I was mostly joking. But if you think I'm mistaken (other than the fact that he obviously can't impose budget cuts until he gets into office), you might want to try googling "obama nasa budget". Just leave the 'cuts' part out, to get "unbaised" results.
The moral of the story is, most political candidates are going to have at least a few policies/positions you don't agree with.
The Aero effects are probably the biggest difference. They are considerably more 'heavy' than the effects I've seen in desktop Linux. Much more on par with OS X with the amount of manipulation, shading, etc. (and OS X generally has a fairly well-specced system behind it). I can't give a complexity comparison for the gadget/widget apps on Linux, but from what I've seen Sidebar gadgets do, I can say it's significantly more robust than what I've seen Google Desktop do.
And then you get into the background stuff...as others have mentioned, Windows runs a lot of extra services many people do not need, where Linux generally does not generally even install them until you get an application that needs them (And fortunately the prerequsite checking in Linux is very nice and effective, otherwise this could be disasterous to a regular user).
I do think you will see some of the improvements you are looking for in Windows 7. I can personally verify that Aero (dwm.exe) uses a lot less RAM and seems more responsive. I have also heard discussion about 7 coming pre-loaded with fewer services and applications. (Unfortuantely that is just Windows, not the manufacturers loating less crapware on them).
In a nutshell: RAM and new PCs are dirt frickin' cheap. Why do you expect a modern OS to run well on a 4+ year old system that hasn't at least had a memory upgrade? Vista has it's share of bloat, but it's not completely out of line. Remember when XP launched? People with 128MB of RAM were bitching that they needed 512MB to run it well. It's the same thing now.
Then quite simply....don't upgrade your operating system. No one is forcing you to buy Vista or upgrade to the latest version of . If something comes out that requires a new operating system, you have a simple choice...do without that something, or upgrade that beige hunk of junk under the desk.
I'll be the first to admit there is plenty of fat in need of trimming in Vista. For what it is, it could run better on 1GB of RAM. (And from what I have seen in 7, some of that fat has actually been trimmed). I still think the demaands are fairly reasonable.
Offhand, I can think of 3 major resource hogs that justify the need for more resources: Search Indexing, Sidebar, and Aero. All of which can be quite useful (Aero is a *little* more than eye candy, and has potential to be very useful if properly utilized by applications), and all of which consume a decent amount of resources, even if they are optimized a bit better. I'm no expert, and I'm guessing you aren't either, so I can only speculate here. Search Indexing will add a pretty constant CPU and memory tax...and it could probably be better, when I have Google Desktop installed it's definately less noticable than Window's indexing...but not by a large margin. Side bar is a collection of small applications which is like having a bunch of extra crap open, which is simply more resources used...there may be some optimization that can go on there, but how much? Aero has the most obvious performance implications, but since 7 has trimmed it down to about a third, I would say there is plenty of bloat there.
So there are 3 major justifications for the extra resources needed. Then there is all the background stuff that gets changed, enhanced, added, etc. Some of which is not necessary for most people, but some is, and some of it is very useful.
So that's why I think it's fairly reasonable that it needs so many resources. I've used several recent Linux distros and OS X, and comparing what they all offer for the performance, they are relatively close in line, with Windows having a bit of flab around the midsection.. You can agree or disagree and call me crazy all you want.
The file copying slowness was actually related to something new in their networking stack which I believe was fixed in SP1. If I wasn't lasy I would try to look it up and find links for you. I use a Vista box for copying large numbers of files between servers because the copy dialog actually provides useful information, doesn't cancel on simple errors and the speed seems the same to me. (If it's a LOT of information I use a backup utility).
Ah, wait 5 minutes before posting a comment....so I got a link for you:
When you can buy 2GB Ram upgrades for existing systems for $30, or brand new PCs with Dual Core CPUs and 2-3GB of ram for $400 (incl. MS Tax), Yes, less than that is generally crap.
I first put a gig of RAM in my old PIII system I had in college. That was 6-7 years ago. Believe it or not, computers get more powerful and cheaper as time goes on. A computer is not a refrigerator or similar appliance you should expect to perform well for over five years.
I agree. I would like to see the same tests run on XP and see how much of an improvement it offers. I would imagine some, but not a whole lot.
I installed a leaked copy of Windows 7 on a test box and the UI is definately more responsive...not a huge difference but noticable. The dwm.exe (Dreaded Windows Manager, is what I call it) for the UI uses a hell of a lot less memory than it did before. But aside from that, some minor dialog box changes, it just seems like Vista to me. Which is fine, I haven't had any real issues with Vista in the last year now that stable hardware drivers exist for pretty much everything. Granted I don't try to run it on crap systems with less than 2GB of RAM, either. Although my 7 test box only has 1GB of RAM.
I'm waiting for a version with the new taskbar to come out, to see if it's actually worth a squat or not. Oh, they did put the fancy ribbon UI on paint, wordpad, etc. Updated calculator, too. I guess they figured it was time to update them since they remained pretty much the same since 3.1....
Yeah, really...it doesn't get much more Massively Multiplayer than EVE. Biggest population in a single game world. (Not counting Second Life, because it's just different in too many ways).
Also, wouldn't you think they would just get mistaken for gold farmers? Hehehe.
Because clearly, no one likes Republicans, and they only stayed in power due to vote manipulation. Just like how the faked the moon landing. And they were responsible for the JFK assassination.
Seriously, I would like them to abolish the two-party system entirely, and by proxy the electoral college. I really think most people are generally moderate in their views, but are forced to pick sides they may not wholly agree with and make assumptions about members of the other party, who may sometimes fall closer in line with their views.
That's the other great thing about Slashdot readers....many of us are atheists....so you can do whatever you want and just fade out of existence like the rest of us!
Quit rambling about your unfounded theories here....we all know damn well that no amount of tequila or diamonds could cause any girl to sleep with a Slashdot reader.
Just a shot in the dark, but maybe they had 3rd party stuff in the drivers and they couldnt legally GPL it...Dolby Digital, etc...and then they removed it now so they can? Just a guess.
Also looking for Taiyo Yuden brand helps (or anything made in Japan...that should be TY just rebranded). Every knowledgable board I've looked over on the subject has recommended them, and I have never had a single one of their disks out of probably 200 now be bad from the start. Unfortunately I don't have any 'old' disks to test. I keep most of my data backed up on hard drives.
You can call them what you want, but if you think CNN, MSNBC, ABC, or Fox are a reliable way to get unbiased news, you need to open up your eyes a bit. That's all I'm implying. They're fine to catch recent developments, but I would never rely on any of them to report a complete account of any story. Just like most Slashdot summaries...they're designed to be a little sensationalist and one-sided to appeal to their audience. You need to RTFA to catch the real story behind the news. And usually read comments by some people here who at least look like they know what they are talking about.
Unless I missed something, he only wrote one sequel to Jurassic Park...The Lost World. And I liked it much better than the first. The movie version of that one was absolutely horrible. Almost as bad as the Sphere movie, which I thought was his best book, personally.
Sounds like you just got pissy that his views on global warming didn't line up with your own and found reasons not to like him before that.
Many conservatives don't like Fox any more than the rest of the liberal media. They consider them a shil for the 'neo-Republicans' like Bush and pals, and are no better than CNN, MSNBC, etc.
Why do you care how we look to the rest of the world? Let's worry about the problems in our country. I really don't give two shits about how some snoppy European views our country.
Because it's hard, if not impossible to find a player that doesn't support MP3. You actually have to look for OGG or FLAC support while buying. This is about making it easy for consumers, not forwarding the agenda of open source/format nazis. Maybe, just maybe, something not completely open is actually...good?
My biggest mistake was thinking Xubuntu was really tweaked for older machines, and not merely Ubuntu with a different desktop environment. A different distro or running GUI-less would have no major problems.
The thing is, there is a variation of Ubuntu for Netbooks, so I think the comparison to XP is generally valid.
"In my experience, Xubuntu gets mentioned here a lot by people who have just heard of it, and not tried it."
Sounds accurate....I did some more investigating after the install and noticed the difference in system reqs between Xubuntu and Ubuntu is minimal. I didn't have Puppy or Damn Small Linux downloaded anywhere at the time. I might give that a shot the next time I get some spare time.
And they have a new machine, I was just going to use it as a play box. Probably more because I was unfamiliar with Xfce than anything else. then I installed XP because Xubuntu not working well kinda pissed me off, hehe.
I decided to revitilize my grandparent's old Celeron 500 w/ 128MB of RAM with Xubuntu. I couldn't install it with the live CD, but I got it on there. And it ran like crap. Very, very slow and sluggish...I was kind of suprised So I was about to throw it out, and figured, what the hell, and put XP on it. I turned off the Fisher Price UI, and it ran a HELL of a lot better than Xubuntu. Enough that it turned from unusuable to usable. I was stunned.
So I see no reason for XP to be any slower than a modern version of desktop Linux, unless the UI is REALLY stripped down. But any Atom-based computer will handle XP as well as Linux without a sweat.
And MS did do a deal..but it was very front door, not back door. They slashed the cost of XP for netbooks to something like $30-$40. Linux was used first because of cost, but the cost advantage is much smaller now. And the manufacturers and retailers believe that XP will produce fewer support calls and reduce return rates (whether or not they are correct is up for debate), justifying the extra cost. I'm sorry, there is no secret MS conspiracy here for you to be paranoid about. They did their normal thing...they saw Linux gaining marketshare, figured out why (cost), and they compensated.
Also, it's Acer Aspire. Asus's netbook line is the Eee.
It doesn't matter what you release when it's as horribly unfinished as AoC.
I hung on a lot longer than many, because I love so many things about that game, the setting, the brutality, the fast-based combat (even though they nerfed the original design of the combo system), the open PvP, and I think it has some of the best-designed outdoor zones in any MMO. They are realistic but still interesting, and some of the vistas are amazing.
But the unbalanced classes, unfinished PvP system, unfinished mid-high level content, broken sieging, and bugs upon bugs are what killed it.
The Conan world has at least as good of a story as AO. That game had so much potential, but they made the mistake of many potentially great MMOs before them and launched too early. It may recover some, but they'll never get back the full 800k that bought the game initially...not even close.
Slashdot Mirror
It said useful and stupid. Your suggestion is only useful. That's probably the smartest thing I've heard anyone say about a BlackBerry.
I was mostly joking. But if you think I'm mistaken (other than the fact that he obviously can't impose budget cuts until he gets into office), you might want to try googling "obama nasa budget". Just leave the 'cuts' part out, to get "unbaised" results.
The moral of the story is, most political candidates are going to have at least a few policies/positions you don't agree with.
Sure it does. It's the first victim of Obama's NASA budget cuts!
Opportunity: You hear about that new guy, Phoenix?
Spirit: Yeah, water ice...wonder what he'll find next.
Op: The dude's dead, yo!
Sp: What? He's only been here 5 months!
Op: I know. Lightweight. Gave some whiney excuse about 'only 3 months'.
Sp: What a wuss. I've been running on half power and 5 wheels most of this damn mission! I guess they don't make 'em like they used to.
The Aero effects are probably the biggest difference. They are considerably more 'heavy' than the effects I've seen in desktop Linux. Much more on par with OS X with the amount of manipulation, shading, etc. (and OS X generally has a fairly well-specced system behind it). I can't give a complexity comparison for the gadget/widget apps on Linux, but from what I've seen Sidebar gadgets do, I can say it's significantly more robust than what I've seen Google Desktop do.
And then you get into the background stuff...as others have mentioned, Windows runs a lot of extra services many people do not need, where Linux generally does not generally even install them until you get an application that needs them (And fortunately the prerequsite checking in Linux is very nice and effective, otherwise this could be disasterous to a regular user).
I do think you will see some of the improvements you are looking for in Windows 7. I can personally verify that Aero (dwm.exe) uses a lot less RAM and seems more responsive. I have also heard discussion about 7 coming pre-loaded with fewer services and applications. (Unfortuantely that is just Windows, not the manufacturers loating less crapware on them).
See my reply to a similar question here:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1024039&cid=25708255
In a nutshell: RAM and new PCs are dirt frickin' cheap. Why do you expect a modern OS to run well on a 4+ year old system that hasn't at least had a memory upgrade? Vista has it's share of bloat, but it's not completely out of line. Remember when XP launched? People with 128MB of RAM were bitching that they needed 512MB to run it well. It's the same thing now.
Then quite simply....don't upgrade your operating system. No one is forcing you to buy Vista or upgrade to the latest version of . If something comes out that requires a new operating system, you have a simple choice...do without that something, or upgrade that beige hunk of junk under the desk.
I'll be the first to admit there is plenty of fat in need of trimming in Vista. For what it is, it could run better on 1GB of RAM. (And from what I have seen in 7, some of that fat has actually been trimmed). I still think the demaands are fairly reasonable.
Offhand, I can think of 3 major resource hogs that justify the need for more resources: Search Indexing, Sidebar, and Aero. All of which can be quite useful (Aero is a *little* more than eye candy, and has potential to be very useful if properly utilized by applications), and all of which consume a decent amount of resources, even if they are optimized a bit better. I'm no expert, and I'm guessing you aren't either, so I can only speculate here. Search Indexing will add a pretty constant CPU and memory tax...and it could probably be better, when I have Google Desktop installed it's definately less noticable than Window's indexing...but not by a large margin. Side bar is a collection of small applications which is like having a bunch of extra crap open, which is simply more resources used...there may be some optimization that can go on there, but how much? Aero has the most obvious performance implications, but since 7 has trimmed it down to about a third, I would say there is plenty of bloat there.
So there are 3 major justifications for the extra resources needed. Then there is all the background stuff that gets changed, enhanced, added, etc. Some of which is not necessary for most people, but some is, and some of it is very useful.
So that's why I think it's fairly reasonable that it needs so many resources. I've used several recent Linux distros and OS X, and comparing what they all offer for the performance, they are relatively close in line, with Windows having a bit of flab around the midsection.. You can agree or disagree and call me crazy all you want.
The file copying slowness was actually related to something new in their networking stack which I believe was fixed in SP1. If I wasn't lasy I would try to look it up and find links for you. I use a Vista box for copying large numbers of files between servers because the copy dialog actually provides useful information, doesn't cancel on simple errors and the speed seems the same to me. (If it's a LOT of information I use a backup utility).
Ah, wait 5 minutes before posting a comment....so I got a link for you:
http://mytechweblog.blogspot.com/2007/04/slow-file-copymove-in-vista-here-is_05.html
It mainly talks about the fix and not the cause, and I remeber reading somewhere that SP1 flips that off by default.
When you can buy 2GB Ram upgrades for existing systems for $30, or brand new PCs with Dual Core CPUs and 2-3GB of ram for $400 (incl. MS Tax), Yes, less than that is generally crap.
I first put a gig of RAM in my old PIII system I had in college. That was 6-7 years ago. Believe it or not, computers get more powerful and cheaper as time goes on. A computer is not a refrigerator or similar appliance you should expect to perform well for over five years.
I agree. I would like to see the same tests run on XP and see how much of an improvement it offers. I would imagine some, but not a whole lot.
I installed a leaked copy of Windows 7 on a test box and the UI is definately more responsive...not a huge difference but noticable. The dwm.exe (Dreaded Windows Manager, is what I call it) for the UI uses a hell of a lot less memory than it did before. But aside from that, some minor dialog box changes, it just seems like Vista to me. Which is fine, I haven't had any real issues with Vista in the last year now that stable hardware drivers exist for pretty much everything. Granted I don't try to run it on crap systems with less than 2GB of RAM, either. Although my 7 test box only has 1GB of RAM.
I'm waiting for a version with the new taskbar to come out, to see if it's actually worth a squat or not. Oh, they did put the fancy ribbon UI on paint, wordpad, etc. Updated calculator, too. I guess they figured it was time to update them since they remained pretty much the same since 3.1....
Yeah, really...it doesn't get much more Massively Multiplayer than EVE. Biggest population in a single game world. (Not counting Second Life, because it's just different in too many ways).
Also, wouldn't you think they would just get mistaken for gold farmers? Hehehe.
Because clearly, no one likes Republicans, and they only stayed in power due to vote manipulation. Just like how the faked the moon landing. And they were responsible for the JFK assassination.
Seriously, I would like them to abolish the two-party system entirely, and by proxy the electoral college. I really think most people are generally moderate in their views, but are forced to pick sides they may not wholly agree with and make assumptions about members of the other party, who may sometimes fall closer in line with their views.
That's the other great thing about Slashdot readers....many of us are atheists....so you can do whatever you want and just fade out of existence like the rest of us!
Quit rambling about your unfounded theories here....we all know damn well that no amount of tequila or diamonds could cause any girl to sleep with a Slashdot reader.
Just a shot in the dark, but maybe they had 3rd party stuff in the drivers and they couldnt legally GPL it...Dolby Digital, etc...and then they removed it now so they can? Just a guess.
Also looking for Taiyo Yuden brand helps (or anything made in Japan...that should be TY just rebranded). Every knowledgable board I've looked over on the subject has recommended them, and I have never had a single one of their disks out of probably 200 now be bad from the start. Unfortunately I don't have any 'old' disks to test. I keep most of my data backed up on hard drives.
You can call them what you want, but if you think CNN, MSNBC, ABC, or Fox are a reliable way to get unbiased news, you need to open up your eyes a bit. That's all I'm implying. They're fine to catch recent developments, but I would never rely on any of them to report a complete account of any story. Just like most Slashdot summaries...they're designed to be a little sensationalist and one-sided to appeal to their audience. You need to RTFA to catch the real story behind the news. And usually read comments by some people here who at least look like they know what they are talking about.
Unless I missed something, he only wrote one sequel to Jurassic Park...The Lost World. And I liked it much better than the first. The movie version of that one was absolutely horrible. Almost as bad as the Sphere movie, which I thought was his best book, personally.
Sounds like you just got pissy that his views on global warming didn't line up with your own and found reasons not to like him before that.
Many conservatives don't like Fox any more than the rest of the liberal media. They consider them a shil for the 'neo-Republicans' like Bush and pals, and are no better than CNN, MSNBC, etc.
Why do you care how we look to the rest of the world? Let's worry about the problems in our country. I really don't give two shits about how some snoppy European views our country.
Because it's hard, if not impossible to find a player that doesn't support MP3. You actually have to look for OGG or FLAC support while buying. This is about making it easy for consumers, not forwarding the agenda of open source/format nazis. Maybe, just maybe, something not completely open is actually...good?
My biggest mistake was thinking Xubuntu was really tweaked for older machines, and not merely Ubuntu with a different desktop environment. A different distro or running GUI-less would have no major problems.
The thing is, there is a variation of Ubuntu for Netbooks, so I think the comparison to XP is generally valid.
"In my experience, Xubuntu gets mentioned here a lot by people who have just heard of it, and not tried it."
Sounds accurate....I did some more investigating after the install and noticed the difference in system reqs between Xubuntu and Ubuntu is minimal. I didn't have Puppy or Damn Small Linux downloaded anywhere at the time. I might give that a shot the next time I get some spare time.
And they have a new machine, I was just going to use it as a play box. Probably more because I was unfamiliar with Xfce than anything else. then I installed XP because Xubuntu not working well kinda pissed me off, hehe.
Small, light and efficient, eh?
I decided to revitilize my grandparent's old Celeron 500 w/ 128MB of RAM with Xubuntu. I couldn't install it with the live CD, but I got it on there. And it ran like crap. Very, very slow and sluggish...I was kind of suprised So I was about to throw it out, and figured, what the hell, and put XP on it. I turned off the Fisher Price UI, and it ran a HELL of a lot better than Xubuntu. Enough that it turned from unusuable to usable. I was stunned.
So I see no reason for XP to be any slower than a modern version of desktop Linux, unless the UI is REALLY stripped down. But any Atom-based computer will handle XP as well as Linux without a sweat.
And MS did do a deal..but it was very front door, not back door. They slashed the cost of XP for netbooks to something like $30-$40. Linux was used first because of cost, but the cost advantage is much smaller now. And the manufacturers and retailers believe that XP will produce fewer support calls and reduce return rates (whether or not they are correct is up for debate), justifying the extra cost. I'm sorry, there is no secret MS conspiracy here for you to be paranoid about. They did their normal thing...they saw Linux gaining marketshare, figured out why (cost), and they compensated.
Also, it's Acer Aspire. Asus's netbook line is the Eee.
It doesn't matter what you release when it's as horribly unfinished as AoC.
I hung on a lot longer than many, because I love so many things about that game, the setting, the brutality, the fast-based combat (even though they nerfed the original design of the combo system), the open PvP, and I think it has some of the best-designed outdoor zones in any MMO. They are realistic but still interesting, and some of the vistas are amazing.
But the unbalanced classes, unfinished PvP system, unfinished mid-high level content, broken sieging, and bugs upon bugs are what killed it.
The Conan world has at least as good of a story as AO. That game had so much potential, but they made the mistake of many potentially great MMOs before them and launched too early. It may recover some, but they'll never get back the full 800k that bought the game initially...not even close.