Because people are generally not satisfied with Vista. The parent is right, Vista is the current Windows version whether you like it or not and since you don't like it retailers keep selling PCs with XP installed. The important thing here is that while Microsoft has an agenda for future revenue, retailers on the other hand are on their own. Profit for them is profit, no matter the product, but for Microsoft it's a step back if it's XP. The majority of revenue generated through XP has already been collected, thus Microsoft needs a new platform to sell to all of it's customer base. This is how business works.
Hehe until the world is flooded with XP licenses everywhere and direct "quick fix" revenue stops. Or they can push out a new version, with "all new features" and bling and colors and nude chicks and fluffy bunnies, force the software upon the masses (oops, your software is about to reach End of Life deadline) and bring in all that revenue that you once got for the XP licenses--again.
Or you could release a new version that looks sharp but acts retarded, quickly give it up and release its slightly less retarded brother. As long as it isn't as retarded people won't complain, given that people are as retarded as they are by todays standard.
Honestly Business apps are NOT READY for vista or vista64. Most vertical apps have no other option and are written by retarded monkeys locked in closets... (Filemaker based sales applications, I look directly at those abortions with hatred) and VB6... yes a LOT of Vertical market apps are written in VB6 and STILL IN VB6! When you ask when they will be compatible with Vista and Vista64... I get the ambigous "we are working on it...." They have been working on it for 3 years now!
So we are downgrading to eliminate problems. Even running the problematic software in a VM is not a workable solution. I am getting networking problems and one of the apps actually needs decent 2d graphics speed which you do not get from a VM. USB devices that work with that special software has problems going through the VM wall, etc....
So you're changing your horse because the saddle didn't fit? Hehehe call it flamebait if you want but this would never have happened if the OS was Linux.
Why not? What makes anybody else in the world more qualified to make such a judgement call than you?
What? What kind of a question is that? Of course there are many people more and less qualified than I. Just like any task there is. Stop your humanistic bullshit, we're not all equal. Sure we might have to consider eachother of equal value, simply because the factors are too many for a human to consider, but we're not equal. And if we were it would be a pretty worthless world to live in. I'm not ashamed of my flaws, we all have them, just as well as we all have skills. And I can tell you this, I haven't reviewed any case of this nature, I haven't spoken to any people that went through this. I don't know the impacts. I'm not a psychiatrist.
So you see, the world is not black and white. I've made up my mind and I thought I made that clear, but just because I don't reason like you do you seem to have gotten confused.
A human being cannot do everything, thus one cannot demand a human being to do so. We are all capable of different things, and the more specified the task get, the less people are able to get it done, and of course vice versa. I don't give my my right to think, rather on the contrary, my line of thought is very important. I think that someone else can think of a better solution than I can. Thus I'm not passive but the exact opposite.
Where did I say that? I can jump to ridiculous rethorical conclusions too you know.
So you're saying that we should completely ignore the fact that children get exposed in this way, so that not only the pedophile gets to see the child in this horrible state, but so that the world can sit down and have a look at the expense of the life of an innocent child.
But then again, let's stop being idiots and focus on the topic. Just because I feel that child porn should be stopped it doesn't mean I don't care about child abuse.
I'm not the one to define where the line is drawn. But I do know that I don't wish for my nieces or nephews to stumble upon pictures of children being brutally raped on the net, in the library or on a poster. I don't see why this would be strange. But you're right, I haven't considered the millions and billions of scenarios that can occur. I did consider one though, mentioned above, and this is something I think children should be protected from.
Please don't draw any sudden conclusions. I'm not buying into any ideas here. My line of thought is very simple so there's no need to quote or draw parallels to what others have said and thought and done.
So back to the topic. If I manage to prevent my kid from accidently stumbling upon pictures of another child being raped I would do it in a heartbeat, and I think you would to. But your concern is more about "at what cost". I never claimed that this goes above all, rather the contrary. My point was pretty clear. In the society I reside in I tolerate some things and I don't tolerate other things. I don't tolerate murder for example, and by amputating everybodies arms and legs we could prevent murder. But of course this is silly and it's definetly not the right way to do it as there's an immense sacrifice to it, but this doesn't mean we still don't consider murder as intolerable.
If you think that this is no longer about children but instead it's about enforcing views upon others you're repeating what I said. It's not about the censorship, as you imply when you say that it's no longer about the children, but about the way it's enforced.
Even critics need to be susceptible to critisism. Just because it's critisism it doesn't make it correct or justified. If you prove to Torvalds, or anyone for that matter, that his piece of code is flawed I doubt he would neglect that. But if you're one of many with flawed solutions to a problem then you should also be prepared to have your proposition declined.
"...Linux people tend to see genuine critical evaluation as a bad thing."
Ok first of all, are we talking about users or developers? Because if we're talking about developers I doubt he's ever read one of Torvalds gentle mails about piece of code he doesn't like. And if we're talking about users I would like to have him sit down with my mother when I first installed Ubuntu on her PC. Do that and then come tell me there's no critisism towards Linux.
If one managed to censor 100% of all child pornography without affecting anything else, there wouldn't be much complaint. Thus it's not about the censorship, it's about the procedure. Trying to censor child pornography makes perfect sense, however the way it's done is sloppy and incorrect. The whole subject is very sensitive as it involves many heavy weighing factors, freedom of speech, innocent children etc. The point is if the filter was applied with 100% accuracy (which as far as I know is impossible to do, at least today) there wouldn't be any problems.
The same goes with machines from Swedens largest bank Swedbank. I saw it crash once and it was, just like the one you saw, running NT or Win2k. Back then I would have told you for sure which one but I don't remember much more than a "classic" start button.
It implies that they abandoned the technology during (or after) the 1960s and now they pick up where they left. If it had been an evolving process the time of origin would more or less be irrelevant because that would make it todays technology. The PC has a few years on it's back, but you refer to PCs as todays technology as it has been undergoing an evolving process, no matter the time of origin.
Of course you're right, however I think it was relatively obvious that I was considering a certain line of business. By the way isn't antitrust only applicable when risking monopoly? That's the only situation I've seen or heard about it, but perhaps I'm wrong.
It would be the case if they had continued working on that model, but they didn't. So basically you would be saying that Windows is stable because Unix is old, which doesn't add up.
What? That makes absolutely no sense. Lock-in means that you bundle two normally separated products to exclusively function with eachother. It can be the.doc format and MS Office Word, or Apple Itunes and the iPod, or even Half Life and Steam. The dependency can be a past, current or future product and whichever it is is irrelevant.
Apologies for being repetetative but the root cause is patents, right? Even if you don't agree that patents are the devils work you'd have to agree that the current patent system is immensely flawed. I honestly wonder how long we're supposed to watch this circus.
First of all it's not something you migrate to in a heartbeat. It takes time and careful consideration. And you're right, not all benefit from it but why should they? Or more importantly, why is it bad unless the majority benefits from it? There are many businesses that would find this to be a good solution. And what goes for central storage, most larger networks often use a similair solution. I have my data on my hard drive, but trust me, if I lose my network connection my data is rendered more or less useless anyway. But the point is you don't build a cloud system and leave space for network outage. If you're very depended on it you make sure there are plan B's and C's and D's.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? You do realise that in about 4-5 years XP will be as old as Win98 is today, right?
Because people are generally not satisfied with Vista. The parent is right, Vista is the current Windows version whether you like it or not and since you don't like it retailers keep selling PCs with XP installed. The important thing here is that while Microsoft has an agenda for future revenue, retailers on the other hand are on their own. Profit for them is profit, no matter the product, but for Microsoft it's a step back if it's XP. The majority of revenue generated through XP has already been collected, thus Microsoft needs a new platform to sell to all of it's customer base. This is how business works.
Hehe until the world is flooded with XP licenses everywhere and direct "quick fix" revenue stops. Or they can push out a new version, with "all new features" and bling and colors and nude chicks and fluffy bunnies, force the software upon the masses (oops, your software is about to reach End of Life deadline) and bring in all that revenue that you once got for the XP licenses--again.
Or you could release a new version that looks sharp but acts retarded, quickly give it up and release its slightly less retarded brother. As long as it isn't as retarded people won't complain, given that people are as retarded as they are by todays standard.
And that my friend is how you do business.
Honestly Business apps are NOT READY for vista or vista64. Most vertical apps have no other option and are written by retarded monkeys locked in closets... (Filemaker based sales applications, I look directly at those abortions with hatred) and VB6... yes a LOT of Vertical market apps are written in VB6 and STILL IN VB6! When you ask when they will be compatible with Vista and Vista64... I get the ambigous "we are working on it...." They have been working on it for 3 years now! So we are downgrading to eliminate problems. Even running the problematic software in a VM is not a workable solution. I am getting networking problems and one of the apps actually needs decent 2d graphics speed which you do not get from a VM. USB devices that work with that special software has problems going through the VM wall, etc....
So you're changing your horse because the saddle didn't fit? Hehehe call it flamebait if you want but this would never have happened if the OS was Linux.
Why not? What makes anybody else in the world more qualified to make such a judgement call than you?
What? What kind of a question is that? Of course there are many people more and less qualified than I. Just like any task there is. Stop your humanistic bullshit, we're not all equal. Sure we might have to consider eachother of equal value, simply because the factors are too many for a human to consider, but we're not equal. And if we were it would be a pretty worthless world to live in. I'm not ashamed of my flaws, we all have them, just as well as we all have skills. And I can tell you this, I haven't reviewed any case of this nature, I haven't spoken to any people that went through this. I don't know the impacts. I'm not a psychiatrist.
So you see, the world is not black and white. I've made up my mind and I thought I made that clear, but just because I don't reason like you do you seem to have gotten confused.
A human being cannot do everything, thus one cannot demand a human being to do so. We are all capable of different things, and the more specified the task get, the less people are able to get it done, and of course vice versa. I don't give my my right to think, rather on the contrary, my line of thought is very important. I think that someone else can think of a better solution than I can. Thus I'm not passive but the exact opposite.
Where did I say that? I can jump to ridiculous rethorical conclusions too you know.
So you're saying that we should completely ignore the fact that children get exposed in this way, so that not only the pedophile gets to see the child in this horrible state, but so that the world can sit down and have a look at the expense of the life of an innocent child.
But then again, let's stop being idiots and focus on the topic. Just because I feel that child porn should be stopped it doesn't mean I don't care about child abuse.
Maybe Jupiter has finally passed puberty.
It shrunk 15% in 10 years. More like Jupiter finally retired.
I'm not the one to define where the line is drawn. But I do know that I don't wish for my nieces or nephews to stumble upon pictures of children being brutally raped on the net, in the library or on a poster. I don't see why this would be strange. But you're right, I haven't considered the millions and billions of scenarios that can occur. I did consider one though, mentioned above, and this is something I think children should be protected from.
Please don't draw any sudden conclusions. I'm not buying into any ideas here. My line of thought is very simple so there's no need to quote or draw parallels to what others have said and thought and done.
So back to the topic. If I manage to prevent my kid from accidently stumbling upon pictures of another child being raped I would do it in a heartbeat, and I think you would to. But your concern is more about "at what cost". I never claimed that this goes above all, rather the contrary. My point was pretty clear. In the society I reside in I tolerate some things and I don't tolerate other things. I don't tolerate murder for example, and by amputating everybodies arms and legs we could prevent murder. But of course this is silly and it's definetly not the right way to do it as there's an immense sacrifice to it, but this doesn't mean we still don't consider murder as intolerable.
If you think that this is no longer about children but instead it's about enforcing views upon others you're repeating what I said. It's not about the censorship, as you imply when you say that it's no longer about the children, but about the way it's enforced.
Even critics need to be susceptible to critisism. Just because it's critisism it doesn't make it correct or justified. If you prove to Torvalds, or anyone for that matter, that his piece of code is flawed I doubt he would neglect that. But if you're one of many with flawed solutions to a problem then you should also be prepared to have your proposition declined.
"...Linux people tend to see genuine critical evaluation as a bad thing."
Ok first of all, are we talking about users or developers? Because if we're talking about developers I doubt he's ever read one of Torvalds gentle mails about piece of code he doesn't like. And if we're talking about users I would like to have him sit down with my mother when I first installed Ubuntu on her PC. Do that and then come tell me there's no critisism towards Linux.
If one managed to censor 100% of all child pornography without affecting anything else, there wouldn't be much complaint. Thus it's not about the censorship, it's about the procedure. Trying to censor child pornography makes perfect sense, however the way it's done is sloppy and incorrect. The whole subject is very sensitive as it involves many heavy weighing factors, freedom of speech, innocent children etc. The point is if the filter was applied with 100% accuracy (which as far as I know is impossible to do, at least today) there wouldn't be any problems.
The same goes with machines from Swedens largest bank Swedbank. I saw it crash once and it was, just like the one you saw, running NT or Win2k. Back then I would have told you for sure which one but I don't remember much more than a "classic" start button.
Not really, Ubuntu has 33% longer than 3 hours and XP has 25% less than 4 hours. Seems pretty predefined to me.
My conclusion: On a slow system, XP is faster.
You reach to a conclusion about all slower PCs using one single hardware setup as test subject?
Have you considered journalism?
It implies that they abandoned the technology during (or after) the 1960s and now they pick up where they left. If it had been an evolving process the time of origin would more or less be irrelevant because that would make it todays technology. The PC has a few years on it's back, but you refer to PCs as todays technology as it has been undergoing an evolving process, no matter the time of origin.
Of course you're right, however I think it was relatively obvious that I was considering a certain line of business. By the way isn't antitrust only applicable when risking monopoly? That's the only situation I've seen or heard about it, but perhaps I'm wrong.
It would be the case if they had continued working on that model, but they didn't. So basically you would be saying that Windows is stable because Unix is old, which doesn't add up.
...and builds on 1960s technology to make it safer.
Does this mean that since the 1960's the safety of space travel has declined?
What? That makes absolutely no sense. Lock-in means that you bundle two normally separated products to exclusively function with eachother. It can be the .doc format and MS Office Word, or Apple Itunes and the iPod, or even Half Life and Steam. The dependency can be a past, current or future product and whichever it is is irrelevant.
Essentially there's no difference in not being able to question authority and having the illusion that you can question authority.
Apologies for being repetetative but the root cause is patents, right? Even if you don't agree that patents are the devils work you'd have to agree that the current patent system is immensely flawed. I honestly wonder how long we're supposed to watch this circus.
12 hours? That seems a bit rough. The whole point is to maintain the perks of emailing, such as speed.
But you're right, this won't stop your ex-girlfriend from drunk-calling me either...
...but you have to understand that people are much more critical when they know it's controlled.
Yeah people are in no way easily manipulated, especially highly educated people such as the Chinese that are tought from birth to question authority.
First of all it's not something you migrate to in a heartbeat. It takes time and careful consideration. And you're right, not all benefit from it but why should they? Or more importantly, why is it bad unless the majority benefits from it? There are many businesses that would find this to be a good solution. And what goes for central storage, most larger networks often use a similair solution. I have my data on my hard drive, but trust me, if I lose my network connection my data is rendered more or less useless anyway. But the point is you don't build a cloud system and leave space for network outage. If you're very depended on it you make sure there are plan B's and C's and D's.