WE know what Gator really is and what it's changed it's name to, but to tell the truth, the majority of non-techies have no clue. Changing the default to "Ignore" means most of the people running the MS anti-spyware will continue running Gator on their computers.
The techies will have a few extra mouse clicks, the masses will remain infected. THAT is the problem I see with a change like this. We're talking about a tool aimed at the masses. An annoying contractual change to regedit.exe that requires me to do a few extra clicks is a pain in the arse, but as the average user never uses regedit.exe, it's not going to have the kind of problems this change will have.
I was planning to recommend the MS Anti-spyware application to friends and family. From here on out I'll be warning people away from it. I now know the product can't be trusted.
they don't have the clout to bundle commercial products, so they fill in the voids with free software; which is completely hypocritical and I think they should rot in hell for that
Dear Sir / Madame,
Than you for your recent comments on Open Source software. We're very excited by your comments and plan to use them in an upcoming update to Microsoft's "Get the Facts about Linux" campaign.
Below is a sample of you your quote will look:
they... bundle... free software... and I think they should rot in hell for that -- Roadmaster
Uhm, that's not "being friendly." That's taking advantage of the IP of programmers that they're trying to demonize.
It's not an attempt at bridge building. It's a reflection of their desperate need for Open Source in order to offer ANYTHING worth using with their OS.
It's a clear statement that they consider Open Source to be code that they can use for whatever they want, but no one else should be allowed to use.
It'd be like FedEx trying to keep UPS from using the US highway system.
It's not trying to be nice to Open Source. OSS doesn't need any boned from the SCO jackal. They're trying to continue to take advantage of Open Source even as they try every legal trick they can think of too hurt it.
Within the next three years the following will happen:
Porn will be outlawed in the US. Service providers hosting pron sites will be branded "terrorists" for attacking our basic values. Foreign net blocks will be filtered on a massive scale using technology pioneered by China. Running a Freenet node will be considered a terrorist act.
All the other replies have boiled down to "You're critical of something new so you must fear change" or a blind "Use a Mac and you'll change your mind" mantra. You, on the other hand, have provided a concrete example of a realistic way where this technology can be a benefit to a business environment.
It's not so much a fear of change, as a fear of the process that will be involved in incorporating it into a business environment. You'll have some early adopters causing a stir. Then you'll have the users torn between eh ones who want to make some changes and those who don't. Then the suits get involved and in most cases the jackass with the least technical knowledge but the biggest attitude will get his way.
Then there's trying to get users to adhere to the new procedures. The endless complaints will of course grate on IT, and a few people will get fired because a piece of Mac software doesn't operate they way the CEO's Husband thinks it should, and he blames IT.
Worse yet, you might have IT making the sweeping changes without consulting the users.
And in the end, what will be gained? Backups and version control will be more complicated and users will get even sloppier.
You also brought up a smart enough / not smart enough contradiction in my posts. I, and many others in IT, believe many users need more education, and that the assumption that computers should cater to the lowest technical skill possible is flawed, and a formula for disaster. I, and many others, would prefer users receive education on computer use, but Apple and Windows insist on dumbing down the OS to cause cluster****s like the one Apple is threatening to give us in this thread's example.
I can't imagine a reasonable way to use Gmail style labels in an office environment. I'd hat to have to sort through 600 possible labels to select the right one from a drop down list.
And what happens when the user forgets to add that third label that the rest of the department is expecting for all the files in the search?
And where are these labels stored anyway? On the server? If they're on the desktop they they're completely and entirely useless for a business environment. What happens when a user upgrades machines? Has to use another computer? Has to tell another employee how to find the group of files she carefully constructed?
How does one do a reasonable data only backup in such a mess?
I'm sorry, but this notion is destructive in a business environment. It's designed to make users lazy and sloppy about where they keep their data.
I like being able to see how much space a folder is using on the server. I like folders.
Here's a thought. Where is this meta data stored? Is it kept on the server or on the desktop?
If it's kept on the desktop, then a user will suddenly lose the ability to find their own damn files if they have to use another machine or upgrade systems. They'll also have no meaningful way of telling other users where to find the file. It doesn't do much good to label 300 files as "Critical forms for 2006 Audit" and have that search only work from one machine.
Will you please demonstrate to everyone how you do this properly with a file system?
Great. Grand.
Now, let's take this into the work place, where you have 300 users and a central server. How do the users know they're working off the "official" version of the file from the server? How do they know they're not reading a version they accidentally saved on their own machine? You can legitimately ask how they know this now, and I'll respond that when dealing with stupid users, but a valid file path is very useful.
What happens when a user makes a typo when entering meta data for associating files with a project? Suddenly you have all but one of the files you need come up in your search, when you could have just saved all of them to the same folder.
This idea hasn't caught on because it would screw over corporate IT data management with no real gain. It would be confusing and far too complex for the average user. Forcing the "Directory" premise on users is a far better solution. While it does require users to * gasp * LEARN something, you have to have at least a baseline to accomplish anything.
This is just more of Apple introducing ideas that will make actual work more difficult in the interest of letting increasingly stupid users write letters, pirate MP3s and surf for porn.
Apple is doing to computing what Ford would be doing to the roads if they convinced the government to abolish the legal requirement for a Drivers' License, while making cars controlled by a single joystick.
The bottom line is, I find it less convenient to have a fairly reasonable piece of hardware removed from the laptop for no good reason. It's not about the fact that there are workarounds, but the fact that workarounds are necessary. The Apple is far less flexible and the lack of a second mouse button is just one symptom of that. Actual functionality is routinely sacrificed for the sake of the "Mac Experience." This extends far beyond the absence of common buttons that every other hardware manufacturer considers a Good idea.
Did you read up on the changes made by Tiger? Now, if you download an MP3 off the web with Safari, you have to buy Quick time Pro to save it to disk. Isn't that grand? Is having Steve Jobs slip his hand into your back pocket part of the Mac Experience? How would you react if you learned that the latest XP Service pack required you to buy something called "Windows Media Player Pro" in order to save MP3 files to disk that you downloaded by clicking on a link in a web site?
What about the fact that more restrictions are always being added to iTunes with each update? I'm told that with the latest OS X, you can no longer burn purchased music to CD with iTunes. How is iTunes a GOOD thing again?
OS 9 and before were cute toy jokes with delusions of being Operating Systems. OS X started off as a real OS, but it's being systematically truncated with each update. How long before you have to buy a "Pro" version of the OS to get a command line again?
The lack of a second mouse button is just the tip of the ice berg, and is symptomatic of Apple's inability to consistently produce a decent Operating System.
The G5 has a wider data pipe. Intel may be faster in raw speed, but the G5 can push through more data at a time. In the end, they tend to even out in performance. According to Jobs' speech, Intel will have chips that actually outperform PPC in the near future. The point is this won't result in much if any performance gain in the short term, but will hopefully pay off down the line. The Intel road map hopes for greater performance gains than the IBM road map. Jobs is betting they're right.
The problem is, the first few generations will still be comparable in performance, so it'll be a few years before an Intel chip running the PPC code in emulation will meet the performance of a current G5 desktop. In short, a G5 running a current copy of Photoshop CS will outperform Intel based Macs running the same copy of Photoshop for two, three or more years.
On the flip side, Photoshop CS for Intel Mac running on an Intel Mac will probably have comparable performance to Photoshop CS for PPC running on a PPC machine. The problem comes when you mix and match the old PPC versions on the new Intel Macs, which most users will no doubt do for quite some time. This platform shift rewards everyone who buys new copies of all their software when they buy a new computer, as all the new copies will (hopefully) be compiled for the Intel Mac.
Remember, AMD came out with it's "parity" rating. The 1.33 Ghz AMD chip in my home computer outperforms a 1.5 Ghz Intel chip.
Raw horsepower doesn't mean all that much once you factor in things like on chip cache, data pipes and all the other factors that go into chip design.
Pouring over the various performance stats may be boring, but it pays off in the end.
Step 3 is "Let China's government throw them all in a Gulag to be tortured into confessions, and then executed. The lucky ones will become slave labor."
Slashdot Mirror
WE know what Gator really is and what it's changed it's name to, but to tell the truth, the majority of non-techies have no clue. Changing the default to "Ignore" means most of the people running the MS anti-spyware will continue running Gator on their computers.
The techies will have a few extra mouse clicks, the masses will remain infected. THAT is the problem I see with a change like this. We're talking about a tool aimed at the masses. An annoying contractual change to regedit.exe that requires me to do a few extra clicks is a pain in the arse, but as the average user never uses regedit.exe, it's not going to have the kind of problems this change will have.
I was planning to recommend the MS Anti-spyware application to friends and family. From here on out I'll be warning people away from it. I now know the product can't be trusted.
First, you need Opera users.
Until then Opera vs Firefox just won't happen at a VI vs Emacs scale
You mean like Mozilla did with tabbed browsing and mouse gestures?
It's staggering how many of Firefox's "killer features" are nothing more than a rehash of Opera's.
And when IE 7.0 comes out all the new features will be lifted from Firefox, without so much as a non of thank you to Opera.
And yet I still use Firefox...
Damn. I'm part of the problem.
SCO takes themselves seriously?
Go ahead. Pull the other one.
they don't have the clout to bundle commercial products, so they fill in the voids with free software; which is completely hypocritical and I think they should rot in hell for that
... bundle ... free software ... and I think they should rot in hell for that
Dear Sir / Madame,
Than you for your recent comments on Open Source software. We're very excited by your comments and plan to use them in an upcoming update to Microsoft's "Get the Facts about Linux" campaign.
Below is a sample of you your quote will look:
they
-- Roadmaster
Uhm, that's not "being friendly." That's taking advantage of the IP of programmers that they're trying to demonize.
It's not an attempt at bridge building. It's a reflection of their desperate need for Open Source in order to offer ANYTHING worth using with their OS.
It's a clear statement that they consider Open Source to be code that they can use for whatever they want, but no one else should be allowed to use.
It'd be like FedEx trying to keep UPS from using the US highway system.
It's not trying to be nice to Open Source. OSS doesn't need any boned from the SCO jackal. They're trying to continue to take advantage of Open Source even as they try every legal trick they can think of too hurt it.
Oh, it'll happen.
Within the next three years the following will happen:
Porn will be outlawed in the US.
Service providers hosting pron sites will be branded "terrorists" for attacking our basic values.
Foreign net blocks will be filtered on a massive scale using technology pioneered by China.
Running a Freenet node will be considered a terrorist act.
Does adblock get rid of Google ads as well?
I like google ads. They don't annoy me and they're often relevant to the site's content. I actually click those.
Banner ads? Feh.
A free market analysis makes sense to me if it means the annoying banner ads are being killed off in favor of context based text ads.
So we should see in in what, 2014?
The Apple of today is just like those Vaxes were then
Ahhh.
Overpriced and used primarily in academia.
It all makes much more sense now
Get the point?
Not really. Just avoid the files with the time stamp after the extension and you're good to go.
Disable versioning for the network folders, so versioning only works for the latest e-mail the users are sending their significant other of the week.
All the other replies have boiled down to "You're critical of something new so you must fear change" or a blind "Use a Mac and you'll change your mind" mantra. You, on the other hand, have provided a concrete example of a realistic way where this technology can be a benefit to a business environment.
Thank you.
It's not so much a fear of change, as a fear of the process that will be involved in incorporating it into a business environment. You'll have some early adopters causing a stir. Then you'll have the users torn between eh ones who want to make some changes and those who don't. Then the suits get involved and in most cases the jackass with the least technical knowledge but the biggest attitude will get his way.
Then there's trying to get users to adhere to the new procedures. The endless complaints will of course grate on IT, and a few people will get fired because a piece of Mac software doesn't operate they way the CEO's Husband thinks it should, and he blames IT.
Worse yet, you might have IT making the sweeping changes without consulting the users.
And in the end, what will be gained? Backups and version control will be more complicated and users will get even sloppier.
You also brought up a smart enough / not smart enough contradiction in my posts. I, and many others in IT, believe many users need more education, and that the assumption that computers should cater to the lowest technical skill possible is flawed, and a formula for disaster. I, and many others, would prefer users receive education on computer use, but Apple and Windows insist on dumbing down the OS to cause cluster****s like the one Apple is threatening to give us in this thread's example.
Get a Mac and try it. But beware, windows will feel bad afterwards
:( Windows, Mac, they all suck.
I miss the old University Vax.
I want a Vax damn it!
I can't imagine a reasonable way to use Gmail style labels in an office environment. I'd hat to have to sort through 600 possible labels to select the right one from a drop down list.
And what happens when the user forgets to add that third label that the rest of the department is expecting for all the files in the search?
And where are these labels stored anyway? On the server? If they're on the desktop they they're completely and entirely useless for a business environment. What happens when a user upgrades machines? Has to use another computer? Has to tell another employee how to find the group of files she carefully constructed?
How does one do a reasonable data only backup in such a mess?
I'm sorry, but this notion is destructive in a business environment. It's designed to make users lazy and sloppy about where they keep their data.
I like being able to see how much space a folder is using on the server. I like folders.
Here's a thought. Where is this meta data stored? Is it kept on the server or on the desktop?
If it's kept on the desktop, then a user will suddenly lose the ability to find their own damn files if they have to use another machine or upgrade systems. They'll also have no meaningful way of telling other users where to find the file. It doesn't do much good to label 300 files as "Critical forms for 2006 Audit" and have that search only work from one machine.
Will you please demonstrate to everyone how you do this properly with a file system?
Great. Grand.
Now, let's take this into the work place, where you have 300 users and a central server. How do the users know they're working off the "official" version of the file from the server? How do they know they're not reading a version they accidentally saved on their own machine? You can legitimately ask how they know this now, and I'll respond that when dealing with stupid users, but a valid file path is very useful.
What happens when a user makes a typo when entering meta data for associating files with a project? Suddenly you have all but one of the files you need come up in your search, when you could have just saved all of them to the same folder.
This idea hasn't caught on because it would screw over corporate IT data management with no real gain. It would be confusing and far too complex for the average user. Forcing the "Directory" premise on users is a far better solution. While it does require users to * gasp * LEARN something, you have to have at least a baseline to accomplish anything.
This is just more of Apple introducing ideas that will make actual work more difficult in the interest of letting increasingly stupid users write letters, pirate MP3s and surf for porn.
Apple is doing to computing what Ford would be doing to the roads if they convinced the government to abolish the legal requirement for a Drivers' License, while making cars controlled by a single joystick.
The bottom line is, I find it less convenient to have a fairly reasonable piece of hardware removed from the laptop for no good reason. It's not about the fact that there are workarounds, but the fact that workarounds are necessary. The Apple is far less flexible and the lack of a second mouse button is just one symptom of that. Actual functionality is routinely sacrificed for the sake of the "Mac Experience." This extends far beyond the absence of common buttons that every other hardware manufacturer considers a Good idea.
Did you read up on the changes made by Tiger? Now, if you download an MP3 off the web with Safari, you have to buy Quick time Pro to save it to disk. Isn't that grand? Is having Steve Jobs slip his hand into your back pocket part of the Mac Experience? How would you react if you learned that the latest XP Service pack required you to buy something called "Windows Media Player Pro" in order to save MP3 files to disk that you downloaded by clicking on a link in a web site?
What about the fact that more restrictions are always being added to iTunes with each update? I'm told that with the latest OS X, you can no longer burn purchased music to CD with iTunes. How is iTunes a GOOD thing again?
OS 9 and before were cute toy jokes with delusions of being Operating Systems. OS X started off as a real OS, but it's being systematically truncated with each update. How long before you have to buy a "Pro" version of the OS to get a command line again?
The lack of a second mouse button is just the tip of the ice berg, and is symptomatic of Apple's inability to consistently produce a decent Operating System.
You didn't bother reading ANY of my replies to the other people posting the exact same piece of advice, did you?
I already addressed this bonehead idea. It's a laptop used on the road. An external mouse isn't practical for use at the sites I'm normally at.
Try reading the threads you replay to.
Oh, wait, you're an AC. Damn Mac Whores, always spewing the same brain dead excuses and rationals for Apple's incredibly bad system design.
Please, stop worship Steve Jobs. It's annoying.
Isn't that a Republican who's in favor of small government state rights?
I kid, I kid.
The G5 has a wider data pipe. Intel may be faster in raw speed, but the G5 can push through more data at a time. In the end, they tend to even out in performance. According to Jobs' speech, Intel will have chips that actually outperform PPC in the near future. The point is this won't result in much if any performance gain in the short term, but will hopefully pay off down the line. The Intel road map hopes for greater performance gains than the IBM road map. Jobs is betting they're right.
The problem is, the first few generations will still be comparable in performance, so it'll be a few years before an Intel chip running the PPC code in emulation will meet the performance of a current G5 desktop. In short, a G5 running a current copy of Photoshop CS will outperform Intel based Macs running the same copy of Photoshop for two, three or more years.
On the flip side, Photoshop CS for Intel Mac running on an Intel Mac will probably have comparable performance to Photoshop CS for PPC running on a PPC machine. The problem comes when you mix and match the old PPC versions on the new Intel Macs, which most users will no doubt do for quite some time. This platform shift rewards everyone who buys new copies of all their software when they buy a new computer, as all the new copies will (hopefully) be compiled for the Intel Mac.
Remember, AMD came out with it's "parity" rating. The 1.33 Ghz AMD chip in my home computer outperforms a 1.5 Ghz Intel chip.
Raw horsepower doesn't mean all that much once you factor in things like on chip cache, data pipes and all the other factors that go into chip design.
Pouring over the various performance stats may be boring, but it pays off in the end.
If they are my competitor, you bet!
Who gives a shit about the other company.
Spoken like a True American (tm)
You'll go far as a Republican.
Duke Nukem Forever goes on sale?
Cuba would have to have computers and a 'net connection first.
Step 3 is "Let China's government throw them all in a Gulag to be tortured into confessions, and then executed. The lucky ones will become slave labor."
Still think it's worth the Profit?