Sounds like his lawyers are getting nervous. Or the PR people. I'm sure even in their insulated world of high finance and 'creative' accounting they got some backlash for their behavior over the matter.
hardware incompatibilities, software incompatibilities, slowdowns, crashes, freezeups. I can certainly feel your pain there, I'm somewhat of the computer goto guy for friends and family. And recently a friend went to a local big box for a computer, walked out with a Gateway machine built on a 3800+ x2 on a nForce 430 w/ integrated 6100. I had urged him to let me order him one up, but he refused (which is funny cuz I just ordered a nearly identical machine for $330 (minus monitor, speakers, keyboard/mouse) with him watching just to rub it in, he payed $1200 about a year ago). Either way even though his computer has some of the most common hardware on the market, Vista will not run stable... Been troubleshooting it for a few months now. Only thing holding back XP from being installed is the fact Gateway has only released Vista drivers and I can't manage to force the install of stock Nvidia 430 drivers.
I warned him... And I'm not saying it's Vista's fault in the case, I'm more inclined to think shoddy implementation of Nvidia drivers and/or poor hardware from Gateway.
I think that any company that rusahes a product to market and the consumer ends up paying for it, should be punished for such negligence. http://www.badsoftware.com/support1.htm
(don't play games) That's the deal breaker for me, I can't be comfortable knowing I'm seeing an average 10% reduction in frame rates by simply using Vista compared to XP on identical hardware. But I felt the same way in regards to 2000 vs. XP. And I suppose it (Vista) will eventually get installed when/if DX10 reaches critical mass.
First of all I think the 'Vista Capable' suit is ridiculous. Microsoft deserves to win that one, because I am well aware of what was on the shelf on the low to mid range during that time frame. And those machines should of been fine, I had Vista RTM up and running on my P3 1Ghz w/ GeForce 6600. And it ran with Aero, and was certainly 'capable' in classic.
However I can understand Microsoft's dismay at it's performance, for relatively little gain you are incurring tremendous performance hit's across the board. File transfer and gaming come to mind most quickly however. But during it's development cycle I got the impression they really had no idea what they wanted out of Vista, dropping key features over the years. And seemingly concentrating to hard on a 'shiny' UI, that although slick in some respects still feels like a mangled XP GUI, with simply a reworked folder system. And a much lauded search to run feature that should of simply been in XP SP3 to hold users over while something, smaller, better, faster, stronger was being developed.
But in the interests of full disclosure, I have Vista running in a VM... A couple more trips to newegg.com and I might finally install it, DirectX 10 is still exciting to me.
Yeah I kinda got that, the browser techs on the desktop thing. I guess I never thought of the benefits of being able to run those techs with elevated privileges. I guess it could lower the bar for desktop app publishing. But whether that's a good thing or not...
Just from a quick perusal of The Google, I'm getting a distinct feeling AIR is something of a glorified web browser. So you can run offline and on your desktop? Hmmmm... Does anyone remember Push technology? Or Active Channels? It seems a little like that, but heavy on the Web 2.0 sauce. But like I said, this was just from a quick perusal of Google results. If anyone would care to point out what makes AIR, more than a glorfied Browser+AJAX, I'm all ears...
Metcalfe says that the current approach being taken in the standards bodies won't get us to terabit rates. So, without going into too much detail, he said he expects a technology revolution, during which proprietary and innovative approaches to Terabit Ethernet will rule, at least at first. He said he sees it as an opportunity to "break loose from the stranglehold of standards and move into some fun new technologies." Ahhh, the struggle to stay relevant I suppose. Especially considering this guy has one awards from IEEE, a standards body. It almost feels he has an axe to grind from that short statement, at least in regards to the process perhaps. But then again he is a venture capitalist, perhaps he is laying down some good press for some startups he might have dumped some cash into? Also he has had some incorrect predictions before, my favorite being Windows 2000 would crush Linux.
How about every 10 years said item would go up to the auction block, if a competitor out bids you. They can claim the IP, if no one wants to compete the original value must be paid otherwise IP goes into public domain. And for IP that drastically changes in value in a short time, a petition could be filed that if properly cause is shown an auction could be triggered early.
Or something, really I'm thinking any alternative more sensible than the life+70 would be good.
Nowadays one tries to break power generation up into much smaller parts - perhaps as far as to your own cellar. Yup, thanks to my awesome chemistry set, I'm way a head of the curve on this one.
I can't find specifics, but from this article I would wager it was probably a whole afternoon. I would of jumped at the chance to be there, and get beer money for later. But I can only imagine what Joe Six-Pack and company thought of the whole event.
It almost seems like a move of desperation, I can't imagine why they would be that desperate though. Granted public opinion seems to be against what they are doing, but when has public opinion ever generated decent regulation from the FCC.
Would pornographic sites be forced to move to the domain?
Would non-pornographic sites be forced to not use the domain? I think the.xxx domain is good in theory, but you get into that whole gray area of what would constitute pornography and who would decide. Things like art, erotica, non-nude (not to be confused with never nude), voyeurism, modeling, etc., etc.,. Would all be up in the air. It really comes down to parental involvement. The internet does not need to be, nor should it be, kid friendly.
Utah would create a child-friendly designation for ISPs that block out a range of prohibited materials. Considering a scientologist is lead to believe that certain knowledge they aren't ready for can kill them. I could totally see CoS getting on board with this and blocking xenu.net to 'protect their children'.
It starts with naked people, who are incredibly dangerous and an affront to any morally upstanding U.S. citizen such as myself. Next we ban anything about drugs that isn't inline with our current policy. Then we ban violence. Then we ban info on anything the state deems illegal or subversive. Then we ban known dissidents from speaking in a non approved forum. Then we are safe.
It will never work, the state and/or companies that would try and implement it would needlessly expose themselves to liability once parents who let the computer screen baby sit their kids realize it's not fool proof.
Islam in and of itself is not evil, I have a copy of the Quaran sitting right here on my desk. But like most any religon, yes it does indeed lead to so called 'evil' behavior. Them damn 'people of the book' need to be set the fuck straight and all.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh yeah, funniest thing I've read all day!
I warned him... And I'm not saying it's Vista's fault in the case, I'm more inclined to think shoddy implementation of Nvidia drivers and/or poor hardware from Gateway.
I think that any company that rusahes a product to market and the consumer ends up paying for it, should be punished for such negligence. http://www.badsoftware.com/support1.htm
Click Start > Right Click 'Computer' > Advanced System Settings > Performance Settings > Adjust For Best Performance
Runs like a champ in a VM on my AM2 Sempron, with 512MB of memory allocated to it.
First of all I think the 'Vista Capable' suit is ridiculous. Microsoft deserves to win that one, because I am well aware of what was on the shelf on the low to mid range during that time frame. And those machines should of been fine, I had Vista RTM up and running on my P3 1Ghz w/ GeForce 6600. And it ran with Aero, and was certainly 'capable' in classic.
However I can understand Microsoft's dismay at it's performance, for relatively little gain you are incurring tremendous performance hit's across the board. File transfer and gaming come to mind most quickly however. But during it's development cycle I got the impression they really had no idea what they wanted out of Vista, dropping key features over the years. And seemingly concentrating to hard on a 'shiny' UI, that although slick in some respects still feels like a mangled XP GUI, with simply a reworked folder system. And a much lauded search to run feature that should of simply been in XP SP3 to hold users over while something, smaller, better, faster, stronger was being developed.
But in the interests of full disclosure, I have Vista running in a VM... A couple more trips to newegg.com and I might finally install it, DirectX 10 is still exciting to me.
Yeah I kinda got that, the browser techs on the desktop thing. I guess I never thought of the benefits of being able to run those techs with elevated privileges. I guess it could lower the bar for desktop app publishing. But whether that's a good thing or not...
Just from a quick perusal of The Google, I'm getting a distinct feeling AIR is something of a glorified web browser. So you can run offline and on your desktop? Hmmmm... Does anyone remember Push technology? Or Active Channels? It seems a little like that, but heavy on the Web 2.0 sauce. But like I said, this was just from a quick perusal of Google results. If anyone would care to point out what makes AIR, more than a glorfied Browser+AJAX, I'm all ears...
How about every 10 years said item would go up to the auction block, if a competitor out bids you. They can claim the IP, if no one wants to compete the original value must be paid otherwise IP goes into public domain. And for IP that drastically changes in value in a short time, a petition could be filed that if properly cause is shown an auction could be triggered early.
Or something, really I'm thinking any alternative more sensible than the life+70 would be good.
On the face of it, I love that idea. The bigger question would be how do you determine the value of the IP to assess it for taxation.
You crazy nerds and your whacked out science fiction tech are completely off target here, what they really need is Magic!
Alaska
I can't find specifics, but from this article I would wager it was probably a whole afternoon. I would of jumped at the chance to be there, and get beer money for later. But I can only imagine what Joe Six-Pack and company thought of the whole event.
It almost seems like a move of desperation, I can't imagine why they would be that desperate though. Granted public opinion seems to be against what they are doing, but when has public opinion ever generated decent regulation from the FCC.
I couldn't imagine anything more than 20-50 dollars...
Would non-pornographic sites be forced to not use the domain? I think the
It starts with naked people, who are incredibly dangerous and an affront to any morally upstanding U.S. citizen such as myself. Next we ban anything about drugs that isn't inline with our current policy. Then we ban violence. Then we ban info on anything the state deems illegal or subversive. Then we ban known dissidents from speaking in a non approved forum. Then we are safe.
It will never work, the state and/or companies that would try and implement it would needlessly expose themselves to liability once parents who let the computer screen baby sit their kids realize it's not fool proof.
Islam in and of itself is not evil, I have a copy of the Quaran sitting right here on my desk. But like most any religon, yes it does indeed lead to so called 'evil' behavior. Them damn 'people of the book' need to be set the fuck straight and all.