You think they're going to honor this distinction when they crow about what 'the market' wants?
No, but then neither do we generally speaking when we crow about the number of Firefox downloads. Oh sure, some people do (me, for a start), but then there will be plenty of MS employees muttering about it too.
It affects you when the amount of spam you're dealing with increases because yet another PC is recruited into a zombie bot-net by a malicious website using an IE 6 vulnerability.
Apart from that, it doesn't, but then neither does the reported number of users of any given browser...
The problem (as I understand it) is all the people trying to go to youtube, typing it in as utube, and hammering utube's servers into the ground. Bandwidth is cheap, but not free; get enough hits and it can start to become pretty expensive, not to mention the potential loss of revenue as the site is too slow to respond to genuine customers.
The problem is not people wanting to go to utube, but typing in youtube and being confused.
Re:It's the all encompassing .com that's the probl
on
Utube Sues YouTube
·
· Score: 1
If you're typing them at the command line that often, you can either use your shell history or script/alias it. If you're typing them in a browser, most (all?) browsers support bookmarks and auto-completion of URLs.
I personally think that the benefits of a more hierarchical system outweigh the potential drawback of having to type a little bit more occasionally.
As if anyone with a windows box has a choice in the matter.
You'd rather people stayed with the old, proven-insecure IE6? Besides, what part of it being a high-priority download forces people to use it, rather than FF or Opera? Remember - total number of downloads and total number of users are not the same thing...
Of course they will - there shouldn't have been a problem in the first place, rolling out patches is a pain, "what about the ones they've not told us about?", etc.
Make no mistake, a lot of people on here aren't so much pro-OSS as they are anti-MS.
(Disclaimer: I have not and never will use IE as my primary browser)
Vendors are upset because a new OS helps to drive hardware sales, and some people will be holding off getting a new PC until they're available with Vista pre-installed.
Some people here are "upset" because this makes MS look bad, so they're all over it as they are with anything that gives them a chance to throw FUD and laugh; some are upset because they're genuinely looking forward to some of the new features; some are upset because of the flood of pointless "hahaha Vista sux0rz! M$ l0053rz!!!" stories posted solely for the entertainment of the first group.
Real people, the average computer users, don't give a shit, apart from the very small percentage who are planning to upgrade and holding out for Vista.
32,000 is the largest number representable in 15 bits, give or take; similarly, 2GB is the largest space addressable using a 31 bit number. I doubt that's entirely coincidental.
Yes, exactly like that - except that in this case, it's the rights holders that are being paid, in order to avoid being sued. So, no, not really like that at all.
Not only that, but if simply moving the cursor over an interface element is enough to activate it, you're going to end up tracing a very circuitous route around the screen in order to avoid activating any elements by mistake.
RSI is already a worry when we can take the shortest route to an element, without having to add lots of unnecessary manoeuvring around icons, etc.
Yes, we gathered that - but 700KB of RAM is nothing. I suspect you meant M, for mega; for what it's worth, I once saw FF taking over 1.5GB of RAM. Given that the machine only had 1GB of physical RAM, I was not too impressed...
As for the wireless stuff, well, that's too bad. But your computer already needs one connection to the wall to get its power. Will one more for data kill you?
No, but my girlfriend nearly did when I started laying bright yellow cat5 cable in the house...
Oh, I actually quite like having a built-in camera - my phone goes everywhere with me, while my (much bulkier) camera only comes out when I expect to be using it. My complaint with my current phone is that the only way to get pictures off is via MMS to another phone, or via the IR, and as I don't have an IR sensor for my PC...
My previous phone had Bluetooth, thus making the camera much more useful. Sure, picture quality still sucked, but that's being worked on. Besides, I wouldn't actually want a phone that was too small or slim, personally.
Tell me, did you have lessons in being that short-sighted and self-centred, or did it come naturally? I'm sorry I wasn't quite specific enough for you, so well done on scoring the English-speaking vs ASCII-using point. All I'm suggesting is that a little work is done extending the capabilities of some software to allow it to handle what it really should have been able to handle from the very start - words in all of our character sets, not just the one that you and I happen to use.
The alternative is the fragmentation of the Internet, into (at best) a Latin-character one and a Unicode one. Maybe you don't care, but given that the entire point of the web in the first place was to enable communication, I'd see that as a pretty sad development.
Besides, it's not even anything you have to care or do anything about (thankfully); you can just sit back and let others improve the tools you're using for the betterment not just of you, but of the whole of the species.
Actually, I believe that what "they" generally want is localised domain names. Would you want to have to learn Kanji just to get to a US-based, English language website? Do you think "they" should be made to learn English to get to (eg) an Arabic or Japanese website?
Reducing the scope for interfering with the running kernel can only be a good thing from a security point of view. McCafe and Symantec may well be the big two, but if what MS want to do would prevent AV software from running then all AV vendors would be complaining, as they'd all be staring at a long, slow death; being smaller wouldn't keep them quiet, and if I were one, I sure as hell wouldn't rely on a competitor to complain on my behalf.
Personally, I'd rather the security of the OS were improved, than I had to continue to rely on buggy, resource-hugging third party products to temporarily plug the holes that could be closed once and for all.
The most that can happen is my home directory gets blasted. OH NOES.
Heh - that's almost the only part of my hard drive that I do care about. The OS and apps are all backed up on nice, shiny install media, but I'm lazy, so my user area isn't backed up anywhere near as regularly as it should be.
McAfee and Symantec aren't complaining that Vista is better and more secure. They're complaint is that Microsoft won't give them the API to low level kernel stuff so that they can detect viruses, while at the same time, Microsoft is going to use that same API for their own virus detection.
I have to wonder why, of the half a dozen or more companies that produce Windows AV software, they are the only two to be complaining...
We need to tell people to get themselves over to http://openbsd.org/ftp.html (or whichever you prefer) and download a real OS, where you can do exactly what you want.
What I want is to play games such as F.E.A.R. and Oblivion, on my PC, along with assorted other things that I simply can't do on a BSD or Linux.
Besides which, since first installing my copy of XP I've completely stripped down my PC and replaced all of the hardware, and (re)activation was as simple as clicking a couple of buttons.
Same on my Samsung E800. I don't use it very often, but it has proven useful once or twice; unlike the camera, which - especially given the difficulty of actually getting photos off the phone - is crap.
And yet, by jeering at this guy for taking the question seriously, you point out that there really are people who don't understand why a simple phone is a good thing
No he doesn't; if anything, he's saying "well duh, the guy's obviously joking - how could you possibly think otherwise?" That's not pointing out that people don't understand the need for a simple phone, that's highlighting the fact that the need is so obvious it's amazing anyone took the joke seriously.
I bought an OEM copy of XP Pro when I upgraded my machine about 3 years ago. After a while and some futzing with the hardware, it wanted me to reactivate, so I did, over the internet. In February of this year, I upgraded again, essentially swapping out the entire system - hard drives, motherboard, processor, RAM, PSU, graphics card, the lot. I re-installed the same copy of XP, and again activated it over the internet with no problems.
The one time I did have an issue with activation was when I reactivated my ex's PC after swapping out a failed motherboard. That turned out to be down to the OEM having installed it with a key other than the one on the sticker on the case. Even then, all it took was one short, automated call to MS and all was well again.
I appreciate that there are horror stories surrounding WPA and WGA, but so far I've not experienced any or heard of any from any of my friends. For me at least, it's been a non issue (at least if you ignore the principle of the thing)
The author of TFA appears to have misspelled "obstruct people posting legitimate content in myriad frustrating, confusing and probably threatening ways".
So you've used it then? Or are you just using wild, unfounded speculation to spread FUD?
Slashdot Mirror
You think they're going to honor this distinction when they crow about what 'the market' wants?
No, but then neither do we generally speaking when we crow about the number of Firefox downloads. Oh sure, some people do (me, for a start), but then there will be plenty of MS employees muttering about it too.
It affects you when the amount of spam you're dealing with increases because yet another PC is recruited into a zombie bot-net by a malicious website using an IE 6 vulnerability.
Apart from that, it doesn't, but then neither does the reported number of users of any given browser...
The problem (as I understand it) is all the people trying to go to youtube, typing it in as utube, and hammering utube's servers into the ground. Bandwidth is cheap, but not free; get enough hits and it can start to become pretty expensive, not to mention the potential loss of revenue as the site is too slow to respond to genuine customers.
The problem is not people wanting to go to utube, but typing in youtube and being confused.
If you're typing them at the command line that often, you can either use your shell history or script/alias it. If you're typing them in a browser, most (all?) browsers support bookmarks and auto-completion of URLs.
I personally think that the benefits of a more hierarchical system outweigh the potential drawback of having to type a little bit more occasionally.
As if anyone with a windows box has a choice in the matter.
You'd rather people stayed with the old, proven-insecure IE6? Besides, what part of it being a high-priority download forces people to use it, rather than FF or Opera? Remember - total number of downloads and total number of users are not the same thing...
Of course they will - there shouldn't have been a problem in the first place, rolling out patches is a pain, "what about the ones they've not told us about?", etc.
Make no mistake, a lot of people on here aren't so much pro-OSS as they are anti-MS.
(Disclaimer: I have not and never will use IE as my primary browser)
Vendors are upset because a new OS helps to drive hardware sales, and some people will be holding off getting a new PC until they're available with Vista pre-installed.
Some people here are "upset" because this makes MS look bad, so they're all over it as they are with anything that gives them a chance to throw FUD and laugh; some are upset because they're genuinely looking forward to some of the new features; some are upset because of the flood of pointless "hahaha Vista sux0rz! M$ l0053rz!!!" stories posted solely for the entertainment of the first group.
Real people, the average computer users, don't give a shit, apart from the very small percentage who are planning to upgrade and holding out for Vista.
You're certainly living up to your username; I think that's the worst analogy I've seen you come up with so far.
32,000 is the largest number representable in 15 bits, give or take; similarly, 2GB is the largest space addressable using a 31 bit number. I doubt that's entirely coincidental.
Yes, exactly like that - except that in this case, it's the rights holders that are being paid, in order to avoid being sued. So, no, not really like that at all.
Not only that, but if simply moving the cursor over an interface element is enough to activate it, you're going to end up tracing a very circuitous route around the screen in order to avoid activating any elements by mistake.
RSI is already a worry when we can take the shortest route to an element, without having to add lots of unnecessary manoeuvring around icons, etc.
Yes, we gathered that - but 700KB of RAM is nothing. I suspect you meant M, for mega; for what it's worth, I once saw FF taking over 1.5GB of RAM. Given that the machine only had 1GB of physical RAM, I was not too impressed...
As for the wireless stuff, well, that's too bad. But your computer already needs one connection to the wall to get its power. Will one more for data kill you?
No, but my girlfriend nearly did when I started laying bright yellow cat5 cable in the house...
Oh, I actually quite like having a built-in camera - my phone goes everywhere with me, while my (much bulkier) camera only comes out when I expect to be using it. My complaint with my current phone is that the only way to get pictures off is via MMS to another phone, or via the IR, and as I don't have an IR sensor for my PC...
My previous phone had Bluetooth, thus making the camera much more useful. Sure, picture quality still sucked, but that's being worked on. Besides, I wouldn't actually want a phone that was too small or slim, personally.
Tell me, did you have lessons in being that short-sighted and self-centred, or did it come naturally? I'm sorry I wasn't quite specific enough for you, so well done on scoring the English-speaking vs ASCII-using point. All I'm suggesting is that a little work is done extending the capabilities of some software to allow it to handle what it really should have been able to handle from the very start - words in all of our character sets, not just the one that you and I happen to use.
The alternative is the fragmentation of the Internet, into (at best) a Latin-character one and a Unicode one. Maybe you don't care, but given that the entire point of the web in the first place was to enable communication, I'd see that as a pretty sad development.
Besides, it's not even anything you have to care or do anything about (thankfully); you can just sit back and let others improve the tools you're using for the betterment not just of you, but of the whole of the species.
Actually, I believe that what "they" generally want is localised domain names. Would you want to have to learn Kanji just to get to a US-based, English language website? Do you think "they" should be made to learn English to get to (eg) an Arabic or Japanese website?
Reducing the scope for interfering with the running kernel can only be a good thing from a security point of view. McCafe and Symantec may well be the big two, but if what MS want to do would prevent AV software from running then all AV vendors would be complaining, as they'd all be staring at a long, slow death; being smaller wouldn't keep them quiet, and if I were one, I sure as hell wouldn't rely on a competitor to complain on my behalf.
;-)
Personally, I'd rather the security of the OS were improved, than I had to continue to rely on buggy, resource-hugging third party products to temporarily plug the holes that could be closed once and for all.
Oh, and I'm a goth, not a punk
The most that can happen is my home directory gets blasted. OH NOES.
Heh - that's almost the only part of my hard drive that I do care about. The OS and apps are all backed up on nice, shiny install media, but I'm lazy, so my user area isn't backed up anywhere near as regularly as it should be.
McAfee and Symantec aren't complaining that Vista is better and more secure. They're complaint is that Microsoft won't give them the API to low level kernel stuff so that they can detect viruses, while at the same time, Microsoft is going to use that same API for their own virus detection.
I have to wonder why, of the half a dozen or more companies that produce Windows AV software, they are the only two to be complaining...
We need to tell people to get themselves over to http://openbsd.org/ftp.html (or whichever you prefer) and download a real OS, where you can do exactly what you want.
What I want is to play games such as F.E.A.R. and Oblivion, on my PC, along with assorted other things that I simply can't do on a BSD or Linux.
Besides which, since first installing my copy of XP I've completely stripped down my PC and replaced all of the hardware, and (re)activation was as simple as clicking a couple of buttons.
Same on my Samsung E800. I don't use it very often, but it has proven useful once or twice; unlike the camera, which - especially given the difficulty of actually getting photos off the phone - is crap.
And yet, by jeering at this guy for taking the question seriously, you point out that there really are people who don't understand why a simple phone is a good thing
No he doesn't; if anything, he's saying "well duh, the guy's obviously joking - how could you possibly think otherwise?" That's not pointing out that people don't understand the need for a simple phone, that's highlighting the fact that the need is so obvious it's amazing anyone took the joke seriously.
I bought an OEM copy of XP Pro when I upgraded my machine about 3 years ago. After a while and some futzing with the hardware, it wanted me to reactivate, so I did, over the internet. In February of this year, I upgraded again, essentially swapping out the entire system - hard drives, motherboard, processor, RAM, PSU, graphics card, the lot. I re-installed the same copy of XP, and again activated it over the internet with no problems.
The one time I did have an issue with activation was when I reactivated my ex's PC after swapping out a failed motherboard. That turned out to be down to the OEM having installed it with a key other than the one on the sticker on the case. Even then, all it took was one short, automated call to MS and all was well again.
I appreciate that there are horror stories surrounding WPA and WGA, but so far I've not experienced any or heard of any from any of my friends. For me at least, it's been a non issue (at least if you ignore the principle of the thing)
Yes, because "hey at least we're easier than that one extreme case" is a legitimate excuse.
The author of TFA appears to have misspelled "obstruct people posting legitimate content in myriad frustrating, confusing and probably threatening ways".
So you've used it then? Or are you just using wild, unfounded speculation to spread FUD?