Actually, the registry option offered in XP SP2 disables *write* access to USB storage devices; reading is not affected, so for the few people who carry around MP3's on a USB keychain (as opposed to, you know, buying a portable MP3 player), they could do as you suggest.
Sites and slashdot posters that report that the registry key in question disables USB mass storage devices entirely are in error.
One of the interesting benefits Windows provides is that this registry entry can be pushed out very easily to dozens (or tens of thousands) of machines using Group Policy; heck, as an Admin you could toggle it remotely on a per-machine basis, too. No reboot (or re-mount in the case of editing/etc/fstab) required.
He's probably trying to point out that Java has enjoyed great success and continues to be a viable development platform, in spite of withdrawing from standards groups like ECMA. In spite of that, Java is still pretty good at being a "team player" when it comes to interacting with other systems.
In other words, Microsoft probably doesn't need this particular U.N. standards group in order to continue to be an important player in the development of B2B commerce standards.
Hey, SAP also pulled out of this very same group recently; you don't see them suffering as a result, do you?
You didn't address the removal of the paperclip -- that's the significant factual error you made in your earlier post, and I'm going to assume that you're too chickenshit to admit you are wrong about it.
The paperclip was removed as of Office XP. Docked task panes are now used pretty extensively to present very commonly used features; this was expanded further in Office 2003. This isn't a new development, either... here's a press release from 3.5 years ago: Farewell Clippy: What's Happening to the Infamous Office Assistant in Office XP.
Also, the product works just fine, and gets better and more intuitive with each release -- it's not Microsoft's problem that you seethe with childish anger because you can't be arsed to learn how to use their product.
Pretty much. Microsoft has free tools to do automated service pack (and hotfix) deployment... in particular, Software Update Services. Obviously, with any major software upgrade, you must do testing and configuration before going ahead. Microsoft also provides white-papers with step-by-step instructions so that administrators can do things the "right way".
The best place to start on getting all the information you need to deploy XP SP2 is Technet:
Uhhh... sorry to interrupt your rant, but Generics are coming to.NET much sooner than 2007. In fact, they are coming with.NET version 2.0, which is already in beta.
So, there you have it. Generics are available to developers in 'public beta' form for both Java and.NET. They aren't "years behind" at all... Java will probably get 1.5 out a few months before.NET 2.0 will be completed. It's also clearly shown from the documentation that Generics in.NET 2.0 do NOT break backwards compatibility with code written for 1.x of.NET.
Some friendly advice: Next time, before you write another clueless rant about.NET, make sure you've got your facts straight.
I've got a system almost identical to yours; XP 1800+, 3 HDD's, and 1 optical drive, but my video card is a Radeon 9600 XT, and I also have an SB LiveDrive in the machine. And a slot fan. My power supply? A five-year-old, 250 watt PSU. The whole system is rock-solid.
I guess it's because of this experience that I have serious doubts about the benefits of these ridiculous 500 watt PSU's. I've yet to see anyone reliably demonstrate that they actually NEED more than 350 watts on a top-end enthusiast system.
Well, I suppose we could use Microsoft's Windows MediGeneral Protection Fault: Access Violation 0xc0000005 in WMPLAYER.EXE, Rebooting Now...
Bah, stupid Windows, let's try Real Player inst[BUFFERING......]ead, I hear it's mu[BUFFERING.........]ch better than it used to b[BUFFERING.........]e!
How would that make a difference? A program doesn't need administrator access to destroy all your data, deliver thousands of spam emails a day, or participate in DDoS attacks against websites. In fact, all this stuff is trivially simple even as a Standard User.
1) Internet Information Services's track record has improved dramatically in the last couple of years... the last security patch for it was in May of last year, and then the one before that was in 2002.
2) Why didn't you enable XP's firewall before connecting to the Internet? That's a pretty effective way of preventing your machine from getting infected while collecting the various updates.
..... in another year or so, the EU will be punishing Apple for dominating the market with their capitalist American-made iPod product. Then they'll force Apple to ship the iPod with competing media players (i.e. Real Player), force them to open up the specs to competitors, and fine them half a billion euro to boot.
But, like I said, don't worry! It's all in the consumer's best interest!
Windows XP is much, much faster with the hibernation stuff. In my experience, at least three times as fast. Amazing what a little bit of optimising of I/O code can do....
If Apple really believed in letting users have control over their computer, they would:
a) Allow other vendors to sell non-Apple-branded hardware that runs OS X;
b) Allow their own users to boot older versions of their operating system (By design, G5 users can't boot OS 9);
c) Make it easy for users to choose alternate themes and UI styles, without requiring non-free, buggy, third-party haxies like ShapeShifter. Apple is, after all, the only OS vendor left that doesn't include this functionality in the box;
d) Quit the practice of disabling software-only features between product lines; for example, iBook owners have to apply a hack to allow dual-display functionality via the video port. PowerBooks (which have the exact same OS) allow you to do this without a hack.
That's a partial list.... there are other things Apple does to enforce artificial limitations on users, that aren't the fault of the hardware itself.
Steve Jobs wants you to live your computing experience according to his personal vision -- one that will cost you extra money (especially when compared with Linux, but even Windows is much cheaper), and has a degree of uncertainty due to Apple's insistence on not discussing their upcoming OS products.
It's a great product, to be sure (I'm typing this comment on my iBook G4), but let's not fool ourselves into believing that Apple is less controlling than Microsoft is when it comes to user experience.
I believe that pretty clearly supports what I said in my earlier post. There is no mention of username or password here (or, as RFC2396 defines the term, 'userinfo').
RFC2396 , which updates RFC1738, and is pointed to by RFC2616 for the generic definition of URI's, indicates that
Some URL schemes use the format "user:password" in the userinfo field. This practice is NOT RECOMMENDED, because the passing of authentication information in clear text (such as URI) has proven to be a security risk in almost every case where it has been used.
Note that it said "Some URL schemes". Also note where it says "NOT RECOMMENDED" and "security risk". This is a pretty clear message to implementers (e.g. Microsoft) that support for this should be as limited as possible.
Finally, the IETF has not declared RFC1738 to be obsolete. Go check their datbase at www.rfc-editor.org, and you'll see that I'm right.
For what it's worth, removing the username:password parsing from URL's, brings Windows in line with published RFC standards. It was never intended to be used as an authentication mechanism for HTTP URL's.
Section 3.3 of RFC 1738, which defines the format of HTTP URL's, explicitly states, "No user name or password is allowed."
Let me repeat that, in capital letters with bold, so that it is crystal-clear:
THE STANDARD STATES THAT NO USER NAME OR PASSWORD IS ALLOWED IN HTTP URL'S.
This what the standard says, and Microsoft is now adhering to it, at the cost of breaking sites that didn't follow the standard. Microsoft *fixed* Windows by removing this ability from HTTP URL's. Note that FTP URL's still support this feature.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm automatically wary of any man which winks at me repeatedly while pitching his product to me.
About #5... the "Repair" button and "Status" tab have always been a part of Windows XP.
p pro/maintain/netdiag.mspx
This page from 2001 talks about it, and other network diagnostics/repair facilities available in XP: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winx
Actually, the registry option offered in XP SP2 disables *write* access to USB storage devices; reading is not affected, so for the few people who carry around MP3's on a USB keychain (as opposed to, you know, buying a portable MP3 player), they could do as you suggest.
/etc/fstab) required.
Sites and slashdot posters that report that the registry key in question disables USB mass storage devices entirely are in error.
The etails are right here.
One of the interesting benefits Windows provides is that this registry entry can be pushed out very easily to dozens (or tens of thousands) of machines using Group Policy; heck, as an Admin you could toggle it remotely on a per-machine basis, too. No reboot (or re-mount in the case of editing
He's probably trying to point out that Java has enjoyed great success and continues to be a viable development platform, in spite of withdrawing from standards groups like ECMA. In spite of that, Java is still pretty good at being a "team player" when it comes to interacting with other systems.
In other words, Microsoft probably doesn't need this particular U.N. standards group in order to continue to be an important player in the development of B2B commerce standards.
Hey, SAP also pulled out of this very same group recently; you don't see them suffering as a result, do you?
You didn't address the removal of the paperclip -- that's the significant factual error you made in your earlier post, and I'm going to assume that you're too chickenshit to admit you are wrong about it.
The paperclip was removed as of Office XP. Docked task panes are now used pretty extensively to present very commonly used features; this was expanded further in Office 2003. This isn't a new development, either... here's a press release from 3.5 years ago: Farewell Clippy: What's Happening to the Infamous Office Assistant in Office XP.
Also, the product works just fine, and gets better and more intuitive with each release -- it's not Microsoft's problem that you seethe with childish anger because you can't be arsed to learn how to use their product.
Pretty much. Microsoft has free tools to do automated service pack (and hotfix) deployment... in particular, Software Update Services. Obviously, with any major software upgrade, you must do testing and configuration before going ahead. Microsoft also provides white-papers with step-by-step instructions so that administrators can do things the "right way".
The best place to start on getting all the information you need to deploy XP SP2 is Technet:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/default.mspx
Your IT organisation has much bigger problems if they allow unskilled end-users to install service packs and hotfixes.
Uhhh... sorry to interrupt your rant, but Generics are coming to .NET much sooner than 2007. In fact, they are coming with .NET version 2.0, which is already in beta.
.NET Framework 2.0, Beta 1. Free.
.NET. They aren't "years behind" at all... Java will probably get 1.5 out a few months before .NET 2.0 will be completed. It's also clearly shown from the documentation that Generics in .NET 2.0 do NOT break backwards compatibility with code written for 1.x of .NET.
.NET, make sure you've got your facts straight.
Here's the MSDN documentation for Generics. Also, Generics in VB.NET 2005.
Here's the download of the
Here is the public beta of Visual Studio 2005, which includes full support for Generics in C#, VB.NET, etc. Free.
So, there you have it. Generics are available to developers in 'public beta' form for both Java and
Some friendly advice: Next time, before you write another clueless rant about
I've got a system almost identical to yours; XP 1800+, 3 HDD's, and 1 optical drive, but my video card is a Radeon 9600 XT, and I also have an SB LiveDrive in the machine. And a slot fan. My power supply? A five-year-old, 250 watt PSU. The whole system is rock-solid.
I guess it's because of this experience that I have serious doubts about the benefits of these ridiculous 500 watt PSU's. I've yet to see anyone reliably demonstrate that they actually NEED more than 350 watts on a top-end enthusiast system.
Here's the fix for MSIE, dated August 1st:
t in /MS04-025.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulle
You asked...
.... there's so many to choose from!
That's the great thing about standards -- there are so many to choose from!
Hehe, great picture!
Well, I suppose we could use Microsoft's Windows MediGeneral Protection Fault: Access Violation 0xc0000005 in WMPLAYER.EXE, Rebooting Now ...
Bah, stupid Windows, let's try Real Player inst[BUFFERING......]ead, I hear it's mu[BUFFERING.........]ch better than it used to b[BUFFERING.........]e!
How would that make a difference? A program doesn't need administrator access to destroy all your data, deliver thousands of spam emails a day, or participate in DDoS attacks against websites. In fact, all this stuff is trivially simple even as a Standard User.
I, for one, welcome our striking overlords.
Nah, it was probably Lars Ulrich of Metallica.
you mean Steve Ballmer, right?
1) Internet Information Services's track record has improved dramatically in the last couple of years... the last security patch for it was in May of last year, and then the one before that was in 2002.
2) Why didn't you enable XP's firewall before connecting to the Internet? That's a pretty effective way of preventing your machine from getting infected while collecting the various updates.
..... in another year or so, the EU will be punishing Apple for dominating the market with their capitalist American-made iPod product. Then they'll force Apple to ship the iPod with competing media players (i.e. Real Player), force them to open up the specs to competitors, and fine them half a billion euro to boot.
But, like I said, don't worry! It's all in the consumer's best interest!
Windows XP is much, much faster with the hibernation stuff. In my experience, at least three times as fast. Amazing what a little bit of optimising of I/O code can do....
If Apple really believed in letting users have control over their computer, they would:
a) Allow other vendors to sell non-Apple-branded hardware that runs OS X;
b) Allow their own users to boot older versions of their operating system (By design, G5 users can't boot OS 9);
c) Make it easy for users to choose alternate themes and UI styles, without requiring non-free, buggy, third-party haxies like ShapeShifter. Apple is, after all, the only OS vendor left that doesn't include this functionality in the box;
d) Quit the practice of disabling software-only features between product lines; for example, iBook owners have to apply a hack to allow dual-display functionality via the video port. PowerBooks (which have the exact same OS) allow you to do this without a hack.
That's a partial list.... there are other things Apple does to enforce artificial limitations on users, that aren't the fault of the hardware itself.
Steve Jobs wants you to live your computing experience according to his personal vision -- one that will cost you extra money (especially when compared with Linux, but even Windows is much cheaper), and has a degree of uncertainty due to Apple's insistence on not discussing their upcoming OS products.
It's a great product, to be sure (I'm typing this comment on my iBook G4), but let's not fool ourselves into believing that Apple is less controlling than Microsoft is when it comes to user experience.
RFC2616 is the HTTP/1.1 spec. It explicitly defines itself as an update to the original HTTP/1.1 spec, which clarified some issues.
Have a look at section 3.2.2. It defines the HTTP URL syntax as such:I believe that pretty clearly supports what I said in my earlier post. There is no mention of username or password here (or, as RFC2396 defines the term, 'userinfo').
RFC2396 , which updates RFC1738, and is pointed to by RFC2616 for the generic definition of URI's, indicates thatNote that it said "Some URL schemes". Also note where it says "NOT RECOMMENDED" and "security risk". This is a pretty clear message to implementers (e.g. Microsoft) that support for this should be as limited as possible.
Finally, the IETF has not declared RFC1738 to be obsolete. Go check their datbase at www.rfc-editor.org, and you'll see that I'm right.
For what it's worth, removing the username:password parsing from URL's, brings Windows in line with published RFC standards. It was never intended to be used as an authentication mechanism for HTTP URL's.
Section 3.3 of RFC 1738, which defines the format of HTTP URL's, explicitly states, "No user name or password is allowed."
Let me repeat that, in capital letters with bold, so that it is crystal-clear:
THE STANDARD STATES THAT NO USER NAME OR PASSWORD IS ALLOWED IN HTTP URL'S.
This what the standard says, and Microsoft is now adhering to it, at the cost of breaking sites that didn't follow the standard. Microsoft *fixed* Windows by removing this ability from HTTP URL's. Note that FTP URL's still support this feature.