A few years back I was walking through a subway station in Toronto trying to get to college. A single (female) MADD rep was standing in the halls with a collection box begging for money.
I didn't know much about them, but I believed MADD was a good cause. At the time I was a poor student, so I humored her and said "No thanks, not today" (as opposed to ignoring her existence as is normal on the Toronto subway). And you know what she says to me?
Oh, so you SUPPORT drunk driving?
At this point I wanted to throttle her, I was absolutely speechless. I walked away with my jaw agape, stupefied. I wish I had said, "no, but I'll never support MADD again because of your sickening implications" or something to that effect.
Since that day I've decided I'll never give to any charities ever again. They are simply too manipulative for their own good.
Where 'glitch' = orchestrated attempt to mislead the googlebot for the purpose of luring suckers into paying for answers that they were led to by a seemingly legitimate Google search.
"In certain circumstances Windows Vista will trade off network performance in order to improve multimedia playback. This is by design."
I know we've been over this before. But for whom are we 'improv[ing] multimedia playback'? Is it really an issue in 2007, to perform a network transfer and play an MP3? Or is it Vista's "secure audio path" that is responsible for this? Remember, this is the same Vista that polls your hardware every few ms to check if you're playing 'premium content'.
I know not everything bad Microsoft does is done with forethought and malice (..) but really now. After reading the 'cost analysis of Vista content protection', can you not understand the apprehension? If some "multimedia" (albeit not 'premium content', but who's counting) is played, other parts of the system deliberately go into a 'limited' state? After reading that, does it sound like a bug to you?
"But as you know, the drivers involved in both activities run at extremely high priority. As a result, the network driver can cause media playback to degrade. This shows up to the user as things like popping and crackling during audio playback."
I call shenanigans.
Even if this is a legitimate "bug", i.e. the Vista testers were actually experiencing crackling audio while performing high bandwidth network transfers, who made the conscious decision to throttle the *network* instead of fixing the audio path and audio drivers? Windows XP had no problems performing high-bandwidth transfers and using the sound simultaneously. Besides normal operating system scheduling there was no 'throttling' of any device A when any device B activates. This is Vista content protection backfiring, plain and simple.
Woman: Would you like to buy some Itchy and Scratchy Money? Homer: What's that? Woman: Well it's money that's made just for the park. It works just
like regular money, but it's, er..."fun".
Bart: Do it, Dad. Homer: Well, OK, if it's fun...let's see, uh...I'll take $1100 worth.
[he walks in, sees all the signs: "No I&S Money", "We Don't Take
Itchy and Scratchy Money", etc.]
Aw! -- So much for fun, "Itchy and Scratchy Land"
Every week, I hear about a new thing that will "only be in 64-bit Vista". First it was HDTV content only on 64-bit for DRM reasons. Now, we're hearing the reasoning that Windows will be more secure if we don't let third parties in the kernel. Fine, whatever. If we were to assume that makes it more secure, then so be it.
But why bother to release an inferior 32-bit version? Under the presumption that closing the 64-bit kernel off will make things better, why not use the same strict security policies in 32-bit? Surely, there can't be any technical reason for all of this. It's all marketing, right? ("Microsoft recommends a 64-bit PC.")
Or is there some real reason why it feels like 32-bit Vista and 64-bit Vista are two entirely different operating systems?
Slashdot Mirror
A few years back I was walking through a subway station in Toronto trying to get to college. A single (female) MADD rep was standing in the halls with a collection box begging for money.
I didn't know much about them, but I believed MADD was a good cause. At the time I was a poor student, so I humored her and said "No thanks, not today" (as opposed to ignoring her existence as is normal on the Toronto subway). And you know what she says to me?
Oh, so you SUPPORT drunk driving?
At this point I wanted to throttle her, I was absolutely speechless. I walked away with my jaw agape, stupefied. I wish I had said, "no, but I'll never support MADD again because of your sickening implications" or something to that effect. Since that day I've decided I'll never give to any charities ever again. They are simply too manipulative for their own good.
Where 'glitch' = orchestrated attempt to mislead the googlebot for the purpose of luring suckers into paying for answers that they were led to by a seemingly legitimate Google search.
"In certain circumstances Windows Vista will trade off network performance in order to improve multimedia playback. This is by design."
I know we've been over this before. But for whom are we 'improv[ing] multimedia playback'? Is it really an issue in 2007, to perform a network transfer and play an MP3? Or is it Vista's "secure audio path" that is responsible for this? Remember, this is the same Vista that polls your hardware every few ms to check if you're playing 'premium content'.
I know not everything bad Microsoft does is done with forethought and malice (..) but really now. After reading the 'cost analysis of Vista content protection', can you not understand the apprehension? If some "multimedia" (albeit not 'premium content', but who's counting) is played, other parts of the system deliberately go into a 'limited' state? After reading that, does it sound like a bug to you?
"But as you know, the drivers involved in both activities run at extremely high priority. As a result, the network driver can cause media playback to degrade. This shows up to the user as things like popping and crackling during audio playback."
I call shenanigans.
Even if this is a legitimate "bug", i.e. the Vista testers were actually experiencing crackling audio while performing high bandwidth network transfers, who made the conscious decision to throttle the *network* instead of fixing the audio path and audio drivers? Windows XP had no problems performing high-bandwidth transfers and using the sound simultaneously. Besides normal operating system scheduling there was no 'throttling' of any device A when any device B activates. This is Vista content protection backfiring, plain and simple.
Woman: Would you like to buy some Itchy and Scratchy Money?
Homer: What's that?
Woman: Well it's money that's made just for the park. It works just
like regular money, but it's, er..."fun".
Bart: Do it, Dad.
Homer: Well, OK, if it's fun...let's see, uh...I'll take $1100 worth.
[he walks in, sees all the signs: "No I&S Money", "We Don't Take
Itchy and Scratchy Money", etc.]
Aw!
-- So much for fun, "Itchy and Scratchy Land"
..to release a 32-bit version of Vista?
Every week, I hear about a new thing that will "only be in 64-bit Vista". First it was HDTV content only on 64-bit for DRM reasons. Now, we're hearing the reasoning that Windows will be more secure if we don't let third parties in the kernel. Fine, whatever. If we were to assume that makes it more secure, then so be it.
But why bother to release an inferior 32-bit version? Under the presumption that closing the 64-bit kernel off will make things better, why not use the same strict security policies in 32-bit? Surely, there can't be any technical reason for all of this. It's all marketing, right? ("Microsoft recommends a 64-bit PC.")
Or is there some real reason why it feels like 32-bit Vista and 64-bit Vista are two entirely different operating systems?