IE9 onwards is an entirely different beast to previous versions. If you haven't used IE since version 9 came out, it is worth at least testing (if you're on windows at least). There isn't really a major browser out there at the moment which doesn't suck in various ways, but in terms of suckage recent versions of IE aren't actually bad.
Not only that, but IE4 (yes version 4) performed faster in the real world than Netscape at the time. IE6 came way later, the game was well and truly over by the time IE5 came out.
You mean like Windows explorer, Office 2013, internet explorer and the Windows 2012R2 RSAT? It's a joke. And yes I've tried all of the things you mention. Windows 7 just leaves the scale the fuck alone and it works.
They have removed/hidden a bunch of the options you used to get when right clicking a connection in the task bar. They've also removed a bunch of options you could use to get more information and remove/re-add a connection via the control panel.
What about the setting "Let me choose one scaling level for all my displays"
Was waiting for someone to mention that. It doesn't work. I have noticed no appreciable effect. And to clarify, by "re-size" in my above post, i mean that it does a really shitty job of scaling things to what seems like non-native monitor resolution - exactly like if you were to say, run you 1920x1080 monitor in 1680x1050 resolution. Blurred fonts, head-ache inducing and difficult to read. My laptops internal screen is 1920x1080. My 23" monitor is 1920x1080. In 6 months I was unable to get this behavior to stop. Yes, i understand what Windows 8.1 is TRYING to do - make my windows the same physical size on both screens, but it doesn't work and makes things nasty to use - and can't be disabled, it would appear. Whether that is due to a driver issue or what i have no idea. But its a deal breaker for multi-monitor support for me at the moment.
... it is a custom build. What would firefox rather they do? Not offer it? Fork, calling it something else and erode Firefox's market presence? Or give them some free publicity. This strikes me as cutting off their nose to spite their face on the part of Mozilla.
What are your thoughts on code signing, and do how do you see the development of such proceeding in the free unix world. In Powershell for example, i can set a system-wide policy to only run scripts if they are signed with a trusted certificate.
This means I can, for example, delegate script development to an underling, review the script and then sign and push into production, knowing that the script will not run if it has been modified in the field without authorization - enabling proper change management process to be enforced.
Other platforms require all code to be signed before it will run.
Do you foresee anything like this (obviously with the master signing authority being the local site admin) for OpenBSD?
Pretty much that. My observations with FreeBSD at least have been that whilst Linux might get something FIRST, it will typically go through 3-4 (more?) iterations before the actual long term supported version emerges. Until someone decides to rewrite it anyway.
The FreeBSD (and likely other BSD) way seems to be to design things properly first (which takes some time that Linux skips), implement and then the user-facing interface stays the same for a long period of time.
Sometimes however, it does mean BSD gets features first. E.g., multichannel audio. Mixing has transparently happened via the FreeBSD audio driver for about 10 years now. Linux has gone through a bunch of different audio subsystems in that time.
I'll consider it alive when Microsoft don't have another 900 million worth of leftover stock to sell. WIndows 8 is only alive because people have no choice. In the Surface RT/2 market there are competitors that do a much better job. Given that you can't join it to a domain and can't run legacy apps, there is approximately ZERO reason to purchase a non-pro Surface.
Give it 3 months after the currently hoarded exploits for Windows XP are put out (awaiting end of support announcement) and they will not work any more.
I get that people don't want to change. But they are going to have to. Whether it be to Linux, a tablet, or whatever. XP is not going to remain an option for long. Man up, take the short term pain, and get to something maintainable and secure.
It has worse multi-monitor support in my experience, the hi-dpi scaling is incredibly brain damaged and wants to scale things to different sizes between my 2 displays. I cant turn that off. Applications still open on a random monitor irrespective of which one i launch them from. It starts up faster because it doesn't start everything Windows does - stuff that i might want like oh I don't know - the desktop, and reconnecting to network shares (they are delayed until 5 minutes after login).
I've run 8/8.1 for 6+ months both at work and at home, and have downgraded back to 7 at work and am getting things done faster. If i include power button to opening things from the network - windows 7 is FASTER.
Power button to login screen on Windows 8 is faster, but that isn't useful to me.
Metro the start screen is easily avoided, but the level of brain damage elsewhere within the OS is not. Try troubleshooting a dodgy wifi connection. Try searching for stuff using advanced search terms that worked in 7. Try actually using it on a tablet, only to discover the whole reason you'd want windows on a tablet is to run office and other enterprise type Windows apps - none of which are touch friendly. It's a dog. It wouldn't be so bad if MS commited to a metro version of office, and a metro version of the Windows server management tools. But they haven't - so you're left with a half-assed UI with no native apps anyone gives a shit about - and the legacy apps you want to run don't work very well at all with touch.
Because that doesn't leverage their desktop monopoly in the tablet market. Windows 8 is not about the desktop customer, or anything to do with the customer, really. It is purely about microsoft having a way to attempt to leverage their desktop OS monopoly in tablets. I think they misjudged how much people want Windows on a tablet.
Because it doesn't work any more. It is insecure and no longer patched. If you want to run the gauntlet and put the security of your machine and personal info down to decreasingly attractive chances, go for it.
Well, at least the competition (Windows) doesn't even have one standard UI within the same fucking OS install now. Yes, apple will benefit, but not everyone is a potential apple customer. Those who aren't need something to migrate to, and Linux for all its warts is looking more attractive than ever.
Its not a perfectly good computer any more. It is an old, unsupported security risk. If you don't want to buy new hardware that is capable of running a supported version of Windows, and money is tight, then you should seriously consider running Linux.
That said, I have junked hardware capable of running Windows 7 and Windows 8.
You aren't far from the truth. It is window dressing on teh safari rendering engine. As to why apple do this? Browsers need to be able run executable content like javascript. Apple want to be able to control what code runs on their platform. Hence, no other browser as a vector to run untrusted code.
The difference is that apple actually improves their product generally. Also, get your facts straight. The MS Browser included thing was about microsoft's monopoly position being extended from the desktop platform to the internet. If they weren't a monopoly (and apple aren't) they could do what they like.
Slashdot Mirror
Because 2 TB hard drives are about 130 dollars.
Because that's where his friends are, drinking beer.
IE9 onwards is an entirely different beast to previous versions. If you haven't used IE since version 9 came out, it is worth at least testing (if you're on windows at least). There isn't really a major browser out there at the moment which doesn't suck in various ways, but in terms of suckage recent versions of IE aren't actually bad.
Not only that, but IE4 (yes version 4) performed faster in the real world than Netscape at the time. IE6 came way later, the game was well and truly over by the time IE5 came out.
... that open source is superior. owait...
Signed packages are a bit different to checking code signatures on executables/scripts at run time.
HP elitebook 8570 with AMD video, latest available driver from HP, plugged into an HP 1920x1080 display. Laptop has 1920x1080 display option.
You mean like Windows explorer, Office 2013, internet explorer and the Windows 2012R2 RSAT? It's a joke. And yes I've tried all of the things you mention. Windows 7 just leaves the scale the fuck alone and it works.
Pretty much.
They have removed/hidden a bunch of the options you used to get when right clicking a connection in the task bar. They've also removed a bunch of options you could use to get more information and remove/re-add a connection via the control panel.
Was waiting for someone to mention that. It doesn't work. I have noticed no appreciable effect. And to clarify, by "re-size" in my above post, i mean that it does a really shitty job of scaling things to what seems like non-native monitor resolution - exactly like if you were to say, run you 1920x1080 monitor in 1680x1050 resolution. Blurred fonts, head-ache inducing and difficult to read. My laptops internal screen is 1920x1080. My 23" monitor is 1920x1080. In 6 months I was unable to get this behavior to stop. Yes, i understand what Windows 8.1 is TRYING to do - make my windows the same physical size on both screens, but it doesn't work and makes things nasty to use - and can't be disabled, it would appear. Whether that is due to a driver issue or what i have no idea. But its a deal breaker for multi-monitor support for me at the moment.
... it is a custom build. What would firefox rather they do? Not offer it? Fork, calling it something else and erode Firefox's market presence? Or give them some free publicity. This strikes me as cutting off their nose to spite their face on the part of Mozilla.
What are your thoughts on code signing, and do how do you see the development of such proceeding in the free unix world. In Powershell for example, i can set a system-wide policy to only run scripts if they are signed with a trusted certificate.
This means I can, for example, delegate script development to an underling, review the script and then sign and push into production, knowing that the script will not run if it has been modified in the field without authorization - enabling proper change management process to be enforced.
Other platforms require all code to be signed before it will run.
Do you foresee anything like this (obviously with the master signing authority being the local site admin) for OpenBSD?
Pretty much that. My observations with FreeBSD at least have been that whilst Linux might get something FIRST, it will typically go through 3-4 (more?) iterations before the actual long term supported version emerges. Until someone decides to rewrite it anyway.
The FreeBSD (and likely other BSD) way seems to be to design things properly first (which takes some time that Linux skips), implement and then the user-facing interface stays the same for a long period of time.
Sometimes however, it does mean BSD gets features first. E.g., multichannel audio. Mixing has transparently happened via the FreeBSD audio driver for about 10 years now. Linux has gone through a bunch of different audio subsystems in that time.
I'll consider it alive when Microsoft don't have another 900 million worth of leftover stock to sell. WIndows 8 is only alive because people have no choice. In the Surface RT/2 market there are competitors that do a much better job. Given that you can't join it to a domain and can't run legacy apps, there is approximately ZERO reason to purchase a non-pro Surface.
Give it 3 months after the currently hoarded exploits for Windows XP are put out (awaiting end of support announcement) and they will not work any more.
I get that people don't want to change. But they are going to have to. Whether it be to Linux, a tablet, or whatever. XP is not going to remain an option for long. Man up, take the short term pain, and get to something maintainable and secure.
It has worse multi-monitor support in my experience, the hi-dpi scaling is incredibly brain damaged and wants to scale things to different sizes between my 2 displays. I cant turn that off. Applications still open on a random monitor irrespective of which one i launch them from. It starts up faster because it doesn't start everything Windows does - stuff that i might want like oh I don't know - the desktop, and reconnecting to network shares (they are delayed until 5 minutes after login).
I've run 8/8.1 for 6+ months both at work and at home, and have downgraded back to 7 at work and am getting things done faster. If i include power button to opening things from the network - windows 7 is FASTER.
Power button to login screen on Windows 8 is faster, but that isn't useful to me.
Metro the start screen is easily avoided, but the level of brain damage elsewhere within the OS is not. Try troubleshooting a dodgy wifi connection. Try searching for stuff using advanced search terms that worked in 7. Try actually using it on a tablet, only to discover the whole reason you'd want windows on a tablet is to run office and other enterprise type Windows apps - none of which are touch friendly. It's a dog. It wouldn't be so bad if MS commited to a metro version of office, and a metro version of the Windows server management tools. But they haven't - so you're left with a half-assed UI with no native apps anyone gives a shit about - and the legacy apps you want to run don't work very well at all with touch.
Because that doesn't leverage their desktop monopoly in the tablet market. Windows 8 is not about the desktop customer, or anything to do with the customer, really. It is purely about microsoft having a way to attempt to leverage their desktop OS monopoly in tablets. I think they misjudged how much people want Windows on a tablet.
Because it doesn't work any more. It is insecure and no longer patched. If you want to run the gauntlet and put the security of your machine and personal info down to decreasingly attractive chances, go for it.
Well, at least the competition (Windows) doesn't even have one standard UI within the same fucking OS install now. Yes, apple will benefit, but not everyone is a potential apple customer. Those who aren't need something to migrate to, and Linux for all its warts is looking more attractive than ever.
Its not a perfectly good computer any more. It is an old, unsupported security risk. If you don't want to buy new hardware that is capable of running a supported version of Windows, and money is tight, then you should seriously consider running Linux.
That said, I have junked hardware capable of running Windows 7 and Windows 8.
What they DID with their Windows RT tablets you mean. RT is dead.
You aren't far from the truth. It is window dressing on teh safari rendering engine. As to why apple do this? Browsers need to be able run executable content like javascript. Apple want to be able to control what code runs on their platform. Hence, no other browser as a vector to run untrusted code.
The difference is that apple actually improves their product generally. Also, get your facts straight. The MS Browser included thing was about microsoft's monopoly position being extended from the desktop platform to the internet. If they weren't a monopoly (and apple aren't) they could do what they like.