I don't mind the level scaling. The problems you encountered are possibly a result of "inefficient" leveling up which is a bit of an issue since you really have no idea how the leveling works for the first 20 levels or so. But if you get to know the game a bit and then start again, leveling up efficiently all the way(which means, making sure you always max out the bonus points you receive at each level transition) then you do actually get better relative to the enemies in the game.
I do wish there were more really *hard* challenges that have super rewards instead of the rather bland quests that seem grand and then give you as a result a few hundred gold or a mediocre weapon that's worse than what you already have.
> This isn't like global warming, where a relatively small group can fuck it up for everyone;
I'm sorry, but it is exactly like that. A small group of people making the App store and it's locked down model a success has now prompted Microsoft to completely ditch their open Windows Mobile platform and replace it with a closed alternative where developers need approval to make applications and are forced to give money to Microsoft every time they sell one.
This is a disaster for the wider development community and it's all Apple's fault because they were the only one that could have pulled it off and they decided to "be evil" to make a fist full of dollars. Now that they have, the idea that developers should be able to deploy whatever applications they want on a platform is going to soon seem like a quaint memory from the olden days.
It's not entirely clear but it is looking very likely that IE9 will not even run on XP.
Which definitely sucks for us web developers and really the entire world as we can certainly shelve any idea we had about developing cool HTML5 apps for the general public where 90+% of browsers have to be supported.
> Do you really believe that no one will notice that the firewall doesn't work?
This is my biggest fear. The moment the thing is turned on the news papers and current affairs shows will have a field day showing 12 year olds happily bypassing the filter without so much as blinking an eye lid, and doubtless a crowd of semi-legitimate software vendors and web sites will spring up offering "filter bypass" services / products / plugins / proxies etc.
The Government, humiliated by its own incompetence is going to react with a knee jerk that will probably involve declaring bypassing of the filter and / or selling any software that faciltates it to be illegal, and then we really are in a police state where not only is our internet filtered, but it is illegal to bypass the filtering and even the very software we are allowed to run on our computers is controlled by the government.
The worst part really is the endorsement of the concept that IP violations are "stealing":
But it's only a competitive advantage if our companies
know that someone else can't just steal that idea...
Ideas cannot be stolen. It is a physical impossibility. The copyright & patent industry love to blur the lines of the law and pretend that using IP without authorization is as heinous as breaking into someone's house and stealing their physical goods. But it is a complete lie.
It's bad enough that the various industries that benefit from these get away with blatant misleading and deception of the general public about it, but having the *president* endorse that lie is very disappointing.
Down here we need a little help. The issue is just not really even impinging on public consciousness. I hope Google takes this stand elsewhere and gives some other countries who are warming to the idea of total control over information flow in their countries something to think about. (Yes, I know it won't happen).
You should definitely get an iPhone - they are designed to work even for people with severely compromised logic such as yourself.
Good at X does not imply Bad at Y.
These standards sound good as acronyms, but in practice, they are relatively unuseful for conveying clinical information. We basically have a situation where it has been in the vendor's interests for 30 years to build IT systems that are walled gardens. The parts that are standardized are all the low value parts that they know they can lose without reducing lock-in. Even simple things like code sets are mostly licensed with huge fees attached so that there are huge barriers to entry to small players. In reality, getting a full patient record out of one system and into another without data loss is near impossible.
I wish the feds had funded and mandated an entirely separate medical record format (something like CCR, but released under liberal licensing) that would force everyone to sing the same tune. Instead they've just come out with rather generic "meaningful use" requirements and said the formats are up to the vendors.
It's a shame this attitude seems to have set in. If you review where java + applets are now they are a 100% cross platform, open source replacement for Flash, Silverlight, etc. with only marginally lower deployment footprint than flash. They have improved so much in start up time and other problems that they are quite usable now. However the residual geek memory is such that everyone prefers to embrace evil empires and then complain bitterly rather than use applets.
> Have you read the interview Phil Jones did with the BBC. He came clean and admitted that there is no evidence of man made global warming. This is the TOP GUY, who still believes its true, and given millions upon millions to prove it over a 20 year period, he was unable to.
I love seeing that interview raised in debates on global warming because it quickly tells me who the liars and pretenders are. If you are prepared to portray it in such a fashion then you're clearly either so biased or so ignorant that not much else you say needs to be taken seriously. Shame you posted AC.
Sure - but I think the whole point is that you'd be smiling even more if they were using one of the modern & trendy dynamic languages because you'd likely have 2 - 3 times the amount of hardware to look after. I'm not sure what alternative you would propose that uses less hardware but there actually aren't many that are better than the JVM these days.
> how hard can it be to implement a clean-room version of a mysql client library and make it BSD-like licensed
The answer to this question and I suspect the reason it's not been really done (notwithstanding valiant efforts like drizzle): it's impossible, because even as you write your client library the owner of the server code only has to tweak a single bit in their protocol to destroy compatibility with your library, and if you are destroying their business model with your client library you can bet they will do it over and over again.
The bottom line becomes - is there really any point in insisting on using a platform in defiance of / opposition to the wishes of the owner / controller of that platform? For software like databases where you need an intimate working relationship with the vendor I think it's just pointless.
> The fact that there are compatibility issues already with Android is very concerning.
I think you have this backwards. The platform is in "startup" mode right now and is changing incredibly fast because of that. They're adding fundamental features like multi touch, A2DP, etc etc. by the month at the moment. It's not surprising that a device released 6 months ago has some compatibility issues.
The real question is how well and how quickly will this settle down? Hopefully the next 12 months will see that happen. If not - I agree with you, it's a problem. But I think it's too early to make that judgement *just yet*.
You're absolutely right, but WinMo *was* locked down in a very harmful way for a long time - in terms of hardware. Eg: Microsoft *insisted* for ages on certain primitive specs like a max resolution of QVGA (240x320) which really crippled the market for high end, super slick devices. It changed after a while, but I think it's one reason that Apple was able to fly past them with the iPhone - manufacturers were prevented from innovating.
It's fascinating how after initially being a posterboy for the post-Java revolution Twitter is gradually moving their architecture to the JVM, piece by piece. I think it's actually a credit to them that they seem to have level heads and are evaluating technology on it's merits (where as if you talk to most of the ruby / python crowd they would rather stick toothpicks in their eyes than endorse a solution that involves java).
I was a customer in good standing for 3+ years with no problem. Then some 3rd party anti virus software flagged a false positive on a file I was distributing. Understandable, this kind of thing can happen. But what did BlueHost do? Did they quarantine the file? No. Did they contact me? No. Did they verify with any other tool or mechanism whether it was really a problem? No. What Bluehost did was immediately disable the entire hosting account (every domain).
Even worse, anybody accessing any page was greeted with a page saying "Your account has been disabled. Please contact support.". So all my customers saw this page and many dozens of them all contacted support assuming their accounts had been disabled.
I got the emails from angry customers before the one from BlueHost arrived. I called them. They said they could not restore my service because the person who could do it had gone home for the day (!) They told me to email the person, so I did. 24 hours go by, no response. I email again. They tell me my site is hosting a file infected with a virus and I have to clean it up (useless). 2 more cycles of this and FINALLY they run a real virus checker on my account and conclude there is no problem.
3 days of outage, dozens of confused and angry customers, no apology from BlueHost.
I can only say, do *not* rely on these guys for *any* critical business purpose.
> This would be like holding a civil engineer responsible when a terrorist blows up a bridge -- he should have planned for a bomb being placed in just such-and-such location and made the bridge more resistant to attack.
Bad analogies are just bad analogies. Here's a better bad analogy: It's like holding a civil engineer responsible for creating a design where the whole bridge collapses when an unsophisticated incident occurs such as a car deliberately ramming into a single pylon.
I actually think it's entirely appropriate to hold a civil engineer responsible for that, and it's also entirely appropriate to hold software engineers responsible for simple, well known intrusion techniques such as SQL injection, XSS and CSRF.
Re:Still not quite sure why twitter is necessary
on
Two Scoops of Buzz
·
· Score: 1
Email has this really cool feature - it's called a "subject line". You can summarize your whole email in just one sentence and put it in a line that will show up in someone's inbox without them having to open and read the whole email. I too was sceptical at first, but it's a boon once you get used to it!
Totally agree. This was a real "Facebook" move by Google (and I mean that in its full pejorative sense). They basically decided that it's better / easier to apologize afterwards than ask permission beforehand. The fact is, by just releasing this for one day with the flawed privacy they got 90% of people who use gmail into buzz with all their email contacts as a default social graph. The speed with which they responded to the howls about privacy (which many are praising) actually makes me cynical that they must have had their updates ready to fire off all along and it was just a matter of how long they figured they could wait. No big company makes those kinds of changes completely unexpectedly and gets them QA'd and fired off in 24 hours. It had to be thought through beforehand. They simply watched the cost / value curve descending and picked their time to deploy the changes and release their apology.
Nonetheless, I support buzz because it *is* massively better than Twitter in that it is based on open standards and open APIs and will at least open this space up and stop it being beholden to a single company.
Umm, what? One of the primary tenets of HIPAA is that all data at rest must be encrypted where it is reasonably possible to do so and all data without exception is encrypted when transmitted. And companies go to great lengths (and expense) to comply with that. I don't know if you have any idea what you are talking about but you seem completely ignorant of actual reality here.
> Do you think the mafia or the nazi's give a damn about laws?
Oh, so when you say "nothing stops" people from selling out your privacy you mean it the same way as that nothing stops someone from buying a gun and shooting you in the head. That's also illegal but also impossible to stop if you're really talking about someone who has no regard for the law. Do you then reach the same conclusion that we should all just accept that shooting in the head is a foregone conclusion and live with it?
> Is it really an invasion of your privacy that the people who run a website or cable company providing you network services to be able to figure out where their resources are being used? What portion of their resources are used? Did you catch that use of the word THEIR, these aren't YOUR resources being monitored so if the owner wants to monitor them, so be it.
There are 2 flaws in your position on this.
The first is that you assume that you *know* all the ways that your privacy is being violated. Do you know that Google tries to track and correlate all your search queries? Are you going to tell me that you never use Google? Do you know that Flash cookies exist and persist completely independently of your browser settings and can track you across domains so that entire networks of sites can form a profile of you from what you probably consider to be innocent passive browsing? Do you know that even just one of your "friends" on Facebook installing an app immediately and irrevocably gives a large amount of data about you to the app they installed (unless you delve deep into Facebook security settings to change the defaults)? Perhaps you do know these things; that's not really point. The average person does not. Even if you know everything I just mentioned, I would bet there are privacy loopholes that you don't know.
The second flaw in your position is that you fail to recognize that your assessment about your privacy risk is done now, while the trail you leave is captured permanently and is unerasable and thus is subject to *future* risk of compromise.
Perhaps you visit some web sites about knives, which are fairly innocuous objects today. Then one day a knife you happen to have viewed on line is used in a terrorist act. The authorities force Google to hand over a list of everybody who viewed that particular knife and you are now the subject of an intense investigation. Had you known the knife would be a terrorist weapon you not have visited the site, but it's too late now. Or, perhaps you look at some porn one day. Then a year later you are applying for a job. The other candidate, however, pays to purchase a profile of your online behavior from a tracking company (such companies *already* exist), and exposes your porn viewing to the employer, who now declines your application for the job. This can happen a million different ways, but the broad point is that the fact that you are happy for certain information to be public *now* is does not account for future risk, nor the changing meaning of "public" now that information is so easily indexable, trackable and searchable.
> I also happen to believe that anything I do online, by nature of the internet, is public, and accordingly I choose not to put most of the details of my life onto it.
So you're saying that you've made a drastic sacrifice of refusing to use a huge amount of wonderful potential that the internet has because you have no faith in its privacy. It's like saying "I refuse to leave my house because I am sure to be mugged" - fine - but don't you have any sense of loss for how great the world could be if you *could* actually leave your house? Don't you think the world could be a better place if the streets weren't full of muggers? I can understand your position, but I'm surprised you are so sanguine about it.
Personally - I believe in privacy rights *because* I want to be able to use the internet to it's full potential. I *want* to be able to share photos with my friends by uploading them to a photo site and not fully expect that I and they will have no privacy in doing so.
> We, the Australian Library and Information Association, Google, Inspire Foundation and Yahoo! agree...
They get Google AND Yahoo to support this initiative and then lead off with "the Australian Library and Information Association". Nobody will even read past those words before they ditch this statement as irrelevant.
> What new improvements in productivity do you gain from them
You can work more efficiently, safely and at larger scales. You don't need to be a wild MS supporter to acknowledge that there are significant improvements in Vista & 7 from the fundamental design of the system (utilizing the graphics card natively to buffer windows, UAC providing a "sudo" like mechanism) right through to the UI (true native integrated search, libraries, aero peek etc.). In general the OS *scales* better - it is designed to handle a larger number of installed and running programs.
Slashdot Mirror
I do wish there were more really *hard* challenges that have super rewards instead of the rather bland quests that seem grand and then give you as a result a few hundred gold or a mediocre weapon that's worse than what you already have.
I'm sorry, but it is exactly like that. A small group of people making the App store and it's locked down model a success has now prompted Microsoft to completely ditch their open Windows Mobile platform and replace it with a closed alternative where developers need approval to make applications and are forced to give money to Microsoft every time they sell one.
This is a disaster for the wider development community and it's all Apple's fault because they were the only one that could have pulled it off and they decided to "be evil" to make a fist full of dollars. Now that they have, the idea that developers should be able to deploy whatever applications they want on a platform is going to soon seem like a quaint memory from the olden days.
It's not entirely clear but it is looking very likely that IE9 will not even run on XP.
Which definitely sucks for us web developers and really the entire world as we can certainly shelve any idea we had about developing cool HTML5 apps for the general public where 90+% of browsers have to be supported.
This is my biggest fear. The moment the thing is turned on the news papers and current affairs shows will have a field day showing 12 year olds happily bypassing the filter without so much as blinking an eye lid, and doubtless a crowd of semi-legitimate software vendors and web sites will spring up offering "filter bypass" services / products / plugins / proxies etc.
The Government, humiliated by its own incompetence is going to react with a knee jerk that will probably involve declaring bypassing of the filter and / or selling any software that faciltates it to be illegal, and then we really are in a police state where not only is our internet filtered, but it is illegal to bypass the filtering and even the very software we are allowed to run on our computers is controlled by the government.
But it's only a competitive advantage if our companies know that someone else can't just steal that idea ...
Ideas cannot be stolen. It is a physical impossibility. The copyright & patent industry love to blur the lines of the law and pretend that using IP without authorization is as heinous as breaking into someone's house and stealing their physical goods. But it is a complete lie. It's bad enough that the various industries that benefit from these get away with blatant misleading and deception of the general public about it, but having the *president* endorse that lie is very disappointing.
Down here we need a little help. The issue is just not really even impinging on public consciousness. I hope Google takes this stand elsewhere and gives some other countries who are warming to the idea of total control over information flow in their countries something to think about. (Yes, I know it won't happen).
You should definitely get an iPhone - they are designed to work even for people with severely compromised logic such as yourself. Good at X does not imply Bad at Y.
These standards sound good as acronyms, but in practice, they are relatively unuseful for conveying clinical information. We basically have a situation where it has been in the vendor's interests for 30 years to build IT systems that are walled gardens. The parts that are standardized are all the low value parts that they know they can lose without reducing lock-in. Even simple things like code sets are mostly licensed with huge fees attached so that there are huge barriers to entry to small players. In reality, getting a full patient record out of one system and into another without data loss is near impossible.
I wish the feds had funded and mandated an entirely separate medical record format (something like CCR, but released under liberal licensing) that would force everyone to sing the same tune. Instead they've just come out with rather generic "meaningful use" requirements and said the formats are up to the vendors.
It's a shame this attitude seems to have set in. If you review where java + applets are now they are a 100% cross platform, open source replacement for Flash, Silverlight, etc. with only marginally lower deployment footprint than flash. They have improved so much in start up time and other problems that they are quite usable now. However the residual geek memory is such that everyone prefers to embrace evil empires and then complain bitterly rather than use applets.
> Have you read the interview Phil Jones did with the BBC. He came clean and admitted that there is no evidence of man made global warming. This is the TOP GUY, who still believes its true, and given millions upon millions to prove it over a 20 year period, he was unable to.
I love seeing that interview raised in debates on global warming because it quickly tells me who the liars and pretenders are. If you are prepared to portray it in such a fashion then you're clearly either so biased or so ignorant that not much else you say needs to be taken seriously. Shame you posted AC.
Sure - but I think the whole point is that you'd be smiling even more if they were using one of the modern & trendy dynamic languages because you'd likely have 2 - 3 times the amount of hardware to look after. I'm not sure what alternative you would propose that uses less hardware but there actually aren't many that are better than the JVM these days.
> how hard can it be to implement a clean-room version of a mysql client library and make it BSD-like licensed
The answer to this question and I suspect the reason it's not been really done (notwithstanding valiant efforts like drizzle): it's impossible, because even as you write your client library the owner of the server code only has to tweak a single bit in their protocol to destroy compatibility with your library, and if you are destroying their business model with your client library you can bet they will do it over and over again.
The bottom line becomes - is there really any point in insisting on using a platform in defiance of / opposition to the wishes of the owner / controller of that platform? For software like databases where you need an intimate working relationship with the vendor I think it's just pointless.
> The fact that there are compatibility issues already with Android is very concerning.
I think you have this backwards. The platform is in "startup" mode right now and is changing incredibly fast because of that. They're adding fundamental features like multi touch, A2DP, etc etc. by the month at the moment. It's not surprising that a device released 6 months ago has some compatibility issues.
The real question is how well and how quickly will this settle down? Hopefully the next 12 months will see that happen. If not - I agree with you, it's a problem. But I think it's too early to make that judgement *just yet*.
You're absolutely right, but WinMo *was* locked down in a very harmful way for a long time - in terms of hardware. Eg: Microsoft *insisted* for ages on certain primitive specs like a max resolution of QVGA (240x320) which really crippled the market for high end, super slick devices. It changed after a while, but I think it's one reason that Apple was able to fly past them with the iPhone - manufacturers were prevented from innovating.
It's fascinating how after initially being a posterboy for the post-Java revolution Twitter is gradually moving their architecture to the JVM, piece by piece. I think it's actually a credit to them that they seem to have level heads and are evaluating technology on it's merits (where as if you talk to most of the ruby / python crowd they would rather stick toothpicks in their eyes than endorse a solution that involves java).
I had a very similar experience.
I was a customer in good standing for 3+ years with no problem. Then some 3rd party anti virus software flagged a false positive on a file I was distributing. Understandable, this kind of thing can happen. But what did BlueHost do? Did they quarantine the file? No. Did they contact me? No. Did they verify with any other tool or mechanism whether it was really a problem? No. What Bluehost did was immediately disable the entire hosting account (every domain).
Even worse, anybody accessing any page was greeted with a page saying "Your account has been disabled. Please contact support.". So all my customers saw this page and many dozens of them all contacted support assuming their accounts had been disabled.
I got the emails from angry customers before the one from BlueHost arrived. I called them. They said they could not restore my service because the person who could do it had gone home for the day (!) They told me to email the person, so I did. 24 hours go by, no response. I email again. They tell me my site is hosting a file infected with a virus and I have to clean it up (useless). 2 more cycles of this and FINALLY they run a real virus checker on my account and conclude there is no problem.
3 days of outage, dozens of confused and angry customers, no apology from BlueHost.
I can only say, do *not* rely on these guys for *any* critical business purpose.
> This would be like holding a civil engineer responsible when a terrorist blows up a bridge -- he should have planned for a bomb being placed in just such-and-such location and made the bridge more resistant to attack.
Bad analogies are just bad analogies. Here's a better bad analogy: It's like holding a civil engineer responsible for creating a design where the whole bridge collapses when an unsophisticated incident occurs such as a car deliberately ramming into a single pylon.
I actually think it's entirely appropriate to hold a civil engineer responsible for that, and it's also entirely appropriate to hold software engineers responsible for simple, well known intrusion techniques such as SQL injection, XSS and CSRF.
Email has this really cool feature - it's called a "subject line". You can summarize your whole email in just one sentence and put it in a line that will show up in someone's inbox without them having to open and read the whole email. I too was sceptical at first, but it's a boon once you get used to it!
Totally agree. This was a real "Facebook" move by Google (and I mean that in its full pejorative sense). They basically decided that it's better / easier to apologize afterwards than ask permission beforehand. The fact is, by just releasing this for one day with the flawed privacy they got 90% of people who use gmail into buzz with all their email contacts as a default social graph. The speed with which they responded to the howls about privacy (which many are praising) actually makes me cynical that they must have had their updates ready to fire off all along and it was just a matter of how long they figured they could wait. No big company makes those kinds of changes completely unexpectedly and gets them QA'd and fired off in 24 hours. It had to be thought through beforehand. They simply watched the cost / value curve descending and picked their time to deploy the changes and release their apology.
Nonetheless, I support buzz because it *is* massively better than Twitter in that it is based on open standards and open APIs and will at least open this space up and stop it being beholden to a single company.
> The data isn't encrypted
Umm, what? One of the primary tenets of HIPAA is that all data at rest must be encrypted where it is reasonably possible to do so and all data without exception is encrypted when transmitted. And companies go to great lengths (and expense) to comply with that. I don't know if you have any idea what you are talking about but you seem completely ignorant of actual reality here.
> Do you think the mafia or the nazi's give a damn about laws?
Oh, so when you say "nothing stops" people from selling out your privacy you mean it the same way as that nothing stops someone from buying a gun and shooting you in the head. That's also illegal but also impossible to stop if you're really talking about someone who has no regard for the law. Do you then reach the same conclusion that we should all just accept that shooting in the head is a foregone conclusion and live with it?
> Is it really an invasion of your privacy that the people who run a website or cable company providing you network services to be able to figure out where their resources are being used? What portion of their resources are used? Did you catch that use of the word THEIR, these aren't YOUR resources being monitored so if the owner wants to monitor them, so be it.
There are 2 flaws in your position on this.
The first is that you assume that you *know* all the ways that your privacy is being violated. Do you know that Google tries to track and correlate all your search queries? Are you going to tell me that you never use Google? Do you know that Flash cookies exist and persist completely independently of your browser settings and can track you across domains so that entire networks of sites can form a profile of you from what you probably consider to be innocent passive browsing? Do you know that even just one of your "friends" on Facebook installing an app immediately and irrevocably gives a large amount of data about you to the app they installed (unless you delve deep into Facebook security settings to change the defaults)? Perhaps you do know these things; that's not really point. The average person does not. Even if you know everything I just mentioned, I would bet there are privacy loopholes that you don't know.
The second flaw in your position is that you fail to recognize that your assessment about your privacy risk is done now, while the trail you leave is captured permanently and is unerasable and thus is subject to *future* risk of compromise.
Perhaps you visit some web sites about knives, which are fairly innocuous objects today. Then one day a knife you happen to have viewed on line is used in a terrorist act. The authorities force Google to hand over a list of everybody who viewed that particular knife and you are now the subject of an intense investigation. Had you known the knife would be a terrorist weapon you not have visited the site, but it's too late now. Or, perhaps you look at some porn one day. Then a year later you are applying for a job. The other candidate, however, pays to purchase a profile of your online behavior from a tracking company (such companies *already* exist), and exposes your porn viewing to the employer, who now declines your application for the job. This can happen a million different ways, but the broad point is that the fact that you are happy for certain information to be public *now* is does not account for future risk, nor the changing meaning of "public" now that information is so easily indexable, trackable and searchable.
> And nothing stops anyone from selling your health records to the nazi's, the mafia, the street gang, the Republicans.
Umm, it's most definitely illegal to violate the privacy a health record in the United States. There's a whole volume of law on this called HIPAA.
> I also happen to believe that anything I do online, by nature of the internet, is public, and accordingly I choose not to put most of the details of my life onto it.
So you're saying that you've made a drastic sacrifice of refusing to use a huge amount of wonderful potential that the internet has because you have no faith in its privacy. It's like saying "I refuse to leave my house because I am sure to be mugged" - fine - but don't you have any sense of loss for how great the world could be if you *could* actually leave your house? Don't you think the world could be a better place if the streets weren't full of muggers? I can understand your position, but I'm surprised you are so sanguine about it.
Personally - I believe in privacy rights *because* I want to be able to use the internet to it's full potential. I *want* to be able to share photos with my friends by uploading them to a photo site and not fully expect that I and they will have no privacy in doing so.
> We, the Australian Library and Information Association, Google, Inspire Foundation and Yahoo! agree ...
They get Google AND Yahoo to support this initiative and then lead off with "the Australian Library and Information Association". Nobody will even read past those words before they ditch this statement as irrelevant.
> What new improvements in productivity do you gain from them
You can work more efficiently, safely and at larger scales. You don't need to be a wild MS supporter to acknowledge that there are significant improvements in Vista & 7 from the fundamental design of the system (utilizing the graphics card natively to buffer windows, UAC providing a "sudo" like mechanism) right through to the UI (true native integrated search, libraries, aero peek etc.). In general the OS *scales* better - it is designed to handle a larger number of installed and running programs.