Am I the only one who thinks that if you changed the color of the last "e" in the new logo that it would look exactly like the old Internet Explorer logo?
People tend to forget that Microsoft wasn't ALLOWED to innovate in some areas after the anti-trust trial.
Microsoft was not allowed to integrate certain software and services into their OS. They had to code them as completely separate products without direct interaction. While they still had these shackles on, Apple and Google were free to meld ANYTHING they wanted into their core products.
Seems to me that Google has built a business that is too cumbersome to maintain legally? I mean just because no one was bothering them about it previously doesnt mean tthey dont have the legal obligation to do it.
It's as if I started a landscaping business and I was dumping all the waste products in my back yard. When I run out of space and have to pay for garbage removal...it means that my business is flawed....not that they should write laws to allow me to dump it anywhere.
What you all forget is exactly how long ago Microsoft entered the PDA/Smartphone Market.
Back then, the screen technology was not advanced enough to handle finger-touches and gestures. They had to us a stylus in order to get accurate "clicks".
VMWare Workstation is king for desktop virtualization. People will recommend all sorts of free/opensource tools, but the features simply wont compare to VMWare. DirectX support, snapshots, seemly windows etc etc etc. It does cost about $150, but well worth it if you have serious needs.
I think that "in general" you're right, but you're forgetting the human aspect. If my uncle is buying something for his computer, it might not care what all of his facebook friends think about computers, but he might VERY WELL care what *I* think, and so he might be curious to see what I like.
In a similar regard, I wouldnt ask my mother where to vacation, but I have several friends on facebook that do a lot of traveling, and I think seeing their experiences might be useful.
This is exactly what I was thinking. Microsoft does this sort of thing all the time. They avoid drawing attention to something when it's "up and comming", and then after the real threat has subsided (MS Office has matured a level, and OO is going downward) they create the strawman.
Because people wont look at it as "the price of half a console" they will look at it as "the price of 2 1/2 games". People spent $150 a month on TV + Internet, they will have no problem spending that on their kids for christmas in order to place something that isnt "run around and blow up other kids".
Wow, these companies are really shooting themselves in the foot when it comes to corporate adoption.
No right-minded SysAdmin would want this sort of thing in their environment. While I understand that you CAN turn it off, Im willing to bet (without caring enough to actually look), that they have neglected to add any security features that would prevent an end user from turning the "auto update" back on.
It sounds tike you need better management tools, not a new OS. There's lots of ways to minimize the Processes/Services running on XP and to keep the systems clean...without remoting into them individually.
not to mention....removing old files and profiles will not to ANYTHING to improve the speed of the computer.
You're speaking of "efficiency". I assume you're speaking of FireFox as an example. But there's is nothing more efficient about an IT organization supporting more than one tool for the same purpose, based on the preference of a user (or an admin).
If you can lay out how a company or IT organization would improve efficiency by supporting FireFox, along side IE (because you MUST support IE since many 3rd party apps use the IE engine embedded), I'd love to see it. I might even elect you to office.
Perhaps Sun has "promised" too much over the years on things that don't produce a return on investment. Perhaps this is why Oracle scooped them up. Perhaps Oracle wants to remain profitable.
Many corporations insist on IE only. Why? Becuase so many 3rd party applications use the IE engine, that you have to keep it patched and maintained anyway. Allowing additional browsers, that create little-to-no value for the company, is just and added expense and bad practice. (remember, software is supposed to fullfil a NEED, not a preference)
The "IE is vulnerable" arguement holds no water, because if the IT Security team is doing their job, such exploits can usually be blocked through various security tools as soon as such and exploit is known.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, the old Google finance page was the best by far. Now it looks like some kid in his garage made it.
After years of terrible UI....Google decided to change GMail interface to be laid out like Outlook has been since 1995. LOL wtf?
Am I the only one who thinks that if you changed the color of the last "e" in the new logo that it would look exactly like the old Internet Explorer logo?
This sounds exactly like something stupid Microsoft would have done in the 90's because they "know what's better for users".
This is a worthwhile endeavor. Suuuuure. With the shortage of funds for the arts these days, is THIS what a museum spends money on?
People tend to forget that Microsoft wasn't ALLOWED to innovate in some areas after the anti-trust trial. Microsoft was not allowed to integrate certain software and services into their OS. They had to code them as completely separate products without direct interaction. While they still had these shackles on, Apple and Google were free to meld ANYTHING they wanted into their core products.
What a horrible bunch of stereotypes and role models for young girls. Everyone know that to be smart you have to bug ugly or fat.
Seems to me that Google has built a business that is too cumbersome to maintain legally? I mean just because no one was bothering them about it previously doesnt mean tthey dont have the legal obligation to do it. It's as if I started a landscaping business and I was dumping all the waste products in my back yard. When I run out of space and have to pay for garbage removal...it means that my business is flawed....not that they should write laws to allow me to dump it anywhere.
What you all forget is exactly how long ago Microsoft entered the PDA/Smartphone Market.
Back then, the screen technology was not advanced enough to handle finger-touches and gestures. They had to us a stylus in order to get accurate "clicks".
Great, now all eHow has to do is write scripts to update their pages every day, and they will safely stay at the top of EVERY search result.
In other news...Linux will be huge on the desktop within the next 18 months.
Google should care....because of the huge boost this gives to Microsoft Office Online. Millions of users...instantly.
Evil
VMWare Workstation is king for desktop virtualization. People will recommend all sorts of free/opensource tools, but the features simply wont compare to VMWare. DirectX support, snapshots, seemly windows etc etc etc. It does cost about $150, but well worth it if you have serious needs.
If this is true, then it's good news for Microsoft. XP Support has been set to continute until 2020.
I think that "in general" you're right, but you're forgetting the human aspect. If my uncle is buying something for his computer, it might not care what all of his facebook friends think about computers, but he might VERY WELL care what *I* think, and so he might be curious to see what I like. In a similar regard, I wouldnt ask my mother where to vacation, but I have several friends on facebook that do a lot of traveling, and I think seeing their experiences might be useful.
This is exactly what I was thinking. Microsoft does this sort of thing all the time. They avoid drawing attention to something when it's "up and comming", and then after the real threat has subsided (MS Office has matured a level, and OO is going downward) they create the strawman.
Because people wont look at it as "the price of half a console" they will look at it as "the price of 2 1/2 games". People spent $150 a month on TV + Internet, they will have no problem spending that on their kids for christmas in order to place something that isnt "run around and blow up other kids".
Wow, these companies are really shooting themselves in the foot when it comes to corporate adoption.
No right-minded SysAdmin would want this sort of thing in their environment. While I understand that you CAN turn it off, Im willing to bet (without caring enough to actually look), that they have neglected to add any security features that would prevent an end user from turning the "auto update" back on.
Yea, those Windows and MAC users are so dumb. They expect installing an application should be a standard part of the OS and easy!
Instead, they will have to learn that you are better off if you choose between several different package managers with various subtle differences.
It sounds tike you need better management tools, not a new OS. There's lots of ways to minimize the Processes/Services running on XP and to keep the systems clean...without remoting into them individually. not to mention....removing old files and profiles will not to ANYTHING to improve the speed of the computer.
Wow, what an ingorant post. If you think it's confusing to edit the registry...you might want to stay away from .conf files.
You're speaking of "efficiency". I assume you're speaking of FireFox as an example. But there's is nothing more efficient about an IT organization supporting more than one tool for the same purpose, based on the preference of a user (or an admin). If you can lay out how a company or IT organization would improve efficiency by supporting FireFox, along side IE (because you MUST support IE since many 3rd party apps use the IE engine embedded), I'd love to see it. I might even elect you to office.
Perhaps Sun has "promised" too much over the years on things that don't produce a return on investment. Perhaps this is why Oracle scooped them up. Perhaps Oracle wants to remain profitable.
Many corporations insist on IE only. Why? Becuase so many 3rd party applications use the IE engine, that you have to keep it patched and maintained anyway. Allowing additional browsers, that create little-to-no value for the company, is just and added expense and bad practice. (remember, software is supposed to fullfil a NEED, not a preference) The "IE is vulnerable" arguement holds no water, because if the IT Security team is doing their job, such exploits can usually be blocked through various security tools as soon as such and exploit is known.