Actually there is a utility (no idea what it's called, I didn't work with it) that acts like WSUS only it pushes updates for other software as well. I'm sure you could've googled that and found out, just like you could've found out that there are companies that actually do use Windows Update to push updates (Linksys and Nvidia being ones I can name off the top of my head). As I said before, companies CAN do it, they just normally won't because they want to try to push their ad-bar and other spyware on you when you update.
I've left my system running 24/7 for months and never seen a memory leak outside of Firefox and amusingly, where you say it's "expected" for people to use sleep / hibernate in Linux, I've yet to run a Linux distro where a system would resume from sleep / hibernate. That was actually why I stopped running linux on my laptop and switched to the Windows 7 beta, because I was so sick and tired of sleep / hibernate never working.
Actually, companies CAN run their updates through Windows Update - they just usually refuse to because they want to plug other things (as another poster mentioned). That's not an issue with MS or Windows, that's an issue with the companies who write the programs. MS has done plenty of things worth bashing them for (Games for Windows Live, for example), but don't bash MS for something that another company does.
This is an excellent answer to the typical 'why can't I just double-click on an.exe file?!' whine about Linux software installation, BTW.
Well first, you didn't provide a reason for why you can't, and second, you CAN just double-click on a.deb file in Debian based distros and install programs.
Usually when I shut down, I'm taking my laptop somewhere else and often running late.
........why wouldn't you just put it to sleep or hibernate it? I only ever do a shut down / reboot on my Windows 7 systems when it's absolutely necessary, which is maybe once a month.
I've been using Windows 7 since the beta and I've yet to see it do this. Yes, it'll nag at you to restart, but just hit 4 hours every time until you have time to restart - on a typical work day (if it's a work machine) you'll see it no more than two times, which is hardly a big deal. So yes, I'd have to go with the "you did something wrong somewhere" view as well since I've never seen this happen in my year of using Windows 7 on a daily basis.
But then again, Windows users are trained to maximize their windows so that may not help them.
I think you meant "But then again, most users maximize their windows so that it is easier to focus on what they're doing instead of being distracted by 100 other open windows".
I think the parent is just trolling, but nonetheless, one tip that some people might find useful.
In my experience, the single most annoying thing in 7 is when you have more than one instance of the same application open, and they all combine in a single icon on taskbar, so now it looks like you need two clicks to get there from another app (one on the combined icon to display the window selector, second one on the window you want).
This is further exacerbated by new applications which put their tabs in there as well - e.g. IE8, new Opera. Where before, if you wanted to e.g. switch back to the tab you were reading with Opera, you'd just have to click its icon on the taskbar, in new version you again need two clicks.
The trick is that you can Ctrl+click on a taskbar icon to select the last active window/tab in that group. Finally, sanity restored.
You only need two clicks if you turned off the preview function - if you leave preview on, then it automatically pops up images of every open window / tab and you just click the one you want. There's maybe a 1/4 of a second delay before they pop up, but it's hardly noticeable.
If you read up on Windows 7 instead of trolling, you'd know that there are some major differences in how they work. Also, changing one thing (how the quick launch bar / taskbar work by default) is not a "major" difference.
Drivers have little to do with Vista being such a POS - if it was just drivers, than many of the Vista systems wouldn't still be running so poorly, yet you install Windows 7 on the same system and magically everything improves. Yup, that sure sounds like the same OS with newer (even though they're the same) drivers.
Having a dock is not "copying Apple" - one of the first things I do when setting up Ubuntu on one of my home systems is get rid of the bottom taskbar (looks tacky) and use AWN to have a dock down there. Not only is a dock nicer looking in general than the taskbar, but it has effects to make it look GOOD on top of just the icons being centered in the screen and not having any extra crap. Also, Ubuntu is the OS where you can have a cube (or other multi-sided shapes if you choose) desktop - you can't get that from Windows or OS X.
About a year ago I switched from Ubuntu to Linux Mint - Mint is much nicer looking, has all the multimedia stuff you could ever want pre-installed, has more drivers included, and has the Mint Tools that add some extra functionality (some of which I see Ubuntu is now trying to copy). I liked Ubuntu, but I love Linux Mint.
in fact I think it says something that Vista and Windows 7 are virtually identical, yet for some reason 7 is liked and Vista is hated
I think you meant to say that visually Vista and Windows 7 are virtually identical. Underneath where the actual OS is (not the graphical interface), there are major differences - THAT is why Windows 7 is loved and Vista is hated, because the way that the OS actually works is quite different.
If people can't be bothered to learn even the most basic thing about the device they're using, they shouldn't be using it. If you can't be bothered to learn how to pump gas into your car or that you need to change your oil every X thousand miles (depends on your car and type of oil used, but it's clearly stated in the owners manual), then they shouldn't have a car.
People like you think that society is better off by the moronic masses having these things - it's not because you're promoting the idiots and harming the intelligent people who actually would improve society. If you actually made them learn a microscopic amount before giving them the phone / computer / car / tv, then everyone is better off.
Or maybe it's Apple's habit of bricking jailbroken phones with updates?
So you simply wait to update until you know that the latest update is jailbroken. How hard is that? If you can't be bothered to learn that you shouldn't update until you know that it won't break it, then you shouldn't have a smartphone in the first place.
FUD, FUD, FUD. I jailbroke my phone a few weeks ago and it took maybe 10 minutes to make a backup beforehand, 5 minutes tops to jailbreak it, then say 30 seconds for the phone to restart. Yes, a long time ago (which is when I'm guessing you had a jailbroken iphone), it was a PITA - now it's dirt simple and safe as can be.
isn't jailbreaking an iPhone easier than rooting Android?
No. I used an autorooter on my G1. Jacked the phone in to the USB, ran the program... and I was rooted. I don't know how much easier it can get, really.
Using Blackra1n to jailbreak and iPhone is the same process - plug in phone and run the program.
I don't see why people dismiss jailbreaking so readily. There are basically no downsides to it, other than sometimes if you want the latest update you have to wait some time.
I know - I just jailbroke my 3GS a few weeks ago using Blackra1n and it couldn't have been easier. You download a 512 KB.exe, run that, then you're jailbroken. No hassle at all and you can always reinstall the firmware / OS if anything goes wrong (you can download older firmware / OS versions easily online). So it's not the default from the factory setting - big deal, it's no more of a hassle than going to the App Store to download an app.
AT&T's service is just fine if you don't like in one of the handful of super-cities in the US (NYC, LA, DC, and a few others). Hell, I tethered the other night to download some stuff and was getting over 300KB/sec download speeds (and these were big downloads). Just because a few cities have crap service due to overpopulation doesn't mean that the majority of the country has any problem with the service - it's a very vocal minority bitching about poor service.
You're completely missing the point. It is a SINGLE PLAYER GAME that forces you to have an internet connection. That is completely different from a MULTIPLAYER GAME (which would require a network connection no matter what) requiring an internet connection to play.
Any single player game that requires an internet connection or a disc to be humming in my drive
Seriously, while occasionally it's a minor annoyance, why the FUCK do people whine about having to put the disc in the drive? Do you complain about having to put a dvd in the dvd player? Putting keys in your car? Having to swipe your credit card? Having the disc in the drive is so incredibly minor that people who bitch about it are just people looking for an excuse to complain about something.
Income lost to piracy = income lost to piracy + cost of DRM
You also have to remember the cost of lost sales due to DRM (which yes, some might consider to be factored in to "cost of DRM"). So the real equation would be Income lost to piracy = income lost to piracy + cost of DRM (including tech support) + cost of lost sales due to using DRM. Honestly, with the rough estimates I've heard for the cost of just the DRM itself, not even counting tech support for it, I don't see how companies make even a single penny by using DRM.
Actually it isn't. It's based on the idea that if you can hold off the pirates for some period of time immediately after release, you will net benefit.
That's very wishful thinking on the companies part. Why? Because anyone who pirates (and even those who don't) know that the game WILL be cracked eventually, and I've yet to meet a pirate who said "I can't wait two weeks for the game to be cracked, I'll just go spend $70 to play it now instead of waiting two weeks and paying $0!". I've talked to enough employees at game companies that I personally believe that all of the "stop / slow down pirates" stuff is just BS to pacify the public while the real reason is to have an easy way to kill used game sales and to turn off activation servers for older games, thus forcing people to buy new games if they want to keep playing.
Actually if you read my post, you'd see that it does cut down on functionality that he listed as important to his mom due to (you got it!) Apple's lockdown. But hey, why bother to read my post when you can troll.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually there is a utility (no idea what it's called, I didn't work with it) that acts like WSUS only it pushes updates for other software as well. I'm sure you could've googled that and found out, just like you could've found out that there are companies that actually do use Windows Update to push updates (Linksys and Nvidia being ones I can name off the top of my head). As I said before, companies CAN do it, they just normally won't because they want to try to push their ad-bar and other spyware on you when you update.
I've left my system running 24/7 for months and never seen a memory leak outside of Firefox and amusingly, where you say it's "expected" for people to use sleep / hibernate in Linux, I've yet to run a Linux distro where a system would resume from sleep / hibernate. That was actually why I stopped running linux on my laptop and switched to the Windows 7 beta, because I was so sick and tired of sleep / hibernate never working.
Actually, companies CAN run their updates through Windows Update - they just usually refuse to because they want to plug other things (as another poster mentioned). That's not an issue with MS or Windows, that's an issue with the companies who write the programs. MS has done plenty of things worth bashing them for (Games for Windows Live, for example), but don't bash MS for something that another company does.
This is an excellent answer to the typical 'why can't I just double-click on an .exe file?!' whine about Linux software installation, BTW.
Well first, you didn't provide a reason for why you can't, and second, you CAN just double-click on a .deb file in Debian based distros and install programs.
Usually when I shut down, I'm taking my laptop somewhere else and often running late.
........why wouldn't you just put it to sleep or hibernate it? I only ever do a shut down / reboot on my Windows 7 systems when it's absolutely necessary, which is maybe once a month.
I've been using Windows 7 since the beta and I've yet to see it do this. Yes, it'll nag at you to restart, but just hit 4 hours every time until you have time to restart - on a typical work day (if it's a work machine) you'll see it no more than two times, which is hardly a big deal. So yes, I'd have to go with the "you did something wrong somewhere" view as well since I've never seen this happen in my year of using Windows 7 on a daily basis.
But then again, Windows users are trained to maximize their windows so that may not help them.
I think you meant "But then again, most users maximize their windows so that it is easier to focus on what they're doing instead of being distracted by 100 other open windows ".
I think the parent is just trolling, but nonetheless, one tip that some people might find useful.
In my experience, the single most annoying thing in 7 is when you have more than one instance of the same application open, and they all combine in a single icon on taskbar, so now it looks like you need two clicks to get there from another app (one on the combined icon to display the window selector, second one on the window you want).
This is further exacerbated by new applications which put their tabs in there as well - e.g. IE8, new Opera. Where before, if you wanted to e.g. switch back to the tab you were reading with Opera, you'd just have to click its icon on the taskbar, in new version you again need two clicks.
The trick is that you can Ctrl+click on a taskbar icon to select the last active window/tab in that group. Finally, sanity restored.
You only need two clicks if you turned off the preview function - if you leave preview on, then it automatically pops up images of every open window / tab and you just click the one you want. There's maybe a 1/4 of a second delay before they pop up, but it's hardly noticeable.
If you read up on Windows 7 instead of trolling, you'd know that there are some major differences in how they work. Also, changing one thing (how the quick launch bar / taskbar work by default) is not a "major" difference.
Drivers have little to do with Vista being such a POS - if it was just drivers, than many of the Vista systems wouldn't still be running so poorly, yet you install Windows 7 on the same system and magically everything improves. Yup, that sure sounds like the same OS with newer (even though they're the same) drivers.
Having a dock is not "copying Apple" - one of the first things I do when setting up Ubuntu on one of my home systems is get rid of the bottom taskbar (looks tacky) and use AWN to have a dock down there. Not only is a dock nicer looking in general than the taskbar, but it has effects to make it look GOOD on top of just the icons being centered in the screen and not having any extra crap. Also, Ubuntu is the OS where you can have a cube (or other multi-sided shapes if you choose) desktop - you can't get that from Windows or OS X.
About a year ago I switched from Ubuntu to Linux Mint - Mint is much nicer looking, has all the multimedia stuff you could ever want pre-installed, has more drivers included, and has the Mint Tools that add some extra functionality (some of which I see Ubuntu is now trying to copy). I liked Ubuntu, but I love Linux Mint.
in fact I think it says something that Vista and Windows 7 are virtually identical, yet for some reason 7 is liked and Vista is hated
I think you meant to say that visually Vista and Windows 7 are virtually identical. Underneath where the actual OS is (not the graphical interface), there are major differences - THAT is why Windows 7 is loved and Vista is hated, because the way that the OS actually works is quite different.
If people can't be bothered to learn even the most basic thing about the device they're using, they shouldn't be using it. If you can't be bothered to learn how to pump gas into your car or that you need to change your oil every X thousand miles (depends on your car and type of oil used, but it's clearly stated in the owners manual), then they shouldn't have a car.
People like you think that society is better off by the moronic masses having these things - it's not because you're promoting the idiots and harming the intelligent people who actually would improve society. If you actually made them learn a microscopic amount before giving them the phone / computer / car / tv, then everyone is better off.
Or maybe it's Apple's habit of bricking jailbroken phones with updates?
So you simply wait to update until you know that the latest update is jailbroken. How hard is that? If you can't be bothered to learn that you shouldn't update until you know that it won't break it, then you shouldn't have a smartphone in the first place.
FUD, FUD, FUD. I jailbroke my phone a few weeks ago and it took maybe 10 minutes to make a backup beforehand, 5 minutes tops to jailbreak it, then say 30 seconds for the phone to restart. Yes, a long time ago (which is when I'm guessing you had a jailbroken iphone), it was a PITA - now it's dirt simple and safe as can be.
isn't jailbreaking an iPhone easier than rooting Android?
No. I used an autorooter on my G1. Jacked the phone in to the USB, ran the program ... and I was rooted. I don't know how much easier it can get, really.
Using Blackra1n to jailbreak and iPhone is the same process - plug in phone and run the program.
I don't see why people dismiss jailbreaking so readily. There are basically no downsides to it, other than sometimes if you want the latest update you have to wait some time.
I know - I just jailbroke my 3GS a few weeks ago using Blackra1n and it couldn't have been easier. You download a 512 KB .exe, run that, then you're jailbroken. No hassle at all and you can always reinstall the firmware / OS if anything goes wrong (you can download older firmware / OS versions easily online). So it's not the default from the factory setting - big deal, it's no more of a hassle than going to the App Store to download an app.
AT&T's service is just fine if you don't like in one of the handful of super-cities in the US (NYC, LA, DC, and a few others). Hell, I tethered the other night to download some stuff and was getting over 300KB/sec download speeds (and these were big downloads). Just because a few cities have crap service due to overpopulation doesn't mean that the majority of the country has any problem with the service - it's a very vocal minority bitching about poor service.
Yea, to hell with gamers - we don't need their kind in our brave new world!
DNA samples, and profiles, are routinely destroyed at the end of the relevant enquiry in Scotland
Or at least that's what the public are told.
The more companies abuse customers with DRM, eventually the average idiot will catch on and start caring about it.
As for cost of DRM I've had project managers at non-game software companies estimate it at at least a few hundred thousand dollars.
You're completely missing the point. It is a SINGLE PLAYER GAME that forces you to have an internet connection. That is completely different from a MULTIPLAYER GAME (which would require a network connection no matter what) requiring an internet connection to play.
Any single player game that requires an internet connection or a disc to be humming in my drive
Seriously, while occasionally it's a minor annoyance, why the FUCK do people whine about having to put the disc in the drive? Do you complain about having to put a dvd in the dvd player? Putting keys in your car? Having to swipe your credit card? Having the disc in the drive is so incredibly minor that people who bitch about it are just people looking for an excuse to complain about something.
Income lost to piracy = income lost to piracy + cost of DRM
You also have to remember the cost of lost sales due to DRM (which yes, some might consider to be factored in to "cost of DRM"). So the real equation would be Income lost to piracy = income lost to piracy + cost of DRM (including tech support) + cost of lost sales due to using DRM. Honestly, with the rough estimates I've heard for the cost of just the DRM itself, not even counting tech support for it, I don't see how companies make even a single penny by using DRM.
Actually it isn't. It's based on the idea that if you can hold off the pirates for some period of time immediately after release, you will net benefit.
That's very wishful thinking on the companies part. Why? Because anyone who pirates (and even those who don't) know that the game WILL be cracked eventually, and I've yet to meet a pirate who said "I can't wait two weeks for the game to be cracked, I'll just go spend $70 to play it now instead of waiting two weeks and paying $0!". I've talked to enough employees at game companies that I personally believe that all of the "stop / slow down pirates" stuff is just BS to pacify the public while the real reason is to have an easy way to kill used game sales and to turn off activation servers for older games, thus forcing people to buy new games if they want to keep playing.
Actually if you read my post, you'd see that it does cut down on functionality that he listed as important to his mom due to (you got it!) Apple's lockdown. But hey, why bother to read my post when you can troll.