Slashdot Mirror
"Windows 7 Compatible" PCs Must Be 64-bit
Barence writes "Microsoft has started certifying PCs as 'compatible with Windows 7' — and is looking to avoid the mistakes that dogged the Vista-Capable scheme. Whereas Microsoft certified PCs that could only run Vista Home Basic last time around, this time PCs will have to work with all versions of Windows 7 to qualify for the sticker, including 64-bit versions of the OS. Microsoft also claims, 'products that receive the logo are checked for common issues to minimize the number of crashes, hangs, and reboots experienced by the user.'"
"'products that receive the logo are checked for common issues to minimize the number of crashes, hangs, and reboots experienced by the user.'"
The Vista USB issue was a good example. And this policy would not have prevented that.
A manager at work insisted their new laptop had Vista pre-installed several years ago(pre SP 1).
Initially all was well, till it started blue-screening at random after about 6 months. It was difficult for me to nail down until Ipods(itunes) new ver 8 came out and bluescreened the machine 100% of the time when the iPod was plugged in. That was the clue I needed. Investigation found a disparity between the OS and the some (not all) USB controllers.Remember, some laptops can have different contoller type for side and back. At the time a few hot fixes wasnt 100% reliable.
Then SP1 came out, and I found a reference to my problem in the release notes. Not one problem since with USB. The manager can use her Ipod, any and all usb sticks, her USB printer at home, her camera. The fix was a couple years in the making.
In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
They don't have an official version, but there is a 64bit Firefox and I have found it to run much faster on XP X64 than 32bit Firefox. The only hangup is there is no 64bit flash for Windows, but since I'm not looking at flash it doesn't bother me. if I find a video that I absolutely must watch, well there is always Firefox 32 for that.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
That number is a lie. The unemployment rate is not based on the number of people who would like to have work but cannot find a job, but instead on the number of people currently receiving unemployment benefits.
It therefore does not include any of the people who would like to be working, but for whatever reason are either ineligible for unemployment or have not opted to seek such benefits. This group includes young people who are just entering the job market but are unable to find work, people who were casually fired (getting fewer and fewer hours per week until it becomes unprofitable for them to keep showing up), folks who left their job for whatever reason and can't find another one, and a whole slew of other people (including those that have simply been "unemployed" too long to receive further assistance).
It may very well be the best measure of employment we can capture based on available data, but merely being the best possible measure does not mean that it's not complete bullshit in the context in which you're attempting to use it.
Kid-proof tablet..