Slashdot Mirror

Ballmer gave a talk at the University of Washington on Microsoft's cloud strategy: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/presskits/cloud/videogallery.aspx

Last time Microsoft invested big into R&D in the recent couple of years, we got the Mojave Experiment Project, which was a brainwashing to non-tech people who didn't have a clue anyway. At least they are throwing their money towards a new tech buzz like cloud computing and dumping it into convincing people Vista is great, when it wasn't. First impressions are everything, we all know that. We all know by now throwing money at problems that can't be solved by money doesn't work. Maybe Microsoft will make a cloud that will float Vista away?

According to Microsoft, The Windows logo signifies the compatibility and reliability of systems and devices with Windows operating system. It gives customers confidence that your product is thoroughly tested with Microsoft-provided tools and ensures a good user experience.

Doesn't say much about their testing, does it?

After using Linux I don't understand how Windows users put up with the Microsoft updates that frequently fail to install, sometimes require multiple reboots and then still needing to update everything else manually.

Because none of those things are particularly accurate ?

http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en/sqlexpress/thread/c7d0a234-763b-4f9c-b7ec-3a40df6340a8
Here's the fix, the only way I've gotten this to work. And we've got a lot of machines with Visual Studio where "Everything" was selected (and is actually used), so updating SQL Express is a good idea:
reg add "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL.1\Setup" /value Resume /type dword /data 0
reg add "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL.2\Setup" /value Resume /type dword /data 0

Oh, and also shut down the SQL Express Service. Why couldn't these things be built into the patch? Why isn't there a new patch that supersedes the old one that does these things since Microsoft knows about them?

"still needing to update everything else manually." Acrobat Reader and Java updates fail a lot. To update GIMP on Windows, I have to manually download the program again. To update Sysinternals Suite when there's a significant security update, I have to download the zipfile manually from Microsoft. In XP for several years, Microsoft required manual patching of the "disable autorun group policy option that doesn't really disable autorun" bug until major security firms called them on it. Eventually it found its way into Optional Updates (not automatic, because MS decided it wasn't critical).

I program Windows btw, but it's always been a pet hate that for so long, Windows enforced developers into a pixel-fixed unresizable GUI design.

Well, it's not entirely true - while it wasn't properly resizable, it wasn't really pixel-fixed, either. For example, if you ever programmed directly in Win32 API or in MFC, you might remember that dialogs are laid out not in pixels, but in dialog units, which are actually a bit like em in that they are tied to the pixel size of the default UI font. If user changes the DPI setting in configuration, font size changes correspondingly, and dialogs should scale accordingly.

The problem is that this is only used by default for dialog templates fed to CreateDialogIndirect. If you ever create a window yourself using CreateWindow, and manipulate that, all sizes do indeed come in pixels, and you need to use something like MapDialogRect to convert them yourself. And, of course, most people didn't bother...

The other problem is that many high-level frameworks didn't bother, either. Delphi didn't do so for a long time, forcing to deal with pixels directly, for example. VB6 of all things did it right by introducing "twips", which are DPI-dependent (1440 twips/inch; that's 20 twips/pixel at 72dpi, and 15 twips/pixel at 96dpi), and using them for all UI measurements. Even then, creative code monkeys broke the model by observing the twip/pixel ratio for their specific DPI, and then using that as a general-purpose conversion formula...

Now, as noted earlier, this still doesn't lead to truly reflowable UI. And it's not just a matter of user convenience, either - proper localization with statically sized UI is a pain, especially if you start with English, because strings in most other languages are longer, and can easily overflow UI elements sized for English. In sentences, word count can differ widely, too - sometimes so much so that the label now needs to be two-line to fit. On Windows, this was historically "solved" by letting localizers also tweak dialog layouts as needed, but this is obviously an ugly hack. The only proper solution is reflowable UI.

Oh, and it was there before 2006 in stock offerings; WinForms got layouts in .NET 2.0, in 2005. It's just that it was not very convenient to use, and not well supported by visual form designer. With WPF and its XML-based markup, it's much more natural.

And, of course, third-party frameworks had dynamic layouts on Win32 for ages. Qt had it since the first version, I believe; at least it was definitely in 2.x, which was the first one I've seen.

I program Windows btw, but it's always been a pet hate that for so long, Windows enforced developers into a pixel-fixed unresizable GUI design.

Well, it's not entirely true - while it wasn't properly resizable, it wasn't really pixel-fixed, either. For example, if you ever programmed directly in Win32 API or in MFC, you might remember that dialogs are laid out not in pixels, but in dialog units, which are actually a bit like em in that they are tied to the pixel size of the default UI font. If user changes the DPI setting in configuration, font size changes correspondingly, and dialogs should scale accordingly.

The problem is that this is only used by default for dialog templates fed to CreateDialogIndirect. If you ever create a window yourself using CreateWindow, and manipulate that, all sizes do indeed come in pixels, and you need to use something like MapDialogRect to convert them yourself. And, of course, most people didn't bother...

The other problem is that many high-level frameworks didn't bother, either. Delphi didn't do so for a long time, forcing to deal with pixels directly, for example. VB6 of all things did it right by introducing "twips", which are DPI-dependent (1440 twips/inch; that's 20 twips/pixel at 72dpi, and 15 twips/pixel at 96dpi), and using them for all UI measurements. Even then, creative code monkeys broke the model by observing the twip/pixel ratio for their specific DPI, and then using that as a general-purpose conversion formula...

Now, as noted earlier, this still doesn't lead to truly reflowable UI. And it's not just a matter of user convenience, either - proper localization with statically sized UI is a pain, especially if you start with English, because strings in most other languages are longer, and can easily overflow UI elements sized for English. In sentences, word count can differ widely, too - sometimes so much so that the label now needs to be two-line to fit. On Windows, this was historically "solved" by letting localizers also tweak dialog layouts as needed, but this is obviously an ugly hack. The only proper solution is reflowable UI.

Oh, and it was there before 2006 in stock offerings; WinForms got layouts in .NET 2.0, in 2005. It's just that it was not very convenient to use, and not well supported by visual form designer. With WPF and its XML-based markup, it's much more natural.

And, of course, third-party frameworks had dynamic layouts on Win32 for ages. Qt had it since the first version, I believe; at least it was definitely in 2.x, which was the first one I've seen.

Only Windows UI Programmers complain about screen sizes...

We don't - we've had WPF, with flexible layouts by default, since 2006.

And those who are .NET-allergic and prefer C++ can always just use Qt.

There is not much of a reason to write a press release about these licensing agreements and patent covenants, other than to spread FUD in the Linux marketplace. Since the alleged intellectual property in question hasn't been put into the open, and IO is a storage company, one can assume the agreement surrounds the FAT filesystem IP: MICROSOFT EFI FAT32 FILE SYSTEM SPECIFICATION LICENSE AGREEMENT

My hunch is this is then an covenant regarding "Microsoft technology patents that can be used in a product built on a Linux foundation" .. or I guess "Linux Patents" for short then. Creative marketing, to make it sound like this glorious Linux stuff is really Microsoft's work. It you can't beat 'em, FUD 'em.

Eeeee-Eye-Eeeeee-I-O

Yours In Reykjavik,
Kilgore Trout

Speaking as a web designer though, PNG transparency wasn't supported in IE until version 7. On my own site, I had to load a basic stylesheet with .jpg backgrounds and a more limited layout, then a second stylesheet with .png graphics for advanced browsers. The various workarounds would often result in scary errors for the end user. (This page wants to use an ActiveX filter!) But then, IE has always been the web's David Spade.

Now that Google is officially dropping IE6 support, maybe it's time I did too. Trouble is, my ideal design would be built on SVG -- which the newer versions of IE... also don't support either.

IMO MS should have separated the system state/settings from the user & app settings in some meaningful way to make the OS more failure-resistant.

True, but the app Foo would be far more likely to corrupt %APPDATA%\Publisher Foo\App Foo\settings.xyz than %APPDATA%\Publisher Bar\App Bar\settings.abc as opposed to poorly handling error conditions while using the registry API and corrupting the registry or leaving some registry handle open, causing a leak on shutdown and other badness.

In theory, an application should only be accessing HKLM\Software or HKCU\Software (Or Services I guess...) (Citrix client modifying the Gina chain...) (Device software modifying device driver parameters...) (Security Configuration Wizard... that touches basically everything) Yeah, OK, user applications modify a great deal of system parameters.

I don't know if the situation you allude to would be THAT much better to be fair... At the moment, thinking about the limitations that Citrix has with the print subsystem and terminal services... To a degree, while you do get some shit applications that don't behave themselves, I think the limitations of ONLY being able to program to an API could be limiting for a lot of customers.

Winlogon debugging, create a logfile and take a look. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/221833 Doesn't work with Win 7.
User Profile Service

S .. E.. N.. D.. A.. M.. A.. S.. S.. I.. V.. E..

B..O..T..N..E..T.. T..O.. The Nexus Of Office LACK Of Producitivity.

Thanks In Advance.

Yours In Tashkent,
Kilgore Trout

i still deal with UNIX people sometimes and they want to write scripts for the simplest things that Windows will let you do in a GUI in seconds

Yea, these uNIX people don't know nothing .. but how long did it take you to read this one hundred page document. And what would a 'UNIX/Novell admin' be even doing migrating to a Windows box. And why can't you type the personal pronoun in upper case. It gets curiouser and curiouser .. :)

Actually from Wikipedia "Windows registry's primary purpose was to store configuration information for COM-based components". I've only been doing admin since Win NT 3.51, so I only know about it since then, I didn't realise it was in Win 3.1 as well.

OK, if you want to be pedantic, then yeah, 3.1 also shipped with a registry, with a different purpose than W95. (Only the HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT part.) But obviously, that isn't the registry most people refer to.

Ah, but I can be a pedant too.

"The Microsoft Computer Dictionary defines the registry as: A central hierarchical database used in Microsoft Windows 98, Windows CE, Windows NT, and Windows 2000 used to store information that is necessary to configure the system for one or more users, applications and hardware devices."

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/256986

The whole purpose of HKCU and HKLM in particular \Software was PURPOSEFULLY to have a central location for DIFFERENT software vendors to store settings in a single location as opposed to different vendors trying to use the same ini file names and treading on each other's toes, as well as problems with size limitations etc etc.

Thats the worst rationale ever. The opposite of the registry isn't overwriting INI files or whatever else you're thinking of. It is to call SHGetFolderPath with CSIDL_APPDATA and follow Microsoft's own guide lines.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms995853.aspx#w2kcli_req42

Citation required. I don't understand how you consider it a cluster fuck. Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it a cluster fuck.

The primary problem I have with the registry is that it can't be locked during modification, and you couldn't set any access restrictions on any of the keys preventing other apps from messing (read corrupting) with it (this is on W95). Then ofcource there is the un-enforced type system. You can write any garbage and the type isn't enforced. E.g. you can write non-null terminated strings using the REG_SZ type, then there is the size bloat of the registry causing slower bootups, etc. There are several problems with the registry. If *only* the OS code was going to use the registry, the would have fixed all the bugs by now as there would be no other dependencies. Ofcource, now, its almost impossible to get rid of it or fix the problems.

With the hundred of thousands of ISVs out there, you suggest to me a better way of managing on a per user and per machine basis of managing configuration settings.

Already linked .. :

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms995853.aspx#w2kcli_req42

Actually from Wikipedia "Windows registry's primary purpose was to store configuration information for COM-based components". I've only been doing admin since Win NT 3.51, so I only know about it since then, I didn't realise it was in Win 3.1 as well.

OK, if you want to be pedantic, then yeah, 3.1 also shipped with a registry, with a different purpose than W95. (Only the HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT part.) But obviously, that isn't the registry most people refer to.

Ah, but I can be a pedant too.

"The Microsoft Computer Dictionary defines the registry as: A central hierarchical database used in Microsoft Windows 98, Windows CE, Windows NT, and Windows 2000 used to store information that is necessary to configure the system for one or more users, applications and hardware devices."

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/256986

The whole purpose of HKCU and HKLM in particular \Software was PURPOSEFULLY to have a central location for DIFFERENT software vendors to store settings in a single location as opposed to different vendors trying to use the same ini file names and treading on each other's toes, as well as problems with size limitations etc etc.

Thats the worst rationale ever. The opposite of the registry isn't overwriting INI files or whatever else you're thinking of. It is to call SHGetFolderPath with CSIDL_APPDATA and follow Microsoft's own guide lines.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms995853.aspx#w2kcli_req42

Citation required. I don't understand how you consider it a cluster fuck. Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it a cluster fuck.

The primary problem I have with the registry is that it can't be locked during modification, and you couldn't set any access restrictions on any of the keys preventing other apps from messing (read corrupting) with it (this is on W95). Then ofcource there is the un-enforced type system. You can write any garbage and the type isn't enforced. E.g. you can write non-null terminated strings using the REG_SZ type, then there is the size bloat of the registry causing slower bootups, etc. There are several problems with the registry. If *only* the OS code was going to use the registry, the would have fixed all the bugs by now as there would be no other dependencies. Ofcource, now, its almost impossible to get rid of it or fix the problems.

With the hundred of thousands of ISVs out there, you suggest to me a better way of managing on a per user and per machine basis of managing configuration settings.

Already linked .. :

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms995853.aspx#w2kcli_req42

Actually from Wikipedia "Windows registry's primary purpose was to store configuration information for COM-based components". I've only been doing admin since Win NT 3.51, so I only know about it since then, I didn't realise it was in Win 3.1 as well.

OK, if you want to be pedantic, then yeah, 3.1 also shipped with a registry, with a different purpose than W95. (Only the HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT part.) But obviously, that isn't the registry most people refer to.

Ah, but I can be a pedant too.

"The Microsoft Computer Dictionary defines the registry as: A central hierarchical database used in Microsoft Windows 98, Windows CE, Windows NT, and Windows 2000 used to store information that is necessary to configure the system for one or more users, applications and hardware devices."

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/256986

The whole purpose of HKCU and HKLM in particular \Software was PURPOSEFULLY to have a central location for DIFFERENT software vendors to store settings in a single location as opposed to different vendors trying to use the same ini file names and treading on each other's toes, as well as problems with size limitations etc etc.

Thats the worst rationale ever. The opposite of the registry isn't overwriting INI files or whatever else you're thinking of. It is to call SHGetFolderPath with CSIDL_APPDATA and follow Microsoft's own guide lines.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms995853.aspx#w2kcli_req42

Citation required. I don't understand how you consider it a cluster fuck. Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it a cluster fuck.

The primary problem I have with the registry is that it can't be locked during modification, and you couldn't set any access restrictions on any of the keys preventing other apps from messing (read corrupting) with it (this is on W95). Then ofcource there is the un-enforced type system. You can write any garbage and the type isn't enforced. E.g. you can write non-null terminated strings using the REG_SZ type, then there is the size bloat of the registry causing slower bootups, etc. There are several problems with the registry. If *only* the OS code was going to use the registry, the would have fixed all the bugs by now as there would be no other dependencies. Ofcource, now, its almost impossible to get rid of it or fix the problems.

With the hundred of thousands of ISVs out there, you suggest to me a better way of managing on a per user and per machine basis of managing configuration settings.

Already linked .. :

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms995853.aspx#w2kcli_req42

How would I migrate the essential settings but leave behind the bloat?

I found it in a few seconds by going to support.microsoft.com and searching for "migrate windows vista settings" which brought up http://support.microsoft.com/kb/928634 as the first hit.

I guess that was too hard :P

This doesn't distinguish between bloat and essential settings. Reproduced my original statement again, hope you can at least read bold. Maybe you were concentrating on colons and Ps, whatever they mean.

the registry was an designed to be internal storage for OS settings and not meant to be user editable

How else do you define "deliberately user-unfriendly"? That is exactly what I have said.

"what are these cars doing with such massive embedded systems in them?"

They must be running Microsoft software:
http://www.microsoft.com/auto/default.mspx

I am pretty sure millions of lines code also include navigation, radio and other non-critical systems.

2. Migration? I have yet been unable to do so. Say, when one PC becomes bloated, slow and generally hell, I want to re-install onto another PC/partition. How would I migrate the essential settings but leave behind the bloat?

I found it in a few seconds by going to support.microsoft.com and searching for "migrate windows vista settings" which brought up http://support.microsoft.com/kb/928634 as the first hit.

I guess that was too hard :P

I also feel that this "obfuscation" of complicating the registry is deliberate on the part of Microsoft. Else, what business does a genuine system registry value have, to carry a value like : "7c5f219b67516f24" ? This suggests that user-unfriendliness was the very goal of Microsoft in designing the system.

If you bothered to read what I wrote before hitting reply, you'd know that the registry was an designed to be internal storage for OS settings and not meant to be user editable. At-least that was case initially 18 years ago.

The registry has a (weakish) type system, so quoting some random value as unfriendly is pointless. The registry also supports binary values. You might as well say "011001101110" is user-unfriendly.

Also your argument seems to be "I cant think of any reason why X is the case, therefore it must be because of reason Y". Most people wouldn't bother to reply to such a defective argument.

On the other hand for unixes: even a file like /etc/passwd has quite a user-friendly structure. A user can edit it with some confidence. Its man page is remarkably simpler than the help files describing registry values like "7c5f219b67516f24". Moreover, most such cryptic values are not even described in help files on the system and one typically needs a working internet connection to be able to debug it. Lack of an internet connection might very well be the reason why you are trying to debug it in the first place.

The registry was never mean't to be seen by end-users. Clearly /etc/* files were meant to be user editable as all of them are plain-text. The registry is not plain-text. In fact its a binary blob. There are several trade-offs of w.r.t. binary files and plain-text files. One very basic one is to do with load times. plain-text files require processing before they can be used. Whereas you could just dump a block of memory holding a few C structures containing OS settings to a binary file and just read them back on bootup minimizing CPU time. I imagine 18 years ago CPU time came at a high premium.

Anyway, I personally prefer plain-text files because I'm a nerd. However I'd much rather want my mom double clicking on a .reg file to merge settings into the registry rather than loading /etc/foo.cfg in gedit and potentially screwing things.

Presumably autohotkey has to stay running in the background?

If you just remap your keys nothing extra has to stay loaded :

http://vlaurie.com/computers2/Articles/remap-keyboard.htm

or Remapkey.exe from the MS server 2008 resource kit : http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=9D467A69-57FF-4AE7-96EE-B18C4790CFFD&displaylang=en

By default, any authenticated user has this right and can create up to 10 computer accounts in the domain.

This setting persists in Windows Server 2008 R2. Of course, you can always fix this via GPO on your domain controllers.

actually i was wrong - just looked at the order form

http://www.microsoft.com/surface/Pages/HowToBuy/HowToBuy.aspx

and it looks like the cheapest you can get is going to be >13k and ~16k if your a developer.

so the price has actually gone UP from when it was first released.. and it STILL comes with Vista not Win7

Welcome to the Windows Seizure Platform.

Fail.

Yours In Ashgabat,
Kilgore Trout

I understand what you are saying: RS232 ports suck for any number of reasons.

But there are a few why it is still often used.

First, it has been ubiquitous for 20 to 30 years. When I started my first development job in 1982 - everything talked to everything else via RS-232. Back then 9600 baud was considered fast. At 8 bits per character with no parity and one stop bit, 9600 baud could paint a screen with characters in one second. Yes, we thought that was fast. Things got better as baud rates improved - but RS-232 remained everywhere - it was the one constant universal interface. Even though it is incredible antiqued, it is still in many PCs.

Second, RS-232 (and its many cousins like RS-422) are very, very easy to use in software. The simplest I/O can be done in a few lines of code. Its easy to put RS-232 code right in firmware. This makes it easy to write bootstrapers, boot consoles, debug consoles etc.

USB would be a poor choice for a replacement. The reason is that it isnt peer to peer - it is a master/slave architecture. There is always one master -usually a PC, and one or more slaves (keyboards, mice, printers, scanners, cable modems, disk drives, storage keys, cameras etc).

It requires a special cable to make to client USB devices talk to each other. This cable has a small do-dad that looks like a master to both ends. This works ok, but it requires special knowledge of this USB end point to work correctly. Note, Windows began to support this in Vista for migration. Its called Windows Easy Transfer/a>.. There is a version for XP too (downloadable/a>). It actually works very well, but the cables were not cheap. Note that the cables really are not cables - but a dual-headed master USB controller with two ports - it just looks like a cable with a lump in the middle - Belkin sells one for $40.

LLike a few other posters have said - USB is much more complex to use in software than simple RS-232. Ive written code for it and I find it more complex than Ethernet at the MAC level.

I think Ethernet is the real replacement. A little TFT or Telnet server / client is really trivial to write. This can (and often has been done) in firmware. For example, most (all?) home Ethernet and wireless routers dont have a serial port. Their management is over Ethernet - works great.

-Foredecker

I understand what you are saying: RS232 ports suck for any number of reasons.

But there are a few why it is still often used.

First, it has been ubiquitous for 20 to 30 years. When I started my first development job in 1982 - everything talked to everything else via RS-232. Back then 9600 baud was considered fast. At 8 bits per character with no parity and one stop bit, 9600 baud could paint a screen with characters in one second. Yes, we thought that was fast. Things got better as baud rates improved - but RS-232 remained everywhere - it was the one constant universal interface. Even though it is incredible antiqued, it is still in many PCs.

Second, RS-232 (and its many cousins like RS-422) are very, very easy to use in software. The simplest I/O can be done in a few lines of code. Its easy to put RS-232 code right in firmware. This makes it easy to write bootstrapers, boot consoles, debug consoles etc.

USB would be a poor choice for a replacement. The reason is that it isnt peer to peer - it is a master/slave architecture. There is always one master -usually a PC, and one or more slaves (keyboards, mice, printers, scanners, cable modems, disk drives, storage keys, cameras etc).

It requires a special cable to make to client USB devices talk to each other. This cable has a small do-dad that looks like a master to both ends. This works ok, but it requires special knowledge of this USB end point to work correctly. Note, Windows began to support this in Vista for migration. Its called Windows Easy Transfer/a>.. There is a version for XP too (downloadable/a>). It actually works very well, but the cables were not cheap. Note that the cables really are not cables - but a dual-headed master USB controller with two ports - it just looks like a cable with a lump in the middle - Belkin sells one for $40.

LLike a few other posters have said - USB is much more complex to use in software than simple RS-232. Ive written code for it and I find it more complex than Ethernet at the MAC level.

I think Ethernet is the real replacement. A little TFT or Telnet server / client is really trivial to write. This can (and often has been done) in firmware. For example, most (all?) home Ethernet and wireless routers dont have a serial port. Their management is over Ethernet - works great.

-Foredecker

Uhhh...the same way they got busted for being a monopoly in the first place? The OEMs had plenty of XP licenses and discs. Just go to Newegg and see how many OEM XP licenses they have for sale, where do you think those come from? The OEMs. MSFT then tells the OEMs "You want that license discount you have been enjoying? You better do what we say, or Dell gets the sweet deal and you pay full retail." And voila! The OEMs do what MSFT says and you have Vista only.

Look, I'm a Windows guy, been building Windows boxes since Win3.x, but the whole Vista thing just stank. You know when Tigerdirect was bragging "We got XP machines!" that something was up. Less than 3 months after Vista came out folks were bringing Vista machines to me to "fix" and when I told them I couldn't they promptly returned them. You know the OEMs didn't want to see all that hardware returning, so they pressured MSFT to give them the rights to sell XP. But MSFT figured out a way to double dip, by making sure that Home licenses had NO downgrade rights so the ONLY way for a Home user to get XP was to pay a higher price for Business and downgrade to XP Pro, which most didn't need.

So to me it looks pretty cut and dried. Home users wanted XP, so MSFT forced them to buy business licenses at a higher cost to get the XP they wanted in the first place. In fact the only way to get an XP Home license using downgrade rights is to buy Ultimate, the most expensive SKU! So yeah, somebody needs to refile, as the home users got screwed.

Hey, to the retard that modded me troll? Read it yourself fuckstick, straight from MSFT themselves. Notice how it says Vista BUSINESS and ULTIMATE, but NOT Vista Home Premium? That is because you have NO downgrade rights unless you buy a license that typically costs a good 30-50% more, dumbasss.

So YES, this page proves that MSFT DID profit from the program, as there was NO WAY for a Home Premium user to downgrade without first buying the more expensive Business or Ultimate. I should know as I have had many HP users come in wanting their downgrade rights only for me to have to tell them they first get to shell out for a "upgrade" before they can actually get the product they want.

I may be a happy Windows 7 user, but wrong is wrong. They shit on the home users and forced them to buy more expensive licenses for products they didn't want. That is just not right and the lawsuit should be refiled.

It has come to my attention that the entire Linux community is a hotbed of so called 'alternative sexuality', which includes anything from hedonistic orgies to homosexuality to paedophilia.

What better way of demonstrating this than by looking at the hidden messages contained within the names of some of Linux's most outspoken advocates:

• Linus Torvalds is an anagram of slit anus or VD 'L,' clearly referring to himself by the first initial.
• Richard M. Stallman, spokespervert for the Gaysex's Not Unusual 'movement' is an anagram of mans cram thrill ad.
• Alan Cox is barely an anagram of anal cox which is just so filthy and unchristian it unnerves me.

I'm sure that Eric S. Raymond, composer of the satanic homosexual propaganda diatribe The Cathedral and the Bizarre, is probably an anagram of something queer, but we don't need to look that far as we know he's always shoving a gun up some poor little boy's rectum. Update: Eric S. Raymond is actually an anagram for secondary rim and cord in my arse. It just goes to show you that he is indeed queer.

Update the Second: It is also documented that Evil Sicko Gaymond is responsible for a nauseating piece of code called Fetchmail, which is obviously sinister sodomite slang for 'Felch Male' -- a disgusting practise. For those not in the know, 'felching' is the act performed by two perverts wherein one sucks their own post-coital ejaculate out of the other's rectum. In fact, it appears that the dirty Linux faggots set out to undermine the good Republican institution of e-mail, turning it into 'e-male.'

As far as Richard 'Master' Stallman goes, that filthy fudge-packer was actually quoted on leftist commie propaganda site Salon.com as saying the following: 'I've been resistant to the pressure to conform in any circumstance,' he says. 'It's about being able to question conventional wisdom,' he asserts. 'I believe in love, but not monogamy,' he says plainly.

And this isn't a made up troll bullshit either! He actually stated this tripe, which makes it obvious that he is trying to politely say that he's a flaming homo slut!

Speaking about 'flaming,' who better to point out as a filthy chutney ferret than Slashdot's very own self-confessed pederast Jon Katz. Although an obvious deviant anagram cannot be found from his name, he has already confessed, nay boasted of the homosexual perversion of corrupting the innocence of young children. To quote from the article linked:

'I've got a rare kidney disease,' I told her. 'I have to go to the bathroom a lot. You can come with me if you want, but it takes a while. Is that okay with you? Do you want a note from my doctor?'

Is this why you were touching your penis in the cinema, Jon? And letting the other boys touch it too?

We should also point out that Jon Katz refers to himself as 'Slashdot's resident Gasbag.' Is there any more doubt? For those fortunate few who aren't aware of the list of homosexual terminology found inside the Linux 'Sauce Code,' a 'Gasbag' is a pervert who gains sexual gratification from having a thin straw inserted into his urethra (or to use the common parlance, 'piss-pipe'), then his homosexual lover blows firmly down the straw to inflate his scrotum. This is, of course, when he's not busy violating the dignity and co

It has come to my attention that the entire Linux community is a hotbed of so called 'alternative sexuality', which includes anything from hedonistic orgies to homosexuality to paedophilia.

What better way of demonstrating this than by looking at the hidden messages contained within the names of some of Linux's most outspoken advocates:

• Linus Torvalds is an anagram of slit anus or VD 'L,' clearly referring to himself by the first initial.
• Richard M. Stallman, spokespervert for the Gaysex's Not Unusual 'movement' is an anagram of mans cram thrill ad.
• Alan Cox is barely an anagram of anal cox which is just so filthy and unchristian it unnerves me.

I'm sure that Eric S. Raymond, composer of the satanic homosexual propaganda diatribe The Cathedral and the Bizarre, is probably an anagram of something queer, but we don't need to look that far as we know he's always shoving a gun up some poor little boy's rectum. Update: Eric S. Raymond is actually an anagram for secondary rim and cord in my arse. It just goes to show you that he is indeed queer.

Update the Second: It is also documented that Evil Sicko Gaymond is responsible for a nauseating piece of code called Fetchmail, which is obviously sinister sodomite slang for 'Felch Male' -- a disgusting practise. For those not in the know, 'felching' is the act performed by two perverts wherein one sucks their own post-coital ejaculate out of the other's rectum. In fact, it appears that the dirty Linux faggots set out to undermine the good Republican institution of e-mail, turning it into 'e-male.'

As far as Richard 'Master' Stallman goes, that filthy fudge-packer was actually quoted on leftist commie propaganda site Salon.com as saying the following: 'I've been resistant to the pressure to conform in any circumstance,' he says. 'It's about being able to question conventional wisdom,' he asserts. 'I believe in love, but not monogamy,' he says plainly.

And this isn't a made up troll bullshit either! He actually stated this tripe, which makes it obvious that he is trying to politely say that he's a flaming homo slut!

Speaking about 'flaming,' who better to point out as a filthy chutney ferret than Slashdot's very own self-confessed pederast Jon Katz. Although an obvious deviant anagram cannot be found from his name, he has already confessed, nay boasted of the homosexual perversion of corrupting the innocence of young children. To quote from the article linked:

'I've got a rare kidney disease,' I told her. 'I have to go to the bathroom a lot. You can come with me if you want, but it takes a while. Is that okay with you? Do you want a note from my doctor?'

Is this why you were touching your penis in the cinema, Jon? And letting the other boys touch it too?

We should also point out that Jon Katz refers to himself as 'Slashdot's resident Gasbag.' Is there any more doubt? For those fortunate few who aren't aware of the list of homosexual terminology found inside the Linux 'Sauce Code,' a 'Gasbag' is a pervert who gains sexual gratification from having a thin straw inserted into his urethra (or to use the common parlance, 'piss-pipe'), then his homosexual lover blows firmly down the straw to inflate his scrotum. This is, of course, when he's not busy violating the dignity and co

It has come to my attention that the entire Linux community is a hotbed of so called 'alternative sexuality', which includes anything from hedonistic orgies to homosexuality to paedophilia.

What better way of demonstrating this than by looking at the hidden messages contained within the names of some of Linux's most outspoken advocates:

• Linus Torvalds is an anagram of slit anus or VD 'L,' clearly referring to himself by the first initial.
• Richard M. Stallman, spokespervert for the Gaysex's Not Unusual 'movement' is an anagram of mans cram thrill ad.
• Alan Cox is barely an anagram of anal cox which is just so filthy and unchristian it unnerves me.

I'm sure that Eric S. Raymond, composer of the satanic homosexual propaganda diatribe The Cathedral and the Bizarre, is probably an anagram of something queer, but we don't need to look that far as we know he's always shoving a gun up some poor little boy's rectum. Update: Eric S. Raymond is actually an anagram for secondary rim and cord in my arse. It just goes to show you that he is indeed queer.

Update the Second: It is also documented that Evil Sicko Gaymond is responsible for a nauseating piece of code called Fetchmail, which is obviously sinister sodomite slang for 'Felch Male' -- a disgusting practise. For those not in the know, 'felching' is the act performed by two perverts wherein one sucks their own post-coital ejaculate out of the other's rectum. In fact, it appears that the dirty Linux faggots set out to undermine the good Republican institution of e-mail, turning it into 'e-male.'

As far as Richard 'Master' Stallman goes, that filthy fudge-packer was actually quoted on leftist commie propaganda site Salon.com as saying the following: 'I've been resistant to the pressure to conform in any circumstance,' he says. 'It's about being able to question conventional wisdom,' he asserts. 'I believe in love, but not monogamy,' he says plainly.

And this isn't a made up troll bullshit either! He actually stated this tripe, which makes it obvious that he is trying to politely say that he's a flaming homo slut!

Speaking about 'flaming,' who better to point out as a filthy chutney ferret than Slashdot's very own self-confessed pederast Jon Katz. Although an obvious deviant anagram cannot be found from his name, he has already confessed, nay boasted of the homosexual perversion of corrupting the innocence of young children. To quote from the article linked:

'I've got a rare kidney disease,' I told her. 'I have to go to the bathroom a lot. You can come with me if you want, but it takes a while. Is that okay with you? Do you want a note from my doctor?'

Is this why you were touching your penis in the cinema, Jon? And letting the other boys touch it too?

We should also point out that Jon Katz refers to himself as 'Slashdot's resident Gasbag.' Is there any more doubt? For those fortunate few who aren't aware of the list of homosexual terminology found inside the Linux 'Sauce Code,' a 'Gasbag' is a pervert who gains sexual gratification from having a thin straw inserted into his urethra (or to use the common parlance, 'piss-pipe'), then his homosexual lover blows firmly down the straw to inflate his scrotum. This is, of course, when he's not busy violating the dignity and co

This is especially important for all you who manage a SAN. Learn it, love it, live it.

To learn why disk partition alignment can be important, please reference the following blog post: http://clariionblogs.blogspot.com/2008/02/disk-alignment.html
Instructions for Stripe Alignment/Partition Alignment within a Windows Operating Systems
Reference the following link for info on DiskPart, http://support.microsoft.com/kb/300415
1 - At a command prompt on a windows host type diskpart
2 -Type select disk X (X being the numbered disk within disk management that you want to align)
3 -Type create partition primary align=64
4 -You can then format the drive and assign a drive letter to it

Microsoft Research has their own Academic Search site, which is pretty useful to me (I hardly ever use Google Scholar). It's more focused on academic research papers and the links between authors than the broader net GScholar casts (there's no Patent search, for example) but it is a free alternative. http://academic.research.microsoft.com/

This is not from Microsoft and it works Just out of the box. You do not need to struggle like how you do with Windows

February 23 Microsoft released a little noticed compatibility update for 32 and 64 bit Vista and Windows 7. It makes an interesting read - and the list is by no means exhaustive.

KOTOR now runs like a fine-tuned watch.

Application Compatibility Update for Windows Vista, Windows Server 2008, Windows 7, and Windows Server 2008 R2: February 2010

The Windows user is not a geek.

The programs he runs - the programs he buys - are shaped by an entirely different set of needs and expectations.

Windows for him makes a very comfortable fit.

I'll accept your admonishment with respect to the weakness of my analogy :), but I don't agree at all that Microsoft can be relegated to what you call "3rd party" status here. Microsoft is certainly not holding itself out as some kind of disinterested party, it is pursuing this matter in the role of plaintiff. Read the complaint. Isn't MS inconvenienced by spam (in terms of lost work time and IT costs) as much as any large public corporation? Above and beyond that, spam sent from hotmail.com or with fake hotmail.com headers could be argued to affect the reputation of its Hotmail service. Furthermore, Microsoft claims actual damages in the amount of at least $5000.00 as a result of Waledac. They've laid out their case, it's not the court's obligation to make a full determination at this stage. Let the defendants come in and move to dismiss the complaint, and if Microsoft has no standing, the case will get tossed.

I can think of a few reasons that matter to me. I'm sure some people can think of a few other reasons.

Once you've gotten over how "awesome" you are, you can read this article which discusses configuring wireless adapters on Windows XP.

http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/windows/xp/all/proddocs/en-us/wlan_client_configure.mspx?mfr=true

Rather than wasting time (yours, the neighbors, Best Buy's, tech support....) you can disable automatically connecting to non-preferred networks to fix your wife's security problem and annoyance. And then by telling your neighbor what's up, you reduce the attack surface in your neighborhood...

Going by the microsoft graphic of the operation, they could just arrest people who wear dark sunglasses and colored head scarves.

Ever heard of Malicious Software Removal Tool that is rolled out in in the monthly patch cycle. It kills software MS deems bad. No court approval for that.

No court approval needed, you clicked that you agreed with the TOS, EULA, description of what these files contain. Last time I used MS update (admittedly over a year ago) each download had it's own name. If there was a name like Malicious Software Removal Tool I would definitely take a peek inside the description to see exactly what it was doing.

This brings us back to the whole user issue. Most users accept all updates from MS (and pretty much any software vendor) without even so much as looking at the titles of the files their downloading. Maybe if people took a little more responsibility they wouldn't be surprised as to why their friendly purple gorilla buddy disappeared (I thought that thing had died years ago but I just saw him on someone's computer in the library last week).

Ever heard of Malicious Software Removal Tool that is rolled out in in the monthly patch cycle. It kills software MS deems bad. No court approval for that.

The image of the Mac's rendition is 168 pixels across, and the Windows version measures 164 pixels across, a difference of 4 pixels, or about 2%.

Now that I measure it again, I see you're right. My mistake.

Helvetica and Arial are not the same typeface

And the relevant difference in this case is... the designer of Helvetica wanted to produce illegible blobs at low resolutions?

But you do have a point there, so here's a fairer comparison: OS X (top) vs Windows 7 (bottom) rendering Arial at 5px. I'd hardly call that an improvement.

nor does anyone actually work with 5px lines of text.

And yet for some reason, font designers still bother to specify hints for those sizes, and OS programmers still bother to implement algorithms that make the text legible at those sizes. Hmm. Perhaps your generalization is wrong? Perhaps some people like to zoom out so a line of text is only a few pixels high and still be able to read it? Nah, that couldn't be it, everyone does exactly the same sort of work that you do and in exactly the same fashion.

Finally, consider this source provided by you that directly contradicts your point: http://zajac.ca/fonts/ -- observe the three way comparison between FontFocus, UNHINTED, and OS X rendering. Note that OS X and unhinted rendering are not even close to identical.

Actually, they're pretty close. OS X's rendering is wider and the letters have the same appearance at different places in the text, so it's clear that OS X is doing something, but it's not clear what that is: there doesn't seem to be any change within each character outline, only in the (fractional pixel) spacing between characters.

Actually, as Microsoft clearly shows, its honoring of the grid integrity is the intent of its ClearType algorithms.

Yes, of course it is.

That doesn't mean their algorithm consists of a simple "closest-fit grid snap" as you've repeatedly claimed, though: a naive algorithm like that would be unable to produce dramatic changes like the "N" illustrated here. Perhaps you're confused by their use of the term "grid-fit" to refer to the entire process of aligning and distorting the character outline before filling it in.

Logic flash: use a screen face for that.

So, use one font while you write a letter and another when you print it? Talk about loss of fidelity!

Microsoft's system does not produce text that is more legible at working sizes. I notice you presented nothing to substantiate that claim

That's because it's Microsoft's claim, not mine.

But technical accuracy is clearly and unequivocally in Apple's court.

If preserving the high-resolution character outlines is your sole measure of technical accuracy, then I suppose so.

Uh-huh. I suppose that's why the line of Mac text is 14 pixels wider than the line of Windows text? "Almost" indeed.

I beg your pardon? The image of the Mac's rendition is 168 pixels across, and the Windows version measures 164 pixels across, a difference of 4 pixels, or about 2%. Almost, indeed.

I'll do even better: here's a side-by-side comparison. That's OS X's Helvetica on top, Windows 7's Arial on bottom, both at 5 pixels high.

You're a snake. Helvetica and Arial are not the same typeface, nor does anyone actually work with 5px lines of text.

"Font hinting is the method preferred by Microsoft. Unhinted font is used on OS X and Linux."
"without any hints or grid-fitting but with subpixel accuracy (similar to rendering in Mac OS X)"
"I recently spoke with a renowned font designer, and he complained that Apple ignores the hinting he (and other designers) specifically puts into his fonts."
"Apple's rendering approach on Mac OS X ignores almost all the hints in a TrueType font"

These are all uncited sources, and all of them clearly show in context that they're using "hinting" as a stand-in for grid-fitting. It's a common shorthand, but a substantively inaccurate statement, which you might have recognized had you been familiar with the field of typography before you planted yourself firmly in a land of ignorance.

Hinting, contains a , all of it used by OS X, since without it, the screen version would not approximate the printed version. Hinting, a reverse metonym for grid-fitting and TrueType hint data are two separate concepts you've continually conflated, likely out of ignorance but possibly out of dishonesty.

Finally, consider this source provided by you that directly contradicts your point: http://zajac.ca/fonts/ -- observe the three way comparison between FontFocus, UNHINTED, and OS X rendering. Note that OS X and unhinted rendering are not even close to identical.

A moment's thought should illustrate why a "closest-fit grid snap" would not produce anything looking remotely legible, but in case that isn't enough

Actually, as Microsoft clearly shows, its honoring of the grid integrity is the intent of its ClearType algorithms. "Modifying an outline in this manner is known as grid-fit."

the average office worker writing a letter or spreadsheet cares more about reading the text than matching the printed page pixel-for-pixel. Newsflash: not everyone works in the same industry as you.

Logic flash: use a screen face for that.

I've got to hand it to you: your powers of denial are impressive. Subpixel rendering? Snap-to-grid? Yes, you're batting a thousand, all right.

Actually, you might have learned something and stopped the foot-mouth syndrome had you stopped to think instead of rushing to argue.

Microsoft's system does not produce text that is more legible at working sizes. I notice you presented nothing to substantiate that claim except a hilariously irrelevant and patently dishonest "side by side" showing different faces at different weights at a size no one uses for work. I do give you points for including a source clearly asserting superior legibility in OS X, though.

I make no such claim. Legibility is a wash between the two in my opinion. But technical accuracy is clearly and unequivocally in Apple's court.

Uh-huh. I suppose that's why the line of Mac text is 14 pixels wider than the line of Windows text? "Almost" indeed.

I beg your pardon? The image of the Mac's rendition is 168 pixels across, and the Windows version measures 164 pixels across, a difference of 4 pixels, or about 2%. Almost, indeed.

I'll do even better: here's a side-by-side comparison. That's OS X's Helvetica on top, Windows 7's Arial on bottom, both at 5 pixels high.

You're a snake. Helvetica and Arial are not the same typeface, nor does anyone actually work with 5px lines of text.

"Font hinting is the method preferred by Microsoft. Unhinted font is used on OS X and Linux."
"without any hints or grid-fitting but with subpixel accuracy (similar to rendering in Mac OS X)"
"I recently spoke with a renowned font designer, and he complained that Apple ignores the hinting he (and other designers) specifically puts into his fonts."
"Apple's rendering approach on Mac OS X ignores almost all the hints in a TrueType font"

These are all uncited sources, and all of them clearly show in context that they're using "hinting" as a stand-in for grid-fitting. It's a common shorthand, but a substantively inaccurate statement, which you might have recognized had you been familiar with the field of typography before you planted yourself firmly in a land of ignorance.

Hinting, contains a , all of it used by OS X, since without it, the screen version would not approximate the printed version. Hinting, a reverse metonym for grid-fitting and TrueType hint data are two separate concepts you've continually conflated, likely out of ignorance but possibly out of dishonesty.

Finally, consider this source provided by you that directly contradicts your point: http://zajac.ca/fonts/ -- observe the three way comparison between FontFocus, UNHINTED, and OS X rendering. Note that OS X and unhinted rendering are not even close to identical.

A moment's thought should illustrate why a "closest-fit grid snap" would not produce anything looking remotely legible, but in case that isn't enough

Actually, as Microsoft clearly shows, its honoring of the grid integrity is the intent of its ClearType algorithms. "Modifying an outline in this manner is known as grid-fit."

the average office worker writing a letter or spreadsheet cares more about reading the text than matching the printed page pixel-for-pixel. Newsflash: not everyone works in the same industry as you.

Logic flash: use a screen face for that.

I've got to hand it to you: your powers of denial are impressive. Subpixel rendering? Snap-to-grid? Yes, you're batting a thousand, all right.

Actually, you might have learned something and stopped the foot-mouth syndrome had you stopped to think instead of rushing to argue.

Microsoft's system does not produce text that is more legible at working sizes. I notice you presented nothing to substantiate that claim except a hilariously irrelevant and patently dishonest "side by side" showing different faces at different weights at a size no one uses for work. I do give you points for including a source clearly asserting superior legibility in OS X, though.

I make no such claim. Legibility is a wash between the two in my opinion. But technical accuracy is clearly and unequivocally in Apple's court.

Uh-huh. I suppose that's why the line of Mac text is 14 pixels wider than the line of Windows text? "Almost" indeed.

I beg your pardon? The image of the Mac's rendition is 168 pixels across, and the Windows version measures 164 pixels across, a difference of 4 pixels, or about 2%. Almost, indeed.

I'll do even better: here's a side-by-side comparison. That's OS X's Helvetica on top, Windows 7's Arial on bottom, both at 5 pixels high.

You're a snake. Helvetica and Arial are not the same typeface, nor does anyone actually work with 5px lines of text.

"Font hinting is the method preferred by Microsoft. Unhinted font is used on OS X and Linux."
"without any hints or grid-fitting but with subpixel accuracy (similar to rendering in Mac OS X)"
"I recently spoke with a renowned font designer, and he complained that Apple ignores the hinting he (and other designers) specifically puts into his fonts."
"Apple's rendering approach on Mac OS X ignores almost all the hints in a TrueType font"

These are all uncited sources, and all of them clearly show in context that they're using "hinting" as a stand-in for grid-fitting. It's a common shorthand, but a substantively inaccurate statement, which you might have recognized had you been familiar with the field of typography before you planted yourself firmly in a land of ignorance.

Hinting, contains a , all of it used by OS X, since without it, the screen version would not approximate the printed version. Hinting, a reverse metonym for grid-fitting and TrueType hint data are two separate concepts you've continually conflated, likely out of ignorance but possibly out of dishonesty.

Finally, consider this source provided by you that directly contradicts your point: http://zajac.ca/fonts/ -- observe the three way comparison between FontFocus, UNHINTED, and OS X rendering. Note that OS X and unhinted rendering are not even close to identical.

A moment's thought should illustrate why a "closest-fit grid snap" would not produce anything looking remotely legible, but in case that isn't enough

Actually, as Microsoft clearly shows, its honoring of the grid integrity is the intent of its ClearType algorithms. "Modifying an outline in this manner is known as grid-fit."

the average office worker writing a letter or spreadsheet cares more about reading the text than matching the printed page pixel-for-pixel. Newsflash: not everyone works in the same industry as you.

Logic flash: use a screen face for that.

I've got to hand it to you: your powers of denial are impressive. Subpixel rendering? Snap-to-grid? Yes, you're batting a thousand, all right.

Actually, you might have learned something and stopped the foot-mouth syndrome had you stopped to think instead of rushing to argue.

Microsoft's system does not produce text that is more legible at working sizes. I notice you presented nothing to substantiate that claim except a hilariously irrelevant and patently dishonest "side by side" showing different faces at different weights at a size no one uses for work. I do give you points for including a source clearly asserting superior legibility in OS X, though.

I make no such claim. Legibility is a wash between the two in my opinion. But technical accuracy is clearly and unequivocally in Apple's court.

"Another dumb freetard."

Another comment from someone who didn't bother to read the article or understand the issue.

Here's a quote from the Microsoft press release: "Upon completion of the migration, Go Daddy® will have moved all its parked domains from Linux to the Windows platform."

A "parked domain" is one with no real content, but just one small static web page that says something like "coming soon". The implication is that Microsoft Windows servers are fully capable of serving parked domains.

At the time, March 21, 2006, the story was that the Microsoft marketing department got GoDaddy to make the change by offering a lucrative deal. Why would Microsoft do that? This April 7, 2006 story explains: Microsoft Server gains 4.7% market share of hosted domains.

A parked domain, even though it is never visited except by accident, is a "hosted domain". Now it was possible for Microsoft sales people to talk about how Microsoft Windows server software was rapidly gaining market share. That would be entirely misleading, however.

Note that the press release misspelled GoDaddy as "Go Daddy", even though it was spelled correctly a few words earlier. That gives a picture of the level of competence involved at Microsoft's P.R. agency, Waggener Edstrom.

You may find it interesting that Pam Edstrom's daughter Jennifer and a former Microsoft manager wrote the book, Barbarians Led by Bill Gates. (August 15, 1998, eight years earlier) The Amazon.com review says the book "... presents a harsher and messier history, sharply questioning Microsoft's ethics and corporate wisdom..." The book seems authoritative; the authors certainly had inside access to the facts. It's certainly unusual that the daughter of one of the heads of Microsoft's P.R. agency would write a book discussing Microsoft's abusiveness in detail.

No, subpixel rendering methodologies are the key difference in Microsoft and Apple anti-aliasing methods. The article you originally provided demonstrates rendering differences in the subpixel algorithms. The pixel-level rendering is almost identical.

Uh-huh. I suppose that's why the line of Mac text is 14 pixels wider than the line of Windows text? "Almost" indeed.

Provide them. Start with legibility studies.

I'll do even better: here's a side-by-side comparison. That's OS X's Helvetica on top, Windows 7's Arial on bottom, both at 5 pixels high. As you can see, OS X does indeed turn off subpixel rendering at that size, but it doesn't help. Notice the letters running together. Also notice the inability to distinguish "t" from "f", "i", or "l"; "e" from "u", "o", and "s"; and "h" from "b".

Next, a source that demonstrates that OS X "ignores" TrueType hints that Apple created in the first place. Then a source showing Microsoft offers higher technical fidelity in any aspect.

"Font hinting is the method preferred by Microsoft. Unhinted font is used on OS X and Linux."
"without any hints or grid-fitting but with subpixel accuracy (similar to rendering in Mac OS X)"
"I recently spoke with a renowned font designer, and he complained that Apple ignores the hinting he (and other designers) specifically puts into his fonts."
"Apple's rendering approach on Mac OS X ignores almost all the hints in a TrueType font"

Admittedly, these are claims about Apple's renderer, not source code snippets from the renderer itself. Perhaps everyone is wrong. Do you have a better source demonstrating that Apple does respect the hints?

Then, show that the Microsoft rendering engine is anything more than a closest-fit grid snap.

A moment's thought should illustrate why a "closest-fit grid snap" would not produce anything looking remotely legible, but in case that isn't enough, here's Microsoft's overview of their rasterizer's operation, which includes: "Adjusting the outline description to the pixel grid (based on hinting information)."

If you're designing for print, you should never use an algorithm that shows different character placement and properties. If it's illegible at low resolutions on screen, increase the resolution or zoom in your document editor. You don't need on-screen legibility at tiny sizes if you're designing for print.

As I explained in my original post in this thread, that's fine for work such as graphic design where those details matter, but the average office worker writing a letter or spreadsheet cares more about reading the text than matching the printed page pixel-for-pixel. Newsflash: not everyone works in the same industry as you.

You've yet to demonstrate a single inaccuracy.

I've got to hand it to you: your powers of denial are impressive. Subpixel rendering? Snap-to-grid? Yes, you're batting a thousand, all right.

It has come to my attention that the entire Linux community is a hotbed of so called 'alternative sexuality', which includes anything from hedonistic orgies to homosexuality to paedophilia.

What better way of demonstrating this than by looking at the hidden messages contained within the names of some of Linux's most outspoken advocates:

• Linus Torvalds is an anagram of slit anus or VD 'L,' clearly referring to himself by the first initial.
• Richard M. Stallman, spokespervert for the Gaysex's Not Unusual 'movement' is an anagram of mans cram thrill ad.
• Alan Cox is barely an anagram of anal cox which is just so filthy and unchristian it unnerves me.

I'm sure that Eric S. Raymond, composer of the satanic homosexual propaganda diatribe The Cathedral and the Bizarre, is probably an anagram of something queer, but we don't need to look that far as we know he's always shoving a gun up some poor little boy's rectum. Update: Eric S. Raymond is actually an anagram for secondary rim and cord in my arse. It just goes to show you that he is indeed queer.

Update the Second: It is also documented that Evil Sicko Gaymond is responsible for a nauseating piece of code called Fetchmail, which is obviously sinister sodomite slang for 'Felch Male' -- a disgusting practise. For those not in the know, 'felching' is the act performed by two perverts wherein one sucks their own post-coital ejaculate out of the other's rectum. In fact, it appears that the dirty Linux faggots set out to undermine the good Republican institution of e-mail, turning it into 'e-male.'

As far as Richard 'Master' Stallman goes, that filthy fudge-packer was actually quoted on leftist commie propaganda site Salon.com as saying the following: 'I've been resistant to the pressure to conform in any circumstance,' he says. 'It's about being able to question conventional wisdom,' he asserts. 'I believe in love, but not monogamy,' he says plainly.

And this isn't a made up troll bullshit either! He actually stated this tripe, which makes it obvious that he is trying to politely say that he's a flaming homo slut!

Speaking about 'flaming,' who better to point out as a filthy chutney ferret than Slashdot's very own self-confessed pederast Jon Katz. Although an obvious deviant anagram cannot be found from his name, he has already confessed, nay boasted of the homosexual perversion of corrupting the innocence of young children. To quote from the article linked:

'I've got a rare kidney disease,' I told her. 'I have to go to the bathroom a lot. You can come with me if you want, but it takes a while. Is that okay with you? Do you want a note from my doctor?'

Is this why you were touching your penis in the cinema, Jon? And letting the other boys touch it too?

We should also point out that Jon Katz refers to himself as 'Slashdot's resident Gasbag.' Is there any more doubt? For those fortunate few who aren't aware of the list of homosexual terminology found inside the Linux 'Sauce Code,' a 'Gasbag' is a pervert who gains sexual gratification from having a thin straw inserted into his urethra (or to use the common parlance, 'piss-pipe'), then his homosexual lover blows firmly down the straw to inflate his scrotum. This is, of course, when he's not busy violating the dignity and co

It has come to my attention that the entire Linux community is a hotbed of so called 'alternative sexuality', which includes anything from hedonistic orgies to homosexuality to paedophilia.

What better way of demonstrating this than by looking at the hidden messages contained within the names of some of Linux's most outspoken advocates:

• Linus Torvalds is an anagram of slit anus or VD 'L,' clearly referring to himself by the first initial.
• Richard M. Stallman, spokespervert for the Gaysex's Not Unusual 'movement' is an anagram of mans cram thrill ad.
• Alan Cox is barely an anagram of anal cox which is just so filthy and unchristian it unnerves me.

I'm sure that Eric S. Raymond, composer of the satanic homosexual propaganda diatribe The Cathedral and the Bizarre, is probably an anagram of something queer, but we don't need to look that far as we know he's always shoving a gun up some poor little boy's rectum. Update: Eric S. Raymond is actually an anagram for secondary rim and cord in my arse. It just goes to show you that he is indeed queer.

Update the Second: It is also documented that Evil Sicko Gaymond is responsible for a nauseating piece of code called Fetchmail, which is obviously sinister sodomite slang for 'Felch Male' -- a disgusting practise. For those not in the know, 'felching' is the act performed by two perverts wherein one sucks their own post-coital ejaculate out of the other's rectum. In fact, it appears that the dirty Linux faggots set out to undermine the good Republican institution of e-mail, turning it into 'e-male.'

As far as Richard 'Master' Stallman goes, that filthy fudge-packer was actually quoted on leftist commie propaganda site Salon.com as saying the following: 'I've been resistant to the pressure to conform in any circumstance,' he says. 'It's about being able to question conventional wisdom,' he asserts. 'I believe in love, but not monogamy,' he says plainly.

And this isn't a made up troll bullshit either! He actually stated this tripe, which makes it obvious that he is trying to politely say that he's a flaming homo slut!

Speaking about 'flaming,' who better to point out as a filthy chutney ferret than Slashdot's very own self-confessed pederast Jon Katz. Although an obvious deviant anagram cannot be found from his name, he has already confessed, nay boasted of the homosexual perversion of corrupting the innocence of young children. To quote from the article linked:

'I've got a rare kidney disease,' I told her. 'I have to go to the bathroom a lot. You can come with me if you want, but it takes a while. Is that okay with you? Do you want a note from my doctor?'

Is this why you were touching your penis in the cinema, Jon? And letting the other boys touch it too?

We should also point out that Jon Katz refers to himself as 'Slashdot's resident Gasbag.' Is there any more doubt? For those fortunate few who aren't aware of the list of homosexual terminology found inside the Linux 'Sauce Code,' a 'Gasbag' is a pervert who gains sexual gratification from having a thin straw inserted into his urethra (or to use the common parlance, 'piss-pipe'), then his homosexual lover blows firmly down the straw to inflate his scrotum. This is, of course, when he's not busy violating the dignity and co

It has come to my attention that the entire Linux community is a hotbed of so called 'alternative sexuality', which includes anything from hedonistic orgies to homosexuality to paedophilia.

What better way of demonstrating this than by looking at the hidden messages contained within the names of some of Linux's most outspoken advocates:

• Linus Torvalds is an anagram of slit anus or VD 'L,' clearly referring to himself by the first initial.
• Richard M. Stallman, spokespervert for the Gaysex's Not Unusual 'movement' is an anagram of mans cram thrill ad.
• Alan Cox is barely an anagram of anal cox which is just so filthy and unchristian it unnerves me.

I'm sure that Eric S. Raymond, composer of the satanic homosexual propaganda diatribe The Cathedral and the Bizarre, is probably an anagram of something queer, but we don't need to look that far as we know he's always shoving a gun up some poor little boy's rectum. Update: Eric S. Raymond is actually an anagram for secondary rim and cord in my arse. It just goes to show you that he is indeed queer.

Update the Second: It is also documented that Evil Sicko Gaymond is responsible for a nauseating piece of code called Fetchmail, which is obviously sinister sodomite slang for 'Felch Male' -- a disgusting practise. For those not in the know, 'felching' is the act performed by two perverts wherein one sucks their own post-coital ejaculate out of the other's rectum. In fact, it appears that the dirty Linux faggots set out to undermine the good Republican institution of e-mail, turning it into 'e-male.'

As far as Richard 'Master' Stallman goes, that filthy fudge-packer was actually quoted on leftist commie propaganda site Salon.com as saying the following: 'I've been resistant to the pressure to conform in any circumstance,' he says. 'It's about being able to question conventional wisdom,' he asserts. 'I believe in love, but not monogamy,' he says plainly.

And this isn't a made up troll bullshit either! He actually stated this tripe, which makes it obvious that he is trying to politely say that he's a flaming homo slut!

Speaking about 'flaming,' who better to point out as a filthy chutney ferret than Slashdot's very own self-confessed pederast Jon Katz. Although an obvious deviant anagram cannot be found from his name, he has already confessed, nay boasted of the homosexual perversion of corrupting the innocence of young children. To quote from the article linked:

'I've got a rare kidney disease,' I told her. 'I have to go to the bathroom a lot. You can come with me if you want, but it takes a while. Is that okay with you? Do you want a note from my doctor?'

Is this why you were touching your penis in the cinema, Jon? And letting the other boys touch it too?

We should also point out that Jon Katz refers to himself as 'Slashdot's resident Gasbag.' Is there any more doubt? For those fortunate few who aren't aware of the list of homosexual terminology found inside the Linux 'Sauce Code,' a 'Gasbag' is a pervert who gains sexual gratification from having a thin straw inserted into his urethra (or to use the common parlance, 'piss-pipe'), then his homosexual lover blows firmly down the straw to inflate his scrotum. This is, of course, when he's not busy violating the dignity and co

Extended support is not standard support, and not available under the same terms as the original support agreement. You can always attempt to negotiate with a software vendor to provide you support for an EOL product, if you're willing to pay enough extra they will do it.

Microsoft releases SOME security fixes for wormable/remote code-execution issues for free, but not other bugfixes. And they are releasing these as a good internet citizen, not to provide general support XP users.

Examples of security bugs they won't patch are remote DoS MS doesn't think will run arbitrary code: Evidence MS09-048, Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Related to this update:

If Windows XP is listed as an affected product, why is Microsoft not issuing an update for it? By default, Windows XP Service Pack 2, Windows XP Service Pack 3, and Windows XP Professional x64 Edition Service Pack 2 do not have a listening service configured in the client firewall and are therefore not affected by this vulnerability.

Another good example of what they won't do is release an update to fix 'daylight savings time' again if the US government changes the rules again this year or next year.

Customers who prefer to have a hotfix may be able to purchase DST updates for affected Microsoft products in Extended Support via an Extended Hotfix Support (EHS) contract. A single fee of $4,000 covers all available DST hotfixes for the current calendar year.

In other words, you have to sign up with the extended support and pay the additional fees per system for the extended support, AND in addition to that pay $4000 to get the DST fix.

At this point you are not getting standard, general, or common support for your product. You are paying/contracting Microsoft to do something for you on an individual basis.

If you pay them a big enough amount of $$ as in millions, or billions, they'd probably be willing to make DOS 5.0 or Windows 3.1 patches for you.

But that's not what we're talking about... Sun's web pages indicate the general support is ending, and Windows XP general support is over and done with.

Extended support is not standard support, and not available under the same terms as the original support agreement. You can always attempt to negotiate with a software vendor to provide you support for an EOL product, if you're willing to pay enough extra they will do it.

Microsoft releases SOME security fixes for wormable/remote code-execution issues for free, but not other bugfixes. And they are releasing these as a good internet citizen, not to provide general support XP users.

Examples of security bugs they won't patch are remote DoS MS doesn't think will run arbitrary code: Evidence MS09-048, Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Related to this update:

If Windows XP is listed as an affected product, why is Microsoft not issuing an update for it? By default, Windows XP Service Pack 2, Windows XP Service Pack 3, and Windows XP Professional x64 Edition Service Pack 2 do not have a listening service configured in the client firewall and are therefore not affected by this vulnerability.

Another good example of what they won't do is release an update to fix 'daylight savings time' again if the US government changes the rules again this year or next year.

Customers who prefer to have a hotfix may be able to purchase DST updates for affected Microsoft products in Extended Support via an Extended Hotfix Support (EHS) contract. A single fee of $4,000 covers all available DST hotfixes for the current calendar year.

In other words, you have to sign up with the extended support and pay the additional fees per system for the extended support, AND in addition to that pay $4000 to get the DST fix.

At this point you are not getting standard, general, or common support for your product. You are paying/contracting Microsoft to do something for you on an individual basis.

If you pay them a big enough amount of $$ as in millions, or billions, they'd probably be willing to make DOS 5.0 or Windows 3.1 patches for you.

But that's not what we're talking about... Sun's web pages indicate the general support is ending, and Windows XP general support is over and done with.