The theory is that all the attention will make the console look like a 'blockbuster'.
And that will drive greater sales in the future.
I feel, however, the reality is different. It makes them look incompetent, especially considering the current title selection for the 360.
Ever been to a club where they force people to wait in line even when its empty on the inside?
Well, guess what; although it presents a good image to people driving by the club, and some people will walk up and join the line, the club is still at 1/2 capacity. They aren't making proper money, and its all a cover up to make it look like it.
MS isn't turning a good profit on game consoles. This is all part of a grander media effort to make it look like their consoles are in demand. A bluff, if you will.
The PS2 was similar, however, as much as I hate Sony, that was a semi-bluff. Sales were good; Sony could have met demand if it wanted to, however, it decided that it would rather enjoy the media attention.
Non-sophisticated computer users (read non-total nerds) don't mind a little bit more "difficulty" if it avoids "complexity" (these are two different things).
It is more difficult to run two web browsers than to worry about which browsing engine you are using in a given tab, however, its also an easier idea to conceptualize.
As long as the setup works for the end user, you're golden.
Check this out: XCP SUPPORT
ActiveX Unsupported Sorry, your Internet Browser does not support ActiveX Controls. Please use Microsoft Internet Explorer to continue. Download Internet Explorer from the Microsoft website
They say, "A user interface that was designed to look good on a 96-DPI monitor may not look as good at higher resolutions. Text and graphics that are small at 96 DPI may appear much smaller at 200 DPI. When the number of pixels-per-inch increases, the size of each pixel decreases. If you double the density of the pixels, the size of the text may be halved so that the text is no longer readable. As a result, Web pages that specify pixel sizes for containers and text appear half their size, and the layout around them is adjusted accordingly.
WORKAROUND Internet Explorer version 6 and later versions solve these problems by proportionally adjusting the scale on screens that have higher resolution.
Scaling is not a perfect solution. Embedded Microsoft ActiveX Controls, binary behaviors, and other elements that use Microsoft Windows Graphics Device Interface (GDI) calls do not scale well or do not scale at all. The GDI does not perform automatic scaling based on the density of the display. . . . Native support for high-DPI monitors will be included in the next major operating system release from Microsoft.
*shrug*
Take it how you please; but even in the 'next major operating system from Microsoft', you'll need to tell it what size your monitor is. If it cannot find that out correctly using a list of supported monitors and DDC information, you'll have to enter it manually.
This is exactly why Dell's 15" laptops with 1600x1200 screens are extremely difficult to use in XP.
Even when you crank up the font DPI in display settings, the widgets are all broken.
Windows ignores DPI settings. You can acheive a similar effect on linux by forcing a DPI setting, however, it makes much more sense to use an intelligent distribution that allows you to configure your monitor size, or, if your monitor correctly reports DDC information, automatically configures your monitor size.
When you change your resolution on Windows, do all your fonts stay the same size? No; why do you think that is?
Apparently, this may change in Vista, I'm not sure.
I have little experience with Debian; IMHO, Debian makes a lot of boneheaded configuration decisions.
SuSE's system of centralizing most everything makes _much_ more sense. If you install SuSE 10.0, and correctly select your monitor size in SaX2 during the install process, your fonts will look damn good. SuSE also compiles the truetype bytecode interpreter ON by default, which means that truetype fonts are all rendered correctly.
Windows only 'plain works' because it is DPI ignorant, and although the linux configuration requires more information, a proper, sane distribution will handle most of that automatically for you. Read, NOT DEBIAN.
from the Mozilla FAQ: http://www.mozilla.org/unix/dpi.html To find out what your X server thinks your DPI settings are, run the program xdpyinfo:
$ xdpyinfo | grep dimensions
$ xdpyinfo | grep resolution Note the dimensions in pixels and millimeters, and the resolution in DPI. Compare to what you're actually using, but don't confuse dots and pixels - a dot may or may not equal a pixel. If you have KDE, kinfocenter's X-Server section will conveniently show the same information.
For example, if you use a 17" CRT display, your actual screen dimensions will be approximately 328 mm wide by 246 mm tall. This actual size can usually be forced by adding:
DisplaySize 328 246 to
Section "Monitor" in/etc/X11/XF86Config or/etc/X11/xorg.conf, as applicable on your system. If you are running a 1400 X 1050 resolution with a 328 mm X 246 mm display, your system will be running at an actual 108 DPI. In most cases, this change will be sufficient to correct your problem.
Here's the deal: Both OS X and Windows use static DPI settings for font rendering. As you move to higher DPI monitors, the fonts, icons, and everything just get smaller. On X, fonts/widgets are adjusted for your DPI. As you move to higher DPI monitors, you get _better_ font rendering at the same size.
On most distributions, this setting is ignored for some reason. On SuSE, it attempts to autodiscover it, using an internal database (SaX2) and DDC information. Barring that, it allows you to put in the size of your monitor (15, 17, 19, whatever) and the aspect ratio (4:3, 5:4, 16:9). Or, you can just enter the size of the monitor in MM.
I cannot stress how MUCH of a difference this makes in font quality. It's shocking; trust me.
Strangely, the author likes Trebuchet font (which I think it butt ugly), and he turns anti-aliasing off, which I think is dumb.
Optimum settings in my mind (superior rendering to OS X, comparing my powerbook to my desktop, side by side):
1. in/etc/sysconfig/font-config, set BYTECODE_BW_MAX_PIXEL to 18. You can do this in YaST, like the above link indicates 2. Turn on anti-aliasing in KDE. Exclude the range 0-7 points. Turn ON subpixel hinting, using RGB. 99% of monitors look great with RGB. Set the hinting strength to 'Slight'. 3. Install Tahoma. You can download (use google), or you can steal it from your windows install.
Enjoy!
When I get home, if you post a reply to this post, I'll give you a screen shot of my desktop. The font rendering is absolutely gorgeous.
Before you wipe your Linux install completely, try SuSE 10.0 (http://opensuse.org/
Ndiswrapper, and WPA_supplicant, IIRC are part of the base install. You'll have to use ndiswrapper commandline, but the instructions are in the documentation (avaliable on your Kicker as the help icon). Then use YaST2 to configure your network WPA password.
SuSE does the best job regarding wireless configuration of all the linux distributions I've tried. It's not perfect; the Kwireless applet they use to a bit clunky for switching networks. OS X has it soundly beaten in that regards. But it works, WPA included.
Well, I wouldn't know too much about OO.org on Windows; but on my SuSE system, with SuSE tweaking the OO.org install, it starts up in ~4 seconds, from a cold boot.
Try the following on Windows: 1. Change your Tools->Options->Memory. Graphics Cache to 30 MB. Memory per object: 3.3 MB. 2. Close OpenOffice.org 3. Start and stop OpenOffice.org TWICE. 4. Defrag your disk. This will hopefully layout the prefetched DLLs correctly. 5. If that doesn't work, disable Java in OpenOffice.org. This will disable some features (like 3D word art), but save some ram/speed.
These are tweaks that need to occur by default, and whatever needs to be done to encourage Windows to prefetch OO.org should be done during the install. I'll grant you that;-)
What's your system, if you don't mind. I'm curious; the quickstarter should make things _nearly_ instant. As in under 5 seconds, even on a slower box. Are you running OpenOffice 1.1.5, or OpenOffice 2.0 release (final)? If you are running anything other than these two, you'll experience slow startups. A lot of tweaks went in re:startup between 1.9.75-1.9.79
Other than that, you can run the openoffice.org quickstarter, which is sadly occupies a fair amount of ram, but no more than MS Office's Find Fast, and Indexing services.
Oh, and by the way, that 217 for the install of Office XP, right? Without the full outlook, or the full access, right?
And 188 MB for the full OO.org 2.0, right?
Keep in mind that Office 2003 requires 400 for the base install, and nearly 900 with the kitchen sink. Keep in mind that Office XP is being end-of-lifed within 9 months.
I'm not really sure that I'm being that untruthful. I did list these things in my post.
The Office Startup Assistant (Osa.exe or OSA) is a program that improves the performance of Office programs. . . .
What Are the Advantages of Running the Osa.exe File?
The Osa.exe file initializes the shared code that is used by the Office XP programs. When you use the Osa.exe file to initialize shared code, the Office XP programs start faster. If the Office programs, instead of Osa.exe, initialize the shared code, the programs take longer to start. Back to the top Back to the top
Can I Remove the Osa.exe File?
You can safely remove the Osa.exe file without causing the Office XP programs to fail. However, if you remove Osa.exe, you no longer benefit from the performance advantages that are provided by running Osa.exe. Also, the Office Shortcut Bar (OSB) may no longer start automatically, if you configured the OSB to start when Windows starts. (See the notes for the command-line switches later in this article.)
Don't forget the indexing services; I'm sure they load random shared DLLs, and they do NOT show up in the task manager. I quote: Microsoft's Indexing Service
Starting with Office XP, Microsoft has included a new "fast searching" feature (parasite) which may cause your computer's hard disk to run continuously.
Apparently, this feature is implemented via Mosearch.exe and Mosdmn.exe, neither of which shows up in the task manager. As with findfast, don't just delete these files. Instead, follow the (very confusing) instructions provided in OFFXP: Hard Disk Runs Continuously After You Install Office XP (Q282106) to disable it. Unfortunately, this feature must be disabled for each installed Office XP application.
Also, I believe the various DCOM stuff that was optional in earlier MS systems, and comes standard in newer OSes preloads a shared office code.
Additionally, MS Office is 'prefetched', meaning that the DLL's are organized on disk for optimal loading speed. This happens with all windows apps.
You can do this on Linux, too. In SuSE 10.0, which has OpenOffice.org preloading set by default, OpenOffice.org loads in 5 seconds, on a mediocre celeron. On my system it times to around 3.4 seconds.
Also, you didn't bother to read the benchmark I linked. OpenOffice.org write uses less ram than MS Word, takes less time to startup (when neither are preloaded), and has a much smaller HD footprint.
Of the below, only Office 12, OpenOffice.org 1.1.5, and OpenOffice.org 2.0 have XML document format support. Office 12 is MSXML, and OpenOffice.org are OpenDoc.
Oh, and don't tell me they shouldn't upgrade from Office 2000, or Office 97, or whatever. I'm 100% Massachusetts has a site licensing policy; Office 2000 went End-of-Life on 6/30/2004. Office XP goes End-of-life on June 30, 2006. Neither of these makes for a good, forward-looking 'upgrade'. It's going to have to be 2003 or newer.
Office 12 preliminary system requirements: Microsoft Office 12 will run on Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2) or later, or the Windows Longhorn client. Server components will require Windows Server 2003 or later and, potentially, SQL Server 2000 or later. Office 12 will support x64 platforms natively, though it's not clear whether this support will ship in the box with the initial release, or later as a separate add-on. http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/office12_prev iew1.asp
Microsoft Office 2003 system requirements: To use Microsoft Office Professional Edition 2003, you need: Component Requirement Computer and processor Personal computer with an Intel Pentium 233-MHz or faster processor (Pentium III recommended); optional installation of Business Contact Manager for Outlook® 2003 requires a 450-MHz or faster processor (Pentium III recommended) Memory 128 MB of RAM or greater; optional installation of Business Contact Manager for Outlook 2003 requires 256 MB of RAM Hard disk 400 MB of available hard-disk space; optional installation files cache (recommended) requires an additional 200 MB of available hard-disk space; optional installation of Business Contact Manager for Outlook 2003 requires an additional 190 MB of available hard-disk space
OpenOffice.org system requirements, version 2.0: Microsoft Windows
* Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows 2000 (Service Pack 2 or higher), Windows XP, Windows 2003
* 128 Mbytes RAM
* 200 Mbytes available disk space
* 800 x 600 or higher resolution with at least 256 colors
Solaris: SPARC platform edition
* Solaris 8 OS or higher
* 128 Mbytes RAM
* 250 Mbytes available disk space
* X-Server with 800 x 600 or higher resolution with at least 256 colors
Solaris: x86 platform edition
* Solaris 8 OS or higher
* 128 Mbytes RAM
* 250 Mbytes available disk space
* X-Server with 800 x 600 or higher resolution with at least 256 colors
Linux:
* Linux kernel version 2.2.13 or higher, glibc2 version 2.2.0 or higher
* 128 Mbytes RAM
* 200 Mbytes available disk space
* X-Server with 800 x 600 or higher resolution with at least 256 colors
System Requirements for OpenOffice.org 1.1.x Windows
Microsoft Windows 98, ME, NT (Service Pack 6 or higher), 2000 or XP
Pentium compatible PC, 64 MB RAM, 250 MB available hard disk space GNU/Linux ("Linux")
Glibc 2.2.0 or newer
Pentium compatible PC, 64 MB RAM, 300 MB available hard disk space
X server and graphics card capable of 800x600 resolution
No, I'm guessing Blizzard's just being more aggressive.
In GW, someone needs to report a cheater. GM's investigate, then take action. Doubtlessly, people are getting away with it.
In WoW, it used to be that someone would report a cheater. GM's investigate, then take action. People get away with it.
Now, Warden reports suspicious programs that interfer with WoW to Blizzard, and closes the game if its memory is being violated. It files a GM report, who investigate, then they take action.
It's possible to get around it, but much more difficult. What it does is really no different than, say, punkbuster. It's also no more invasive than a virus scanner, or MS Windows update.
The main problem with the 'Warden' client is that Blizzard sprung it on players without saying anything. Although there are some references to it in the EULA, they aren't particularly clear, and most people don't read it anyway. It changes on a weekly basis or so, and the document is fairly dense, and not very comphrensible.
If you don't run any other software while you play, it cannot get any of your data. It cannot get any of your data while you aren't running WoW (its not a rootkit).
It remains to be seen if it insures the integrity of the game. If so, I'm all for it. It's no fun playing WoW against cheaters- in fact, it really sucks to be in BG against people who are speed hacking.
I do not have to do ANYTHING in regards to the fairness of keeping them in Business.
SBC advertises its DSL as being a connection to the internet.
Not a connection to the faux internet, a la AOL 4.0 and lower, or a connection to a private, controlled network, a la Compuserve.
SBC advertises its DSL as being 'Internet Access' You're in good company when you choose SBC Yahoo! DSL as your high-speed Internet provider. These two trusted companies have teamed up, each offering you a world of experience, know-how, and cool, useful web services. The result is the very best broadband Internet experience around.
With SBC you get a telecommunications leader and pioneer committed to providing you with high-quality Internet service. With Yahoo! you get an Internet innovator with the vision and experience to take the Web to new levels. When you bring them together, you get a variety of SBC Yahoo! DSL packages that meet your unique needs. In short, you get an enjoyable Internet experience no other provider can bring you
In their service agreement, there are no stipulations on which sites you may access, nor additional expense in regards to these sites.
They do have a stipulation that you must maintain local phone service. That's the 'cost' that support the phone lines.
It's not my problem if there business model is too screwed up to support 'complete' internet access (VoIP is an internet service, the same as e-mail, IM, or the web). They'll need to renegotiate their contracts, and I damn well won't pickup their service if they switch to that kind of model.
If DSL needs circuit switched phone lines to survive, DSL can go the way of the dodo. As it is, SBC is falling WAY behind the cable carriers, and WAY WAY behind the up and coming fiber carriers, like Verizon.
This kind of stupidity is just pushing them further into the grave. I'm sure as hell not going to agree to anything that would require a micropayment everytime I used a non-yahoo IM service.
Sadly, you have no idea what you are talking about.
You are a developer. I'm a prospective home owner.
I buy a home in your community. You maintain a private road to my community. You advertise your road as my pathway to the rest of the road system.
I agree with this, and pay you on a monthly basis for usage of this road. We sign an agreement limiting the speed and amount of usage, and I begin to pay you monthly.
You then notice that I order pizza on a weekly basis, and decide to go after the pizza company for delivering pizzas, and UPS for delivering packages. Obviously, they shouldn't be make money off your road.
Problem is, it's not the pizza company, or UPS, using the road. It's me using the service I've already _paid_ for under an arrangement that we've already agreed upon. I'm not overusing the road; I'm not running semi-trucks repeatedly, nor am I causing a traffic problem. All I'm doing is utilizing the _access_ to my home that I've already paid for. You advertised my road _service_ as allowing me to connect to the rest of the road system. You placed no stipulations on the who's allowed to drive, or what kind of vehicle. Merely that I was not allowed more than a certain amount of traffic, nor allowed to travel at above a certain speed.
You just see an additional opportunity to make a cash, and as such, try to renegotiate your agreement. Thankfully, in the internet world, SBC's line is not the only road I can ride upon.
While they are at it, however, eliminate the UCC, and any other federal 'so-called' taxes which really go straight to the phone company.
For the phone company to charge the real price directly in the bill, and allow them to go ahead and raise the rates as much as they want.
Government regulation tends to prop up these monopolies, not destroy them. Government action is needed when there are ZERO choices in service provider. Which, in most areas, is no longer the case. My area, not including VoIP, has 6 internet providers, 3 cable companies, 2 satellite 'cable' providers, and 5 phone companies.
The government paying for phone lines, and then regulating them to keep the prices low is just another way of artifically making the phone company price competitive. Force them to push the cost to the consumer, and VoIP/Cable look more and more attractive.
We currently use SBC DSL at work. We also rely upon Vonage as our Telephone company. If SBC degrades our VoIP, they've lost us as a customer, even if we have to pay the early termination fee.
Thankfully, in most areas, you can get an alternative to SBL DSL.
Slashdot Mirror
Media attention.
The theory is that all the attention will make the console look like a 'blockbuster'.
And that will drive greater sales in the future.
I feel, however, the reality is different. It makes them look incompetent, especially considering the current title selection for the 360.
Ever been to a club where they force people to wait in line even when its empty on the inside?
Well, guess what; although it presents a good image to people driving by the club, and some people will walk up and join the line, the club is still at 1/2 capacity. They aren't making proper money, and its all a cover up to make it look like it.
MS isn't turning a good profit on game consoles. This is all part of a grander media effort to make it look like their consoles are in demand. A bluff, if you will.
The PS2 was similar, however, as much as I hate Sony, that was a semi-bluff. Sales were good; Sony could have met demand if it wanted to, however, it decided that it would rather enjoy the media attention.
Yes, keep 'em separate, thats the best way.
Non-sophisticated computer users (read non-total nerds) don't mind a little bit more "difficulty" if it avoids "complexity" (these are two different things).
It is more difficult to run two web browsers than to worry about which browsing engine you are using in a given tab, however, its also an easier idea to conceptualize.
As long as the setup works for the end user, you're golden.
Check this out:
XCP SUPPORT
ActiveX Unsupported
Sorry, your Internet Browser does not support ActiveX Controls.
Please use Microsoft Internet Explorer to continue.
Download Internet Explorer from the Microsoft website
More Lock in! Thank god I'm on Linux.
Here's the MS support article describing this problem:8 6
http://support.microsoft.com/?scid=kb;EN-US;Q8202
They say, "A user interface that was designed to look good on a 96-DPI monitor may not look as good at higher resolutions. Text and graphics that are small at 96 DPI may appear much smaller at 200 DPI. When the number of pixels-per-inch increases, the size of each pixel decreases. If you double the density of the pixels, the size of the text may be halved so that the text is no longer readable. As a result, Web pages that specify pixel sizes for containers and text appear half their size, and the layout around them is adjusted accordingly.
WORKAROUND
Internet Explorer version 6 and later versions solve these problems by proportionally adjusting the scale on screens that have higher resolution.
Scaling is not a perfect solution. Embedded Microsoft ActiveX Controls, binary behaviors, and other elements that use Microsoft Windows Graphics Device Interface (GDI) calls do not scale well or do not scale at all. The GDI does not perform automatic scaling based on the density of the display.
. . .
Native support for high-DPI monitors will be included in the next major operating system release from Microsoft.
*shrug*
Take it how you please; but even in the 'next major operating system from Microsoft', you'll need to tell it what size your monitor is. If it cannot find that out correctly using a list of supported monitors and DDC information, you'll have to enter it manually.
Which is exactly how SuSE works, now.
Sorry, this is not the case.
This is exactly why Dell's 15" laptops with 1600x1200 screens are extremely difficult to use in XP.
Even when you crank up the font DPI in display settings, the widgets are all broken.
Windows ignores DPI settings. You can acheive a similar effect on linux by forcing a DPI setting, however, it makes much more sense to use an intelligent distribution that allows you to configure your monitor size, or, if your monitor correctly reports DDC information, automatically configures your monitor size.
When you change your resolution on Windows, do all your fonts stay the same size? No; why do you think that is?
Apparently, this may change in Vista, I'm not sure.
I have little experience with Debian; IMHO, Debian makes a lot of boneheaded configuration decisions.
SuSE's system of centralizing most everything makes _much_ more sense. If you install SuSE 10.0, and correctly select your monitor size in SaX2 during the install process, your fonts will look damn good. SuSE also compiles the truetype bytecode interpreter ON by default, which means that truetype fonts are all rendered correctly.
Windows only 'plain works' because it is DPI ignorant, and although the linux configuration requires more information, a proper, sane distribution will handle most of that automatically for you. Read, NOT DEBIAN.
I forgot the Screen size configuration:
/etc/X11/XF86Config or /etc/X11/xorg.conf, as applicable on your system. If you are running a 1400 X 1050 resolution with a 328 mm X 246 mm display, your system will be running at an actual 108 DPI. In most cases, this change will be sufficient to correct your problem.
from the Mozilla FAQ:
http://www.mozilla.org/unix/dpi.html
To find out what your X server thinks your DPI settings are, run the program xdpyinfo:
$ xdpyinfo | grep dimensions
$ xdpyinfo | grep resolution
Note the dimensions in pixels and millimeters, and the resolution in DPI. Compare to what you're actually using, but don't confuse dots and pixels - a dot may or may not equal a pixel. If you have KDE, kinfocenter's X-Server section will conveniently show the same information.
For example, if you use a 17" CRT display, your actual screen dimensions will be approximately 328 mm wide by 246 mm tall. This actual size can usually be forced by adding:
DisplaySize 328 246
to
Section "Monitor"
in
Yes, I know its a bit strange.
u SE
/etc/sysconfig/font-config, set BYTECODE_BW_MAX_PIXEL to 18. You can do this in YaST, like the above link indicates
Here's the deal: Both OS X and Windows use static DPI settings for font rendering. As you move to higher DPI monitors, the fonts, icons, and everything just get smaller. On X, fonts/widgets are adjusted for your DPI. As you move to higher DPI monitors, you get _better_ font rendering at the same size.
On most distributions, this setting is ignored for some reason.
On SuSE, it attempts to autodiscover it, using an internal database (SaX2) and DDC information. Barring that, it allows you to put in the size of your monitor (15, 17, 19, whatever) and the aspect ratio (4:3, 5:4, 16:9). Or, you can just enter the size of the monitor in MM.
I cannot stress how MUCH of a difference this makes in font quality. It's shocking; trust me.
Here's a link showing a properly configured screenshot: http://www.opensuse.org/Optimal_Use_of_Fonts_on_S
Strangely, the author likes Trebuchet font (which I think it butt ugly), and he turns anti-aliasing off, which I think is dumb.
Optimum settings in my mind (superior rendering to OS X, comparing my powerbook to my desktop, side by side):
1. in
2. Turn on anti-aliasing in KDE. Exclude the range 0-7 points. Turn ON subpixel hinting, using RGB. 99% of monitors look great with RGB. Set the hinting strength to 'Slight'.
3. Install Tahoma. You can download (use google), or you can steal it from your windows install.
Enjoy!
When I get home, if you post a reply to this post, I'll give you a screen shot of my desktop. The font rendering is absolutely gorgeous.
Reminds me of :
Welcome to Gentoo is Rice, the Volume goes to 11 here
The answer is opensuse.
Opensuse has the truetype bytecode interpreter enabled by default, and sane font antialiasing settings.
All you have to do is set your monitor size correctly in SaX2, and you get fonts that look substantially _better_ than OS X or Windows.
I say this as I type on my powerbook running OS X.
Before you wipe your Linux install completely, try SuSE 10.0 (http://opensuse.org/
Ndiswrapper, and WPA_supplicant, IIRC are part of the base install. You'll have to use ndiswrapper commandline, but the instructions are in the documentation (avaliable on your Kicker as the help icon). Then use YaST2 to configure your network WPA password.
SuSE does the best job regarding wireless configuration of all the linux distributions I've tried. It's not perfect; the Kwireless applet they use to a bit clunky for switching networks. OS X has it soundly beaten in that regards. But it works, WPA included.
Apt GUI options: Synaptic, Kynaptic.
RPM GUI options: RPMDrake (URPMI), YaST2, Kpackage, any number of others.
Neato installation architecture: Autopackage
Next-gen one file app wrapups: klik://
The linux ecosystem already has the tools needed to solve _every_ install 'problem' you can think of. People just need to start using them.
/catch
Looks like I found another Microsoft employee ringer!
Don't feed the trolls!
Well, I wouldn't know too much about OO.org on Windows; but on my SuSE system, with SuSE tweaking the OO.org install, it starts up in ~4 seconds, from a cold boot.
;-)
Try the following on Windows:
1. Change your Tools->Options->Memory. Graphics Cache to 30 MB. Memory per object: 3.3 MB.
2. Close OpenOffice.org
3. Start and stop OpenOffice.org TWICE.
4. Defrag your disk. This will hopefully layout the prefetched DLLs correctly.
5. If that doesn't work, disable Java in OpenOffice.org. This will disable some features (like 3D word art), but save some ram/speed.
These are tweaks that need to occur by default, and whatever needs to be done to encourage Windows to prefetch OO.org should be done during the install. I'll grant you that
What's your system, if you don't mind. I'm curious; the quickstarter should make things _nearly_ instant. As in under 5 seconds, even on a slower box. Are you running OpenOffice 1.1.5, or OpenOffice 2.0 release (final)? If you are running anything other than these two, you'll experience slow startups. A lot of tweaks went in re:startup between 1.9.75-1.9.79
Other than that, you can run the openoffice.org quickstarter, which is sadly occupies a fair amount of ram, but no more than MS Office's Find Fast, and Indexing services.
Oh, and by the way, that 217 for the install of Office XP, right? Without the full outlook, or the full access, right?
And 188 MB for the full OO.org 2.0, right?
Keep in mind that Office 2003 requires 400 for the base install, and nearly 900 with the kitchen sink. Keep in mind that Office XP is being end-of-lifed within 9 months.
I'm not really sure that I'm being that untruthful. I did list these things in my post.
FUD
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/290144/
I quote:
What is the Osa.exe file?
The Office Startup Assistant (Osa.exe or OSA) is a program that improves the performance of Office programs. . . .
What Are the Advantages of Running the Osa.exe File?
The Osa.exe file initializes the shared code that is used by the Office XP programs. When you use the Osa.exe file to initialize shared code, the Office XP programs start faster. If the Office programs, instead of Osa.exe, initialize the shared code, the programs take longer to start.
Back to the top Back to the top
Can I Remove the Osa.exe File?
You can safely remove the Osa.exe file without causing the Office XP programs to fail. However, if you remove Osa.exe, you no longer benefit from the performance advantages that are provided by running Osa.exe. Also, the Office Shortcut Bar (OSB) may no longer start automatically, if you configured the OSB to start when Windows starts. (See the notes for the command-line switches later in this article.)
Don't forget the indexing services; I'm sure they load random shared DLLs, and they do NOT show up in the task manager. I quote:
Microsoft's Indexing Service
Starting with Office XP, Microsoft has included a new "fast searching" feature (parasite) which may cause your computer's hard disk to run continuously.
Apparently, this feature is implemented via Mosearch.exe and Mosdmn.exe, neither of which shows up in the task manager. As with findfast, don't just delete these files. Instead, follow the (very confusing) instructions provided in OFFXP: Hard Disk Runs Continuously After You Install Office XP (Q282106) to disable it. Unfortunately, this feature must be disabled for each installed Office XP application.
Also, I believe the various DCOM stuff that was optional in earlier MS systems, and comes standard in newer OSes preloads a shared office code.
Additionally, MS Office is 'prefetched', meaning that the DLL's are organized on disk for optimal loading speed. This happens with all windows apps.
You can do this on Linux, too. In SuSE 10.0, which has OpenOffice.org preloading set by default, OpenOffice.org loads in 5 seconds, on a mediocre celeron. On my system it times to around 3.4 seconds.
Also, you didn't bother to read the benchmark I linked. OpenOffice.org write uses less ram than MS Word, takes less time to startup (when neither are preloaded), and has a much smaller HD footprint.
What planet are you from?
Of the below, only Office 12, OpenOffice.org 1.1.5, and OpenOffice.org 2.0 have XML document format support. Office 12 is MSXML, and OpenOffice.org are OpenDoc.
Oh, and don't tell me they shouldn't upgrade from Office 2000, or Office 97, or whatever. I'm 100% Massachusetts has a site licensing policy; Office 2000 went End-of-Life on 6/30/2004. Office XP goes End-of-life on June 30, 2006. Neither of these makes for a good, forward-looking 'upgrade'. It's going to have to be 2003 or newer.
Office 12 preliminary system requirements:
Microsoft Office 12 will run on Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2) or later, or the Windows Longhorn client. Server components will require Windows Server 2003 or later and, potentially, SQL Server 2000 or later. Office 12 will support x64 platforms natively, though it's not clear whether this support will ship in the box with the initial release, or later as a separate add-on.
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/office12_prev iew1.asp
Microsoft Office 2003 system requirements:
To use Microsoft Office Professional Edition 2003, you need:
Component Requirement
Computer and processor
Personal computer with an Intel Pentium 233-MHz or faster processor (Pentium III recommended); optional installation of Business Contact Manager for Outlook® 2003 requires a 450-MHz or faster processor (Pentium III recommended)
Memory
128 MB of RAM or greater; optional installation of Business Contact Manager for Outlook 2003 requires 256 MB of RAM
Hard disk
400 MB of available hard-disk space; optional installation files cache (recommended) requires an additional 200 MB of available hard-disk space; optional installation of Business Contact Manager for Outlook 2003 requires an additional 190 MB of available hard-disk space
OpenOffice.org system requirements, version 2.0:
Microsoft Windows
* Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows 2000 (Service Pack 2 or higher), Windows XP, Windows 2003
* 128 Mbytes RAM
* 200 Mbytes available disk space
* 800 x 600 or higher resolution with at least 256 colors
Solaris: SPARC platform edition
* Solaris 8 OS or higher
* 128 Mbytes RAM
* 250 Mbytes available disk space
* X-Server with 800 x 600 or higher resolution with at least 256 colors
Solaris: x86 platform edition
* Solaris 8 OS or higher
* 128 Mbytes RAM
* 250 Mbytes available disk space
* X-Server with 800 x 600 or higher resolution with at least 256 colors
Linux:
* Linux kernel version 2.2.13 or higher, glibc2 version 2.2.0 or higher
* 128 Mbytes RAM
* 200 Mbytes available disk space
* X-Server with 800 x 600 or higher resolution with at least 256 colors
System Requirements for OpenOffice.org 1.1.x
Windows
Microsoft Windows 98, ME, NT (Service Pack 6 or higher), 2000 or XP
Pentium compatible PC, 64 MB RAM, 250 MB available hard disk space
GNU/Linux ("Linux")
Glibc 2.2.0 or newer
Pentium compatible PC, 64 MB RAM, 300 MB available hard disk space
X server and graphics card capable of 800x600 resolution
Performance testing, OpenOffice.org versus MS Office 2003:
http://www.matt13.com/computer/open_office_or_ms_o ffice/
OpenOffice.org uses less CPU, less RAM, and far less Hard Disk space.
Does OpenOffice.org start slower on
Use Sony's Ring0 rootkit to hide your WoW-cheat
5 1
Heh.
http://www.wowsharp.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=72
No, I'm guessing Blizzard's just being more aggressive.
In GW, someone needs to report a cheater. GM's investigate, then take action. Doubtlessly, people are getting away with it.
In WoW, it used to be that someone would report a cheater. GM's investigate, then take action. People get away with it.
Now, Warden reports suspicious programs that interfer with WoW to Blizzard, and closes the game if its memory is being violated. It files a GM report, who investigate, then they take action.
It's possible to get around it, but much more difficult. What it does is really no different than, say, punkbuster. It's also no more invasive than a virus scanner, or MS Windows update.
The main problem with the 'Warden' client is that Blizzard sprung it on players without saying anything. Although there are some references to it in the EULA, they aren't particularly clear, and most people don't read it anyway. It changes on a weekly basis or so, and the document is fairly dense, and not very comphrensible.
If you don't run any other software while you play, it cannot get any of your data.
It cannot get any of your data while you aren't running WoW (its not a rootkit).
It remains to be seen if it insures the integrity of the game. If so, I'm all for it. It's no fun playing WoW against cheaters- in fact, it really sucks to be in BG against people who are speed hacking.
I do not have to do ANYTHING in regards to the fairness of keeping them in Business.
SBC advertises its DSL as being a connection to the internet.
Not a connection to the faux internet, a la AOL 4.0 and lower, or a connection to a private, controlled network, a la Compuserve.
SBC advertises its DSL as being 'Internet Access'
You're in good company when you choose SBC Yahoo! DSL as your high-speed Internet provider. These two trusted companies have teamed up, each offering you a world of experience, know-how, and cool, useful web services. The result is the very best broadband Internet experience around.
With SBC you get a telecommunications leader and pioneer committed to providing you with high-quality Internet service. With Yahoo! you get an Internet innovator with the vision and experience to take the Web to new levels. When you bring them together, you get a variety of SBC Yahoo! DSL packages that meet your unique needs. In short, you get an enjoyable Internet experience no other provider can bring you
In their service agreement, there are no stipulations on which sites you may access, nor additional expense in regards to these sites.
They do have a stipulation that you must maintain local phone service. That's the 'cost' that support the phone lines.
It's not my problem if there business model is too screwed up to support 'complete' internet access (VoIP is an internet service, the same as e-mail, IM, or the web). They'll need to renegotiate their contracts, and I damn well won't pickup their service if they switch to that kind of model.
If DSL needs circuit switched phone lines to survive, DSL can go the way of the dodo. As it is, SBC is falling WAY behind the cable carriers, and WAY WAY behind the up and coming fiber carriers, like Verizon.
This kind of stupidity is just pushing them further into the grave. I'm sure as hell not going to agree to anything that would require a micropayment everytime I used a non-yahoo IM service.
Sadly, you have no idea what you are talking about.
You are a developer.
I'm a prospective home owner.
I buy a home in your community. You maintain a private road to my community. You advertise your road as my pathway to the rest of the road system.
I agree with this, and pay you on a monthly basis for usage of this road. We sign an agreement limiting the speed and amount of usage, and I begin to pay you monthly.
You then notice that I order pizza on a weekly basis, and decide to go after the pizza company for delivering pizzas, and UPS for delivering packages. Obviously, they shouldn't be make money off your road.
Problem is, it's not the pizza company, or UPS, using the road. It's me using the service I've already _paid_ for under an arrangement that we've already agreed upon. I'm not overusing the road; I'm not running semi-trucks repeatedly, nor am I causing a traffic problem. All I'm doing is utilizing the _access_ to my home that I've already paid for. You advertised my road _service_ as allowing me to connect to the rest of the road system. You placed no stipulations on the who's allowed to drive, or what kind of vehicle. Merely that I was not allowed more than a certain amount of traffic, nor allowed to travel at above a certain speed.
You just see an additional opportunity to make a cash, and as such, try to renegotiate your agreement. Thankfully, in the internet world, SBC's line is not the only road I can ride upon.
Unregulate the fuckers.
Seriously.
While they are at it, however, eliminate the UCC, and any other federal 'so-called' taxes which really go straight to the phone company.
For the phone company to charge the real price directly in the bill, and allow them to go ahead and raise the rates as much as they want.
Government regulation tends to prop up these monopolies, not destroy them. Government action is needed when there are ZERO choices in service provider. Which, in most areas, is no longer the case. My area, not including VoIP, has 6 internet providers, 3 cable companies, 2 satellite 'cable' providers, and 5 phone companies.
The government paying for phone lines, and then regulating them to keep the prices low is just another way of artifically making the phone company price competitive. Force them to push the cost to the consumer, and VoIP/Cable look more and more attractive.
No, but competition will hopefully whoop is ass.
We currently use SBC DSL at work. We also rely upon Vonage as our Telephone company. If SBC degrades our VoIP, they've lost us as a customer, even if we have to pay the early termination fee.
Thankfully, in most areas, you can get an alternative to SBL DSL.
In the days of yore, MS would do something to 'break' google.
IIS patches would somehow screwup googlebot, Windows patches would break access to Google search.
The masses would switch to the built-in search to get back to stability.
Thankfully, MS is no longer permitted to engage in this kind of shenangian.
Yes, that was dumb.
Still, he did have it posted publicly on undeadly.org, but I'm guessing slashdot gets farmed more often.
Don't forget, you need a proper graphics card, too.
For the Full Aeroglass MSWordXML "Vista" eXPerience, you need a 256 MB video card with Direct3d 9 Hardware support.
Apple will probably pick it up when Codeweavers has already finished it.
Codeweavers has already announced a Wine for OS X x86 product. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple decided to start contributing to the main wine tree.