operating system. These three tasks are now starting to collide.
On August 27th the firm said that the successor to its Windows XP operating system, code-named Longhorn, will go on sale in 2007 without one of its most impressive features, a technique to integrate elaborate search capabilities into nearly all desktop applications. (On the bright side, Longhorn will contain advances in rendering images and enabling different computing platforms to exchange data directly between applications. ) It is a big setback for Microsoft, which considers search technology a pillar of its future growth -not least as it competes against Google.
The firm’s focus on security championed by Bill Gates himself--took resources away from Longhorn, admits Greg Sullivan, a lead product manager in the Windows client division. Programmers have been fixing Windows XP rather than working on Longhorn. In mid- August, Microsoft released Service Pack 2, a huge set of free software patches and enhancements to make Windows XP more secure. Though some of the fixes turned out to have vulnerabilities of their own, the patches have mostly been welcomed. Microsoft’s decision to forgo new features in return for better security is one that most computer users will probably applaud.
Yet ironically, as Microsoft slowly improves the security of its products---by, for instance, incorporating firewall technology, anti-virus systems and spam filters its actions increasingly start to resemble those that, in the past, have got the firm into trouble with regulators. Is security software an "adjacent software market", in which case Microsoft may be leveraging its dominance of the operating system into it Integrating security products into Windows might be considered "bundling" which, with regard to web browsing, so excited America’s trustbusters in the 1990s. And building security directly into the operating system seems a lot like "commingling" software code, on which basis the European Commission ruled earlier this year that Microsoft abused its market power through the Windows Media Player. Microsoft is appealing against that decision, and on September 30th it will argue for a suspension of the commission’s remedies, such as the requirement that it license its code to rivals.
Just last month, the European Union’s competition directorate began an investigation into Microsoft and Time Warner, a large media firm, on the grounds that their proposed joint acquisition of ContentGuard, a software firm whose products protect digital media files, might provide Microsoft with, undue market power over digital media standards. The commission will rule by January 2005. Microsoft, it seems, in security as elsewhere, is going to have to get used to being punished for its success. Its Windows monopoly lets it enjoy excessive profits but the resulting monoculture makes it an obvious target for viruses and regulators alike.

It is implied in the third paragraph that（）

A:computer users care a lot about the security of the operating system B:programmers are disappointed about the shift of the firm’s focus C:more resources are being engaged in the development of Longhorn D:patches and enhancements are perfect and popular with the users

The first generation of dot-corns burned through cash rapidly because they had to spend a lot of money building and running their businesses—marketing and advertising to get the word out, not to mention software, consultants, and programmers to run online systems and" analyze theresults. Thanks to Web 2.0, many of these costs have plummeted. Many of the basics are nowessentially free, which means a business built on the infrastructure laid down by the first two generations of Web companies can gain scale on a shoestring budget, all while giving away its products and services for free. Call it Web 2.5.
The first generation dot-coms spent a huge sum of money

A:marketing and advertising their products. B:training their employees. C:hiring consults and programmers. D:analyzing the data transmitted onto the we