My monitor good, or my monitor bad? It's a trinitron crt.
Of course, ELSA wasn't exactly no-name - bunch of Germans that want bankrupt rather than cheating on the assembly. And I don't think ATI (built) ever had 2D quality issues.
> If only the PC-1 had contained a MC68000. I once heard a story that said it almost did, but who knows if it's true
There's been several threads on this in alt.folklore.computer over the years, so check groups.google.com.
What I've read is that the IBM PC was designed from the beginning to be a CP/M-compatible machine, so it's not true. In fact, I don't think the 68K was even shipping in 1981.
The urban legend seems to come from fact that IBM was experimenting with something more like a Unix workstation at the same time.
The other urban legend is that the IBM PC was going to be based on the Atari 800 8-bit system!
Good point. Remember the "Endless September" of 1993 and the AOL invasion of 1994?
Well, those people are now the "old timers" of usenet, and they are working hard to keep it just as trollish and flamefilled as the "good ol days" were.
(Also, WRT hardware requirements, it seems that a lot of people on Usenet are still using the same computer they had in 1994. Thus, any innovation that won't run on they belothed Win95 machine is automatically suspect.)
Not really, because that scheme does not prevent you from running malicious or buggy programs that mess with your sound settings.
I'm thinking about something more along the lines of a "sandbox" system. When you install a CD player, for example, you'd see a dialog for what privileges the program has:
Programs that vector in from email could have artificially restricted settings.
Of course, there's a host of implementation problems, not the least being that neither Linux or Windows was designed with this sort of security in mind. This would also be very PC specific -- in most cases it seems like existing model works for server systems.
A unprivileged Unix user can parse an address book, delete MP3 files, and send mail. In most cases they can also run a proxy server on a high port. So, "root" isn't much protection against these viruses.
In fact, I'd argue that the whole timesharing SuperUser vs Peon security distinction is a fundamentally broken design for how most people use Personal Computers. It's a relic of minicomputing. On a modern PC, virtually every user needs some administrative rights, and almost everyone wants to run "untrusted" programs such as file sharing and so on.
It would be great if we could chuck the whole user-based system in favor of some sort of role or program-based model where programs have privileges based on what they are rather than who is running them. But since both Unix and Windows are heavily based on the user-centric model, that's going to be very difficult.
I don't really care about the money -- the upshot of this lawsuit is that OS X is actually usable on my old "Bronze" G3 PowerBook.
Backstory: OS X 10.0 shipped with a 2D/3D accelerated driver for the RagePro in this machine. Apple dropped all 2D/3D hardware acceleration in 10.1, making the machine essentially unusable under OS X. They also issued a technote which basically said "Too Bad, Sucker".
It wasn't until after the lawsuit that Apple backtracked and 2D Rage Pro accelerated driver appeared. I can live without the (lame) 3D, but OS X was completely unusable otherwise.
Running select(*) on a table should never take very long, and most of the problem, that I can tell from diagnostics, was the server just halting network traffic.
I'd expect that if the table lacks any indexes (like GoldMine). Big no-no. My guess it that the server wasn't RAM caching the table, and the stalls you saw were caused by waiting to read the data sequentially off the disk. But, I dunno, it could be the network problems you mentioned too. Or something else.
MSSQL is fine; probably the only top-notch product Microsoft makes, IMO. A bad schema will cause terrible application performance on any RDBMS: DB2, Oracle, Postgres, you name it. MySQL is more Flat-Fileque, so perhaps it fits this use model better.
Also, in many cases Paradox tables will be faster than any RDBMS. If the app (which can't be changed) was designed to use Paradox, I'd just go ahead and use Paradox. Just make sure to get the Samba version that supports the correct record locking.
Re:Why are they running Windows then?
on
Can .NET Really Scale?
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Every program a client has that uses any version of SQL Server needs constant fixing, and is incredibly slow for 7 users. I could give you a list of programs, but it's just about every program on the market. One of them has an option to use paradox database files,
I think I know what you are talking about.
I'm guessing this software is mainly decade old desktop packages that were originally designed to run on Paradox/dBase/FoxPro and ported to SQL Server or Oracle because that's the trendy thing to do. (If you see "BDE", the Borland Data Engine, it's a good sign that this is what you've got.) The thing is, the apps aren't really ported to use a RDBMS design. They still use "Flat Files" and have their own key/indexing system and old style coding.
The one I'm familar with is the very popular "Goldmine" sales package (had to get data from it's schema for an app I built). Doesn't even use Primary Keys, much less non-clustered indexes. Instead it's got these dbase-style bogo keys which look like "AAAA", "AAAa", "AAaa" and so on. But SQL Server is running in case insensitive mode, so all of the key comparison is done on the client! It also appears to do record locking on the client-side. No wonder an almost trivial application only supports 20-some users on a P4 server.:P
Hopefully as someone targetting DB2, you aren't making the same kinds of error, because you'll see the same issues no matter the RDBMS.
There are intentional problems between NT4 and Win2K+ using NT4 as a file server with SMB
I'm guessing this is the "rogue master browser" problem. Sucks, but an unofficially well known issue.
Netscape killed themselves with their own hubris and irrational reverence for Communicator 4. The rewrite might have been justfied, but the goal of making an exact clone of the old version was just a terrible management decision.
I guess they missed the memo where users decided that Communicator sucked. The whole premise seems to have been that there was some sort of giant secret Netscape fanbase out there that was only concerned about standards compliance issues. Quite the opposite -- in the laundry lists of bitches about Netscape, for most users compatibility was very low on the list.
It seems like they had this arrogant, obsolete Rule The World independant platform strategy left over from the Netscape Communication days and it just did not fit either AOL or mozilla.org. Not to mention the just plain arrogant decisions about compatibility that was not befitting a browser with 1% marketshare.
Even when you go back to old slashdot discussions about Mozilla, the concerns were being echoed -- Why make the mailer run in the same process space as the browser? Why not lightweight and modular like IE? Why so bloated? And the answer was "Because the way Netscape does things." Well, end users looked at it and just said "Netscape? Bleck." They were dead from the get-go.
It wasn't until the writing was on the wall and the pinkslips were in the mail did mozilla drop their Party Line of "When In Doubt, Copy Version 4". Firebird is what Mozilla should have been since the beginning -- a fresh new platform that had a chance at attracting users and devs.
I was going to ask the same question -- Does the IBM deal include recoding all those apps for WebSphere or something? Or is that a hidden cost in this whole thing. Seems to be a significant hangup.
As for the paranoid AC, custom/vertical apps are the #1 reason people will continue to use Windows. No astroturf required.
if SCO had a full version, no limits Unix for intel boxes that sold for MS-DOS's (or even Windows 3.11 + DOS) price, where would the computing world be now?
Well, Linus even said that if he could have purchased a Unix for $300, he wouldn't have bothered.
Many of the Unixes on ESR's old list such as DELL UNIX are branded versions of Novell/Uniware UNIXWare, btw. McBride is semi-correct. UNIXWare had lots of market potential. However, not in the hands of SCO.
No proprietary Unix vendor ever made substantial in roads in this area, and I doubt any would have
It was a chicken-and-egg predicament. As long as Unix-on-Intel meant "SCO", it was perpetually going to be a nitch product. Those guys were always dodgy and expensive.
But, back in 1995, Novell announced they were going to merge UNIXWare with NetWare to form something called "SuperNOS" and compete directly with Windows NT in the "mixed use" server market. At this time, Novell had > 50% marketshare and would have had incredible leverage to push UNIX on corporate customers and line-up hardware and political support. With the Internet boom, the timing would have been perfect.
But instead Novell went for this insanely stupid WordPerfect-based client strategy and scotched UnixWare. The rest is history -- Novell's now a minor league vendor and they are crawling back to SuperNOS, except this time with Linux and 8 years too late. And Microsoft pretty much owns the low-end corporate server market.
This was a huge missed opportunity that set Unix adoption back by probably 5 years. Unix-on-Intel never had a real "push" until the late 90s with Linux. Sure, the liberal licencing helps, but so does the support network and the hardware and vendor support that SCO and Sun never had.
You'll have to excuse me for fudging the dates by a year or two. Yeah, Linux was just coming out, but something like a $15K SparcStation would have been unimaginable for the average undergrad. The only Unix console I saw any interaction with before 1992 was AU/X on a $10K Mac and "US Army BSD" (?) running on a $5K 486. And yeah, I also had the Netcom "Internet" shells etc.
But since you are speaking as a student, you're really just reinforcing my point. The guy networking OS/2 machines to Novell and hacking XBase didn't have these luxuries, nor really wanted them.
But, you're right -- 10 years ago a Sun was a IPX. It ran FTP and specialized workstation apps but it usally wasn't a business system. At least not the places I worked.
The PC culture, such as it is, started in the early 80s.
Mid 70s, I'd say. At this point we're quibbling about a couple years. Also, PC Culture was a reaction to the Glass Terminal scene, of which Unix was a full-fledged (if longhaired) member. The Unix desktop has always owed it's debt to personal computing.
A decade ago, getting access to Unix was HARD. Sure, a few people could get a shell in a university timeshare setup. However, running 'ls' and 'pine' as non-root in a term emulator doesn't really compare to running a modern productive Unix 'desktop'.
I know a few guys like the author. People working with PCs in a business setting had DOS/Novell/OS2/Windows/NT and tons of apps and languages to deal with. Non-PC systems were usually VMS or IBM. Unix was easy to avoid because that's not where the applications were. (That's all changed, but only in the last 5 years or so as UNIX took over the high-end and Linux made the low-end accesible.)
If you're advocating, it's important to grok that "PC Culture" is as old and entrenced as Unix culture. People just don't like to throw out 20 years of What They Know for something different. In a lot of ways, Linux is the bridge between the PC world and the Unix world, but it's still a big jump to make.
Could you inserted a Windows XP prof CD into an NT4 system and Click 'upgrade'?
I don't know if you are being sarcastic, but yes, in general, you can. People have lots of bad experience with the Win9x upgrade process, but NT-to-NT upgrades have always been very smooth for me. Just a simple file replace for the most part. It even tells you if you have any incompatible software or hardware.
I had a box that went NT4 -> W2K -> XP with only 2 minor issues - obsolete version of Adaptec CD Creator, and IIS started creating logfiles in the root of the drive (?).
Have you ever tried playing 80s Mac games under "Classic"? Some run, some don't, but you will never any sound. You'll often have better luck with "vMac" -- a third party VM.
It's true that the Windows VDM isn't very good, but it does run something like 95% of legacy business applications, so it does it's job.
Also, most DOS gamers recommend VirtualPC (now a Microsoft product) over VMWare for antique gaming. VMWare is more designed for partitioning servers than it is for back-compat.
Well, I think I figured out why they set the DNS Suffix -- many providers set up the mail servers to be just "mail", and rely on DHCP to get the suffix. This would allow them to steal passwords for spamming purposes, read mail, etc.
If you think web traffic is being rerouted, you might want to check your IE Proxy settings. Or try to determine if your machine's been hacked.
Think you might be barking up the wrong tree. By default, the Windows "DNS Suffix" only applies when 1) You type a short hostname without a "." 2) WINS lookup fails 3) NetBIOS broadcast fails
Then Windows sends the request for "HostName+DNS Suffix" to the DNS server for resolution. This set of circumstances would apply very rarely at best for home internet users and would seem to be useless for stealing website passwords.
More serious would be if incorrect DNS server address were being handed out by the DHCP server. You probably lost the techs at the "DNS Suffix" part. Get the DNS IPs returned by DHCP (IPCONFIG/RENEW ; IPCONFIG/ALL) and ask support if that's correct.
(Check dell.com, see no SATA machines shipping, concludes that PATA is alive and well for now.)
I don't think you understand Apple's hardware strategy -- if it doesn't sell machines, they'll use the most bog-standard generic commodity parts they can find. You'll never see a Mac with the sort of bleeding-edge features found on "enthusiast" x86 mobos.
Apple will switch to SATA -- about 3 months after the rest of the industry. If new machines ship this month, they will be using PATA drives. If you're very very lucky, there might be internal SATA ports.
Well, back in the old days people would say "UNIX is an Open System and C is an Open Language" back when they were AT&T's babies and long before cross-industry groups developed to support those standards.
"Open" means/meant 1) Documented 2) RAND licencing 3) Multiple vendor implementations. PDF passes those tests.
Reveal Codes is a complete misfeature in a graphical Word Processor.
Every time I tried using WordPerfect, I'd end up deleting the invisible </B> code, and then all of a sudden, my entire document is in boldface. So, the only way to use the damn thing is to turn Reveal Codes on.
So, now I'm no longer editing styled text, I'm editing really ugly markup "codes". Which entirely defeats the purpose of a graphical word processor to begin with -- I might as well be using HTML or WordStar and inserting printer ESC sequences.
Word's Object-Attribute model is the correct one for GUIs. Yes, modern "intellisense" versions of Word will make you pull your hair out, but try it in it's pure form (Word 5.1 for Mac), and it's wonderful.
Slashdot Mirror
My monitor good, or my monitor bad? It's a trinitron crt.
Of course, ELSA wasn't exactly no-name - bunch of Germans that want bankrupt rather than cheating on the assembly. And I don't think ATI (built) ever had 2D quality issues.
Maybe I'm just blind, but I can't tell the difference between my Matrox G400 Max, ELSA Gladiac 920 (nVidia GF3), and ATI 9700 Pro. IBM P260 Monitor.
Matrox may have had an advantage a while back, but it's nothing conclusive now days.
> If only the PC-1 had contained a MC68000. I once heard a story that said it almost did, but who knows if it's true
There's been several threads on this in alt.folklore.computer over the years, so check groups.google.com.
What I've read is that the IBM PC was designed from the beginning to be a CP/M-compatible machine, so it's not true. In fact, I don't think the 68K was even shipping in 1981.
The urban legend seems to come from fact that IBM was experimenting with something more like a Unix workstation at the same time.
The other urban legend is that the IBM PC was going to be based on the Atari 800 8-bit system!
Usenet.
Good point. Remember the "Endless September" of 1993 and the AOL invasion of 1994?
Well, those people are now the "old timers" of usenet, and they are working hard to keep it just as trollish and flamefilled as the "good ol days" were.
(Also, WRT hardware requirements, it seems that a lot of people on Usenet are still using the same computer they had in 1994. Thus, any innovation that won't run on they belothed Win95 machine is automatically suspect.)
Not really, because that scheme does not prevent you from running malicious or buggy programs that mess with your sound settings.
...
I'm thinking about something more along the lines of a "sandbox" system. When you install a CD player, for example, you'd see a dialog for what privileges the program has:
[X] Adjust Sound Settings
[ ] Send Email
[ ] Move/Delete Files
[ ] Open Network Port
Programs that vector in from email could have artificially restricted settings.
Of course, there's a host of implementation problems, not the least being that neither Linux or Windows was designed with this sort of security in mind. This would also be very PC specific -- in most cases it seems like existing model works for server systems.
A unprivileged Unix user can parse an address book, delete MP3 files, and send mail. In most cases they can also run a proxy server on a high port. So, "root" isn't much protection against these viruses.
In fact, I'd argue that the whole timesharing SuperUser vs Peon security distinction is a fundamentally broken design for how most people use Personal Computers. It's a relic of minicomputing. On a modern PC, virtually every user needs some administrative rights, and almost everyone wants to run "untrusted" programs such as file sharing and so on.
It would be great if we could chuck the whole user-based system in favor of some sort of role or program-based model where programs have privileges based on what they are rather than who is running them. But since both Unix and Windows are heavily based on the user-centric model, that's going to be very difficult.
Yes, I'm certain that the original 10.0 install had much better performance, and even played the opengl screensavers on the Lombard.
However, I'm not totally certain when suport was dropped/readded. Might have been early in the 10.0x series.
Well, not my DVD player, because I don't have one [g]
The other thing that ticks me off wrt that PowerBook is that 10.2 dropped support for SCSI CD burners.
I don't really care about the money -- the upshot of this lawsuit is that OS X is actually usable on my old "Bronze" G3 PowerBook.
Backstory:
OS X 10.0 shipped with a 2D/3D accelerated driver for the RagePro in this machine. Apple dropped all 2D/3D hardware acceleration in 10.1, making the machine essentially unusable under OS X. They also issued a technote which basically said "Too Bad, Sucker".
It wasn't until after the lawsuit that Apple backtracked and 2D Rage Pro accelerated driver appeared. I can live without the (lame) 3D, but OS X was completely unusable otherwise.
Running select(*) on a table should never take very long, and most of the problem, that I can tell from diagnostics, was the server just halting network traffic.
I'd expect that if the table lacks any indexes (like GoldMine). Big no-no. My guess it that the server wasn't RAM caching the table, and the stalls you saw were caused by waiting to read the data sequentially off the disk. But, I dunno, it could be the network problems you mentioned too. Or something else.
MSSQL is fine; probably the only top-notch product Microsoft makes, IMO. A bad schema will cause terrible application performance on any RDBMS: DB2, Oracle, Postgres, you name it. MySQL is more Flat-Fileque, so perhaps it fits this use model better.
Also, in many cases Paradox tables will be faster than any RDBMS. If the app (which can't be changed) was designed to use Paradox, I'd just go ahead and use Paradox. Just make sure to get the Samba version that supports the correct record locking.
Every program a client has that uses any version of SQL Server needs constant fixing, and is incredibly slow for 7 users. I could give you a list of programs, but it's just about every program on the market. One of them has an option to use paradox database files,
:P
I think I know what you are talking about.
I'm guessing this software is mainly decade old desktop packages that were originally designed to run on Paradox/dBase/FoxPro and ported to SQL Server or Oracle because that's the trendy thing to do. (If you see "BDE", the Borland Data Engine, it's a good sign that this is what you've got.) The thing is, the apps aren't really ported to use a RDBMS design. They still use "Flat Files" and have their own key/indexing system and old style coding.
The one I'm familar with is the very popular "Goldmine" sales package (had to get data from it's schema for an app I built). Doesn't even use Primary Keys, much less non-clustered indexes. Instead it's got these dbase-style bogo keys which look like "AAAA", "AAAa", "AAaa" and so on. But SQL Server is running in case insensitive mode, so all of the key comparison is done on the client! It also appears to do record locking on the client-side. No wonder an almost trivial application only supports 20-some users on a P4 server.
Hopefully as someone targetting DB2, you aren't making the same kinds of error, because you'll see the same issues no matter the RDBMS.
There are intentional problems between NT4 and Win2K+ using NT4 as a file server with SMB
I'm guessing this is the "rogue master browser" problem. Sucks, but an unofficially well known issue.
Netscape killed themselves with their own hubris and irrational reverence for Communicator 4. The rewrite might have been justfied, but the goal of making an exact clone of the old version was just a terrible management decision.
I guess they missed the memo where users decided that Communicator sucked. The whole premise seems to have been that there was some sort of giant secret Netscape fanbase out there that was only concerned about standards compliance issues. Quite the opposite -- in the laundry lists of bitches about Netscape, for most users compatibility was very low on the list.
It seems like they had this arrogant, obsolete Rule The World independant platform strategy left over from the Netscape Communication days and it just did not fit either AOL or mozilla.org. Not to mention the just plain arrogant decisions about compatibility that was not befitting a browser with 1% marketshare.
Even when you go back to old slashdot discussions about Mozilla, the concerns were being echoed -- Why make the mailer run in the same process space as the browser? Why not lightweight and modular like IE? Why so bloated? And the answer was "Because the way Netscape does things." Well, end users looked at it and just said "Netscape? Bleck." They were dead from the get-go.
It wasn't until the writing was on the wall and the pinkslips were in the mail did mozilla drop their Party Line of "When In Doubt, Copy Version 4". Firebird is what Mozilla should have been since the beginning -- a fresh new platform that had a chance at attracting users and devs.
I was going to ask the same question -- Does the IBM deal include recoding all those apps for WebSphere or something? Or is that a hidden cost in this whole thing. Seems to be a significant hangup.
As for the paranoid AC, custom/vertical apps are the #1 reason people will continue to use Windows. No astroturf required.
if SCO had a full version, no limits Unix for intel boxes that sold for MS-DOS's (or even Windows 3.11 + DOS) price, where would the computing world be now?
Well, Linus even said that if he could have purchased a Unix for $300, he wouldn't have bothered.
Many of the Unixes on ESR's old list such as DELL UNIX are branded versions of Novell/Uniware UNIXWare, btw. McBride is semi-correct. UNIXWare had lots of market potential. However, not in the hands of SCO.
No proprietary Unix vendor ever made substantial in roads in this area, and I doubt any would have
It was a chicken-and-egg predicament. As long as Unix-on-Intel meant "SCO", it was perpetually going to be a nitch product. Those guys were always dodgy and expensive.
But, back in 1995, Novell announced they were going to merge UNIXWare with NetWare to form something called "SuperNOS" and compete directly with Windows NT in the "mixed use" server market. At this time, Novell had > 50% marketshare and would have had incredible leverage to push UNIX on corporate customers and line-up hardware and political support. With the Internet boom, the timing would have been perfect.
But instead Novell went for this insanely stupid WordPerfect-based client strategy and scotched UnixWare. The rest is history -- Novell's now a minor league vendor and they are crawling back to SuperNOS, except this time with Linux and 8 years too late. And Microsoft pretty much owns the low-end corporate server market.
This was a huge missed opportunity that set Unix adoption back by probably 5 years. Unix-on-Intel never had a real "push" until the late 90s with Linux. Sure, the liberal licencing helps, but so does the support network and the hardware and vendor support that SCO and Sun never had.
You'll have to excuse me for fudging the dates by a year or two. Yeah, Linux was just coming out, but something like a $15K SparcStation would have been unimaginable for the average undergrad. The only Unix console I saw any interaction with before 1992 was AU/X on a $10K Mac and "US Army BSD" (?) running on a $5K 486. And yeah, I also had the Netcom "Internet" shells etc.
But since you are speaking as a student, you're really just reinforcing my point. The guy networking OS/2 machines to Novell and hacking XBase didn't have these luxuries, nor really wanted them.
But, you're right -- 10 years ago a Sun was a IPX. It ran FTP and specialized workstation apps but it usally wasn't a business system. At least not the places I worked.
The PC culture, such as it is, started in the early 80s.
Mid 70s, I'd say. At this point we're quibbling about a couple years. Also, PC Culture was a reaction to the Glass Terminal scene, of which Unix was a full-fledged (if longhaired) member. The Unix desktop has always owed it's debt to personal computing.
A decade ago, getting access to Unix was HARD. Sure, a few people could get a shell in a university timeshare setup. However, running 'ls' and 'pine' as non-root in a term emulator doesn't really compare to running a modern productive Unix 'desktop'.
I know a few guys like the author. People working with PCs in a business setting had DOS/Novell/OS2/Windows/NT and tons of apps and languages to deal with. Non-PC systems were usually VMS or IBM. Unix was easy to avoid because that's not where the applications were. (That's all changed, but only in the last 5 years or so as UNIX took over the high-end and Linux made the low-end accesible.)
If you're advocating, it's important to grok that "PC Culture" is as old and entrenced as Unix culture. People just don't like to throw out 20 years of What They Know for something different. In a lot of ways, Linux is the bridge between the PC world and the Unix world, but it's still a big jump to make.
Could you inserted a Windows XP prof CD into an NT4 system and Click 'upgrade'?
I don't know if you are being sarcastic, but yes, in general, you can. People have lots of bad experience with the Win9x upgrade process, but NT-to-NT upgrades have always been very smooth for me. Just a simple file replace for the most part. It even tells you if you have any incompatible software or hardware.
I had a box that went NT4 -> W2K -> XP with only 2 minor issues - obsolete version of Adaptec CD Creator, and IIS started creating logfiles in the root of the drive (?).
I define the difference between a "desktop" and a "workstation" in terms of application support.
In the old days, a "workstation" was defined by 2 properties: 1) SCSI 2) A Multi-User OS.
Now pretty much every OS is multi-user, and the value of SCSI in a desktop is debatable. (Although the Dell comparison boxes still have it).
Have you ever tried playing 80s Mac games under "Classic"? Some run, some don't, but you will never any sound. You'll often have better luck with "vMac" -- a third party VM.
It's true that the Windows VDM isn't very good, but it does run something like 95% of legacy business applications, so it does it's job.
Also, most DOS gamers recommend VirtualPC (now a Microsoft product) over VMWare for antique gaming. VMWare is more designed for partitioning servers than it is for back-compat.
Well, I think I figured out why they set the DNS Suffix -- many providers set up the mail servers to be just "mail", and rely on DHCP to get the suffix. This would allow them to steal passwords for spamming purposes, read mail, etc.
If you think web traffic is being rerouted, you might want to check your IE Proxy settings. Or try to determine if your machine's been hacked.
It's also possible this is a virus, not spyware.
Think you might be barking up the wrong tree. By default, the Windows "DNS Suffix" only applies when
/RENEW ; IPCONFIG /ALL) and ask support if that's correct.
1) You type a short hostname without a "."
2) WINS lookup fails
3) NetBIOS broadcast fails
Then Windows sends the request for "HostName+DNS Suffix" to the DNS server for resolution. This set of circumstances would apply very rarely at best for home internet users and would seem to be useless for stealing website passwords.
More serious would be if incorrect DNS server address were being handed out by the DHCP server. You probably lost the techs at the "DNS Suffix" part. Get the DNS IPs returned by DHCP (IPCONFIG
(Check dell.com, see no SATA machines shipping, concludes that PATA is alive and well for now.)
I don't think you understand Apple's hardware strategy -- if it doesn't sell machines, they'll use the most bog-standard generic commodity parts they can find. You'll never see a Mac with the sort of bleeding-edge features found on "enthusiast" x86 mobos.
Apple will switch to SATA -- about 3 months after the rest of the industry. If new machines ship this month, they will be using PATA drives. If you're very very lucky, there might be internal SATA ports.
Well, back in the old days people would say "UNIX is an Open System and C is an Open Language" back when they were AT&T's babies and long before cross-industry groups developed to support those standards.
"Open" means/meant 1) Documented 2) RAND licencing 3) Multiple vendor implementations. PDF passes those tests.
Reveal Codes is a complete misfeature in a graphical Word Processor.
Every time I tried using WordPerfect, I'd end up deleting the invisible </B> code, and then all of a sudden, my entire document is in boldface. So, the only way to use the damn thing is to turn Reveal Codes on.
So, now I'm no longer editing styled text, I'm editing really ugly markup "codes". Which entirely defeats the purpose of a graphical word processor to begin with -- I might as well be using HTML or WordStar and inserting printer ESC sequences.
Word's Object-Attribute model is the correct one for GUIs. Yes, modern "intellisense" versions of Word will make you pull your hair out, but try it in it's pure form (Word 5.1 for Mac), and it's wonderful.