Whilst that is true, why don't they mention K-Meleon, Seamonkey or Flock? Or Lynx, Links, etc?
Any of those run on windows too, but my bet is its because they had limited banner space for the type of idiot still on IE6 running in 800x600 screen res, and decided that 3 options was enough.
IE8 - because its the Microsoft option for the Microsoft OS, Chrome - because google apps such as youtube will no doubt be optimised for it, and Mozilla, because Google are friendly with them and its a popular alternative. Safari on PC, whilst good in version 4, doesn't even rate on PC as far as popularity goes yet.
It's the default install on both Windows XP and Windows 2003.
Many corporate users have websites built for it, and consider internet access to be "non business" use (and may even filter/block internet entirely) hence, they see no "need" to upgrade from IE6.
Alternatives, such as Chrome, Safari, Firefox, etc are all not supported by Windows update services (WSUS) whereas IE is, hence IE, and in particular, IE6 is browser of choice for many corporate windows desktops. Having the ability to centrally manage and control patch deployment with a single tool (WSUS) is a god-send if you have a network of more than a few hundred desktops to take care of. Deploying another browser, that can't use WSUS for patch deployment doubles your workload for patch maintenance (two tools to mess with). Or more even, as I haven't seen ANY centrally managed patch deployment tool for any of the alternative browsers. Which means you're relying on end users to patch/not patch as THEY see fit, and you lose all control of your SOE - no ability to do pre-release testing against your intranet apps, etc. Or, you block updates at your firewall, and end up with ancient insecure browsers eventually anyway.
Yes, it sucks, but IE7 and IE8 are both slower (on say, a typical 3 year old, 512mb ram corporate XP desktop) and are an unknown with regards to many corporate intranet apps, etc.
While XP is in use in the business world, IE6 is likely to remain in use in that environment.
If any of the alternative browsers want to be taken seriously on the corporate desktop, they need to address centralised patch management, or they won't get a look in.
It adds little overall and is not even close to the price consumers want. The restrictive internal DRM is there and unnecessary. It's still Microsoft's attempt to control the content market. Gates said a couple years back that computers are no longer primarily used to create content by the vast majority of us, they are used to consume it. That's why DRM is their key locking technology of the future. We need to shun any technology with DRM internals and shun all content that is produced to take advantage of it.
Um. I've been running vista since 06 and have yet to run afoul of this "restrictive DRM" of which you speak.
If you don't want to deal with DRM content, don't. However, NOT having the ability to play DRM content is a linux issue.
You can shun DRM all you like, all you're doing is denying yourself access to that content. If this is acceptable to you, fair enough; however to the vast majority of people, not being able to play content is a problem.
Besides, I think by now, after looking at the Release Candidate of Win 7 that the performance just isn't there with all the security code added back in (they took it out in the beta to make you impressed, but we all know they ultimately had to put it back in)--very manipulative Microsoft was/is. Essentially, Win7 is just Vista7.
You can "think" all you like, the RC's performance is good and it is *fully functional*. Stick your head in the sand and go "lalalala" all you like, this is the reality you're going to be faced with in october...
(Business) Reasons for Windows 7 (64 bit) upgrade:
continued support
>4gb ram
UAC (like it or not, it works - i've had ZERO vista machines owned since I've been deploying them - starting in 07)
previous versions - users can get their own shit back from their machines when they save over the top of it
search that actually works
UI improvements. if you think the Windows 7 UI is no improvement over Windows XP, you haven't used it
performance improvements - even though the UI in 7 is pretty, its snappy on half decent (read: newer than 3-4 year old) hardware due to the entire UI being done soley by the video card. also, IE8 on XP/vista is a pig. on 7 it is actually usable
IPV6 support is much improved
Group policy preferences
TCP/IP stack that isn't broken - try running XP + office 2007 behind an IPSEC tunnel back to an exchange box and witness how broken it is with regards to MTU sizes and packet fragmentation
Improved firewall configuration supporting different network configurations (domain vs non-domain network profiles, etc)
APP-V
VDI
I could go on, but seriously, if you've not looked into Windows 7 (also 2008 R2) in any serious way, get your head out of the sand and see what you're going to be dealing with, either as a user, or trying to compete with via open source solutions.
Not the point. The point, I think is that irrespective of whether or not you're a foreign entity, whilst having a presence on another country, you obey their laws. NASA dropped shit on our country (littering), they should pay for it.
I'm sure if the roles were reversed, and Australia fired a piece of junk over at the USA, we'd have a pack of angry citizens out for blood.
Not really, in this case the newer OS is superior - quicker and less annoying. I say that as a fan of Vista by the way (yes, it chews more ram than XP, get over it, ram is cheap) - been using it until a few months ago since 2006 - but 7 is a definite improvement.
Whilst I agree that the mini is not *that* expandable... its almost cheap enough to be disposable. the cpu is quick enough for os/x, 2gb is enough for os/x and you can add drives with firewire.
Why people are wanking about with KDE and Gnome when there is a perfectly usable environment with various libraries common to MacOS X puzzles me.
Sure, the work done on KDE and gnome is nice, but it still a FAR way off what NextSTEP had in 1991. Pretty up the front end of GNUStep, and you'll have something akin to OS/X / Cocoa, with a fairly high level of source and development methodology compatibility.
I guess the lesson "open source" could "learn" is to stop reinventing the wheel, when that problem was solved many many years ago, and concentrate on moving FORWARDS to newer and more ambitious goals.
OS X is just too expensive. Not the OS itself, but the cost of buying a Mac. I REALLY REALLY want a Mac. I want a Mac Book Pro, they look awesome, run OS X and Windows and FreeBSD great and generally high quality devices. I can spend $3500 for the Mac Book pro I want and get fucked over by not having the option for a non-glossy screen, or I can go buy a comparable machine from Dell for half that, and not have the retarded glossy screen.
Mac hardware is not so expensive. The laptops might be but they're a lot better made than the equivalent dell.
Also, it includes the cost of OS/X and software upgrades for OS/X are CHEAP. $29 for snow leopard, from leopard, for example. Compared to a couple of hundred for a Vista/Windows 7 upgrade.
I recently bought a mini and couldn't be happier. On paper, its no fast machine (1.83ghz core2 duo, 2gb ram), but in general use its lovely.
It sits on top of my Quad core PC, and gets used far more often. It's quick enough, OS/X is pleasant to use, Objective-C is nice to code in and the machine is SILENT.:)
But more often it is a Vista problem. My wireless network connection drops all the time because of some brain dead power management. Vista doesn't resume from hibernation properly. If I boot with my Sigmatel USB 3G card, 1/5 times it will bluescreen when it resumes. Sometimes the system will resume but the display never turns back on. If it was just one Vista system I'd suspect hardware, but this is happening on three machines.
Sounds like shitty sigmatel drivers to me.
I ran vista for quite a while with none of those problems, including resume from hibernate, etc.
O/S X is more than FreeBSD + GUI. It has an improved openstep API (cocoa), display PDF, etc.
Seriously, if your view of OS/X is basically "oh, its unix plus pretty aqua", you need to play with it for a while and check out the development software/toolkits.
Once OS/X starts making headway (and it would appear to be doing so), the ease of development of Cocoa is going to see it outpace Windows software development in leaps and bounds...
Well, slightly more than that, such as a new scheduler and elimination of the dispatcher lock, but yes, you're right. I've been running vista for nearly 3 years now though and was reasonably happy with it.
... what is the actual game like? Sucks these days, people put out a trailer of the intro sequence, and game review sites do a "detailed analysis" (come on, get your hand off it guys) when really this is nothing to do with the actual game engine.
I'm keen to see what its like, having been a fan of all the previous games, but seriously.... FMV sequence is not much to get excited about.
re: shit from chocolate, just a saying I'm fond of. no not malicious, but just saying... there are ways and means of doing things. Changing OS and throwing away all your apps is a bit of a drastic move.
XP home is a bit brain damaged though I'll admit that... didn't think anyone bothered with it.
Just had a look, xp home can't run administrative templates out of the box. However, you can do the same thing by registry editing: http://www.j79zlr.com/gphome.php
Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti linux, anti-mac or whatever. Just annoys me that people blame the OS for being so insecure when largely its a configuration issue...
Yes they do. SUVs might not, but general passenger vehicles do. especially if you're comparing like with like, ie, sports car vs sports bike, or cruiser vs regular car.
As a sports bike rider, i say: you're probably wrong.
It has more frontal area than a bike, hence it is more likely to be seen.
It is not a bike, so there is not the "fuck that guy, he's on a bike and split past me" stigma (not so prevalent in europe so i hear, but rampant here in australia where drivers are (even more) fuckwits
Cars can turn better than bikes.
Cars can stop better than bikes.
Carbon fibre monocoque likely offers significantly more impact and abrasion protection than leather and/or textile motorcycle protective gear
human influence: cars are easier and more intuitive to control than bikes (increased traction, less tendency to wheelie/stoppie/highside, and they steer the way you turn the wheel. not countersteering...
Besides, its a prototype. Production variants will likely compromise the economy for the safety/practicality aspects (having luggage capacity, passenger space, etc).
Gasoline is 3.4x more energy dense than hydrogen, when it comes to a "by volume" measurement. So, is being 3.4 less energy efficient something to brag about?
Slashdot Mirror
Whilst that is true, why don't they mention K-Meleon, Seamonkey or Flock? Or Lynx, Links, etc?
Any of those run on windows too, but my bet is its because they had limited banner space for the type of idiot still on IE6 running in 800x600 screen res, and decided that 3 options was enough.
IE8 - because its the Microsoft option for the Microsoft OS, Chrome - because google apps such as youtube will no doubt be optimised for it, and Mozilla, because Google are friendly with them and its a popular alternative. Safari on PC, whilst good in version 4, doesn't even rate on PC as far as popularity goes yet.
It's the default install on both Windows XP and Windows 2003.
Many corporate users have websites built for it, and consider internet access to be "non business" use (and may even filter/block internet entirely) hence, they see no "need" to upgrade from IE6.
Alternatives, such as Chrome, Safari, Firefox, etc are all not supported by Windows update services (WSUS) whereas IE is, hence IE, and in particular, IE6 is browser of choice for many corporate windows desktops. Having the ability to centrally manage and control patch deployment with a single tool (WSUS) is a god-send if you have a network of more than a few hundred desktops to take care of. Deploying another browser, that can't use WSUS for patch deployment doubles your workload for patch maintenance (two tools to mess with). Or more even, as I haven't seen ANY centrally managed patch deployment tool for any of the alternative browsers. Which means you're relying on end users to patch/not patch as THEY see fit, and you lose all control of your SOE - no ability to do pre-release testing against your intranet apps, etc. Or, you block updates at your firewall, and end up with ancient insecure browsers eventually anyway.
Yes, it sucks, but IE7 and IE8 are both slower (on say, a typical 3 year old, 512mb ram corporate XP desktop) and are an unknown with regards to many corporate intranet apps, etc.
While XP is in use in the business world, IE6 is likely to remain in use in that environment.
If any of the alternative browsers want to be taken seriously on the corporate desktop, they need to address centralised patch management, or they won't get a look in.
Um. I've been running vista since 06 and have yet to run afoul of this "restrictive DRM" of which you speak.
If you don't want to deal with DRM content, don't. However, NOT having the ability to play DRM content is a linux issue.
You can shun DRM all you like, all you're doing is denying yourself access to that content. If this is acceptable to you, fair enough; however to the vast majority of people, not being able to play content is a problem.
You can "think" all you like, the RC's performance is good and it is *fully functional*. Stick your head in the sand and go "lalalala" all you like, this is the reality you're going to be faced with in october...
(Business) Reasons for Windows 7 (64 bit) upgrade:
I could go on, but seriously, if you've not looked into Windows 7 (also 2008 R2) in any serious way, get your head out of the sand and see what you're going to be dealing with, either as a user, or trying to compete with via open source solutions.
In other news, 6/10 IT administrators are fucking retarded.
I'm sure if the roles were reversed, and Australia fired a piece of junk over at the USA, we'd have a pack of angry citizens out for blood.
Not really, in this case the newer OS is superior - quicker and less annoying. I say that as a fan of Vista by the way (yes, it chews more ram than XP, get over it, ram is cheap) - been using it until a few months ago since 2006 - but 7 is a definite improvement.
For the RC, yes. For the leaked nightly builds, and the leaked RTM? no..
Uh... BETA is ancient. Why aren't you running the RC?
so it's not all bad. I'm happy with mine :)
Why people are wanking about with KDE and Gnome when there is a perfectly usable environment with various libraries common to MacOS X puzzles me.
Sure, the work done on KDE and gnome is nice, but it still a FAR way off what NextSTEP had in 1991. Pretty up the front end of GNUStep, and you'll have something akin to OS/X / Cocoa, with a fairly high level of source and development methodology compatibility.
I guess the lesson "open source" could "learn" is to stop reinventing the wheel, when that problem was solved many many years ago, and concentrate on moving FORWARDS to newer and more ambitious goals.
We've rolled out about 150 copies of Office 2007. Amount of people re-trained: 0. The business still functions, and shit still gets done.
People can stumble around it blindly enough to do what they need to do, just like they did with previous versions of office.
Were users initially a little annoyed? Yes. briefly. I still don't particularly like 2007, but its not the end of the world by a LONG shot.
Mac hardware is not so expensive. The laptops might be but they're a lot better made than the equivalent dell.
Also, it includes the cost of OS/X and software upgrades for OS/X are CHEAP. $29 for snow leopard, from leopard, for example. Compared to a couple of hundred for a Vista/Windows 7 upgrade.
I recently bought a mini and couldn't be happier. On paper, its no fast machine (1.83ghz core2 duo, 2gb ram), but in general use its lovely.
It sits on top of my Quad core PC, and gets used far more often. It's quick enough, OS/X is pleasant to use, Objective-C is nice to code in and the machine is SILENT. :)
Sounds like shitty sigmatel drivers to me.
I ran vista for quite a while with none of those problems, including resume from hibernate, etc.
Blame where blame is due...
O/S X is more than FreeBSD + GUI. It has an improved openstep API (cocoa), display PDF, etc.
Seriously, if your view of OS/X is basically "oh, its unix plus pretty aqua", you need to play with it for a while and check out the development software/toolkits.
Once OS/X starts making headway (and it would appear to be doing so), the ease of development of Cocoa is going to see it outpace Windows software development in leaps and bounds...
7 RC is definitely far "snappier" though.
Citation? Go ride a bike. You know, in the REAL WORLD you get EXPERIENCE which will tell you this.
Let me know how you go with that GUI design in interface builder / GORM / etc...
GORM / interface builder both use the mouse...
I'm keen to see what its like, having been a fan of all the previous games, but seriously.... FMV sequence is not much to get excited about.
re: shit from chocolate, just a saying I'm fond of. no not malicious, but just saying... there are ways and means of doing things. Changing OS and throwing away all your apps is a bit of a drastic move.
XP home is a bit brain damaged though I'll admit that... didn't think anyone bothered with it.
Just had a look, xp home can't run administrative templates out of the box. However, you can do the same thing by registry editing: http://www.j79zlr.com/gphome.php
Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti linux, anti-mac or whatever. Just annoys me that people blame the OS for being so insecure when largely its a configuration issue...
Yes they do. SUVs might not, but general passenger vehicles do. especially if you're comparing like with like, ie, sports car vs sports bike, or cruiser vs regular car.
Cars have FAR more tyre contact patch (turning/stopping has more available traction)
Cars don't stoppie
If you don't believe, me... well, don't (google it and prove me wrong, or something). I know it's true, i ride and drive.
As a sports bike rider, i say: you're probably wrong.
Besides, its a prototype. Production variants will likely compromise the economy for the safety/practicality aspects (having luggage capacity, passenger space, etc).
Gasoline is 3.4x more energy dense than hydrogen, when it comes to a "by volume" measurement. So, is being 3.4 less energy efficient something to brag about?