A key factor in this case is the motives involved, as well as where the profit comes from. A service that is designed, not to collect the works of students, but to help verify if a student is cheating or not is a VERY different thing than trying to make a copy of every last document for no other purpose than to collect more information.
In the comparison to verify if a student is cheating, that is a service to make sure people are not cheating. This can be clearly seen as a benefit to customers of that company. For Google though, what profitable services can they offer other than to sell access to that information to others, payable by either the end user or advertiser?
Making information public as well is not something most people want either, because if you are not a great writer or student, the last thing you want is to have the fact advertised to anyone trying to look into your background. Honestly, if you have a weakness in certain areas that do not have a direct impact on your job, do you want to encourage the development of a system that would let potential employers see your weaknesses? The danger could be as simple as looking for a job as a writer, and losing out on the job because you did poorly on some physics or calculus assignment in college which shows up because Google is seen as a way to get highly detailed information about potential employees.
So, fair use...that is the real key here. Posting the information for all to see vs. posting the information to have originality verified. Or, posting the information that someone else came up with for other motives.
Forking the code base would make more sense then, rather than forcing people to upgrade their version of Windows to keep up.
If you want to see a crazy example of this, look at Debian, which has a TON of different versions. The current list(from www.debian.org): alpha amd64(x86-64) arm armel hppa i386 ia64(Itanium) mips mipsel powerpc sparc s390
The real key is that those who want to support older platforms still have the option to do so. The fact that Mozilla is looking to drop support for older operating systems is more about how to make the best use of the resources available. If they were to fork off support, or make it so they do not "officially support" older platforms while still working to make it work overall, that would satisfy the majority of people.
The biggest issue as I see it is that Microsoft is making changes to the networking layer in Windows, and it becomes a bit more difficult trying to keep up with the other browsers when you have to support old legacy hardware. By dropping a lot of legacy stuff from the most recent builds, they will improve the speed and reduce the memory footprint.
Now, the same could be said for building for older operating systems as well, where you can cut out the code that supports Vista and Windows 7 and make the older versions run a bit faster.
There may be another thing going on here as well, the whole move to 64 bit, and how that impacts the code. The longer they support older operating systems, the longer they will be in the mode of supporting 32 bit, without being able to really focus on 64 bit code. They could in theory have two teams, one for 32 bit and one for 64 bit, but within the next ten years, ALL computers will be running 64 bit Windows, and the longer it takes for them to stop supporting every last ancient OS, the harder it will be for them to make the cut from 32 bit to 64 bit.
32 bit for the main with SOME 64 bit code is never going to be as good as a pure 64 bit version.
one that allows the user to decide not to install potentially insecure software during the initial OS install. This is the biggest problem with Microsoft Windows when it comes to security, the huge amount of crap that gets installed automatically without the ability to decide DURING the install what features you want or do not want.
Linux as a whole does provide the ability to make a very minimal install with only those applications that you want on the machine. Solaris used to have this ability as well, though I am not sure if you can go package by package during the initial install to decide what you want or do not want on the machine.
You hear about Linux problems, but then it only applies to a specific Apache version that comes with a "typical" RedHat install, or some other issue which only applies to a certain software package. When a problem can be traced to the kernel or some other core component, that is when it applies to the OS as a whole.
So, saying that Vista is the most secure after SP2 means nothing if garbage like Internet Explorer is still open to all the exploits that Microsoft doesn't like to talk about.
There is a certain level of violence in almost every game out there, so except for games like bejeweled, there will be a tax on every game. You play an RPG, where you kill monsters, that is violent, so it gets taxed. You even have hunting games where you hunt animals, that is violent, so would count.
What is the limit, only games where you are running around in "civilized" areas killing stuff counts as violent are the ones to be taxed? Or first person shooters? Where are the limits here, since an in-game scene where you punch someone who is being obnoxious could be seen as violent, even if the game as a whole is not?
How difficult would it be to have the user enter his/her vote, and then before the "ballot" is registered, show a confirmation screen, which would then require the voter to hit yes or no?
If an ATM machine can do a decent job with touch screen technology, then why can't these systems?
The real key is the move to 64 bit operating systems, leaving 32 bit behind. We already see a huge jump in the number of systems running Vista 64 bit compared to 64 bit Windows XP. Going to Windows 7, there should be a continuation of this, with the death of 32 bit Windows due with the OS that follows Windows 7. This is because pretty much all new computers have a 64 bit enabled processor.
So, when all new computers have a 64 bit OS, then it will only take another 4-6 years for all new applications to also take that into account.
Good enough is a reason not to upgrade, but is not a reason to install the older OS.
Yes, Windows XP is a "lighter weight" OS than Vista, and so, people get more performance out of the older OS. That still won't make Vista a bad choice for people buying a new computer, because "Vista is good enough" for the vast majority of people buying a NEW computer.
Now, there are only a few situations where people will have a real need to run XP...
Compatibility issues with certain programs, including older DOS apps(Vista can't handle running a DOS app full screen without using DOSBox?!?).
Old computers or computers with substandard hardware by the standards of today, including single-core processor machines, or machines with less than 2GB of RAM(Superfetch really wants you to have extra memory. If you turn off Superfetch, you don't need more than 1GB in theory, but performance will not be great either).
Microsoft could easily embed a VM in the new operating systems to provide FULL support for DOS, Win9x, XP for those who really need that level of compatibility. It isn't as if they need to spend licensing money for the rights to their old software. If Microsoft were to do this decently, that would make a LOT of people willing to jump on the new OS since software compatibility would no longer be an issue in most cases. Since we are not talking about a cross-platform virtual machine, performance might not be a huge issue either.
Ah, but here is an odd way to look at things, if there is an edge to the universe(the universe is expanding), then there must be something beyond the edge of our universe. This means that there must be some set of laws that govern what is outside of the universe, and there is the possibility that in time, humanity COULD make use of those laws, which may circumvent the laws of this universe.
My own feeling is that people spend too much time accepting conventional wisdom, rather than looking for the reasons why things either work or do not work.
As with programming, the majority look at how to make something work. A smaller number look at how things may break. Then you have those who accept that things may break, so try to figure out WHY things may break. So, you have people trying to prove a theory, you have those who try to disprove a theory, but there are a small number trying to figure out why something "can not be done".
Now, keep in mind that by the time humanity is able to answer certain questions, humanity will have evolved into a much more advanced form of life, and solutions may be obvious to those "future humans". Thinking in four dimensions, perceptions that extend beyond the current five senses, and so on may be possible for some forms of life, and once your perceptions go beyond the three, who knows what laws may be governing the universe?
This goes to the limitations of humanity, and our perception of reality being limited. Since we use light to see, it really limits what most humans believe is possible. You can't accelerate faster than the speed of light because it would take infinite amounts of energy. People take this as an absolute, because they do not understand the idea that the REASON for the increasing amount of energy being needed is not fully understood.
The moment you go from "how do we do this?" to "what is stopping us from doing this?", many impossible problems become solvable.
People do not want this world to be disposable, but they want the option to get off this crazy panet, in the hopes that there will be some sanity once you get away from the current cultural stupidity we see from terrorists and those who support terrorism.
There is also the concern that the stupidity of a few may destroy the world, so getting off the planet is also a survival instinct for the species at this point.
The very people who should be aware how little they know compared to what is possible. They come up with these statements, and they forget that for every problem, there IS a solution, even if they can not figure it out themselves.
The question their current "findings" should be asking is "what makes it unstable?". They may not know, but that is the key to solving the problem.
People forget that scientists used to think that it was impossible to break the sound barrier for various reasons. Then they came up with the idea that the speed of light could not be broken. Time has proven again and again that the only thing stopping ANYTHING is not having the knowledge to do it. Not having knowledge does not make something impossible, it just means a CURRENT inability to do something.
If you look at the history of computers, there have only been three operating systems that really warranted an upgrade. The Windows 95 to 98, the 98/ME to XP, and the Windows NT to 2000. On Apple computers, there was never a huge need to upgrade from OS 9 to OS X, though that might have been a good idea too, depending on how old the system was.
Now, that does NOT mean there should not be a phased approach to adopting a new OS. If you allow a new OS to come with new computers(where appropriate), there is no extra cost since the cost of the OS would be there, with only the choice of OS being the question.
So, if Vista does the job when it comes with new computers, and there are no compatibility issues, I don't see a problem if there is no added cost. Vista at this point does NOT cost more than XP, so when getting a new computer, there is no extra cost. As far as performance is concerned, Vista may not be any slower than XP in many situations, so you can't even claim that performance is an issue with Vista. Yes, you may see performance issues on an OLD computer, but on new computers, the performance issues may very well be gone.
When is the last time you have seen a real benchmark comparing performance between XP and Vista on an acceptable system(2 or more gigs of RAM, dual core processor, and a modern GPU(old Intel Extreme integrated graphics does not qualify, but X3100 would))?
If there are compatibility issues, then that would be a technical reason not to go to Vista. Any law that uses "bad publicity" as a reason to do ANYTHING or not do anything without other facts(not subjective opinions) should never be allowed. It would be too easy for Microsoft to put out anti-Apple advertisements, and then push to make sure that based on the "negative press", no Apple products should be allowed.
I suspect that there may be a number of laws broken by making a law forbidding doing business with a specific named company. There are also other issues here that need to be looked at.
Now, while there has been negative press, the general rule should be if Vista does the job if it comes pre-installed on new computer systems. I am NOT talking about doing an upgrade on existing systems, which would cost more money, I am talking about buying a new computer, where the "downgrade" to XP would cost additional money.
ext3 would do the job, and with a Linux kernel, would make sense to use it. When you are using a program to handle transfers to the device in the first place, the program could handle any translation from the PC or Mac to the device.
You have to look at things from the perspective of the scientific method, not just about common sense. People are continually finding ways to do things, but the question of "why?" can often be a lot more complicated.
So, knowing the question, and knowing the answer are all well and good, but for many subjects, learning WHY the answer is correct is more important. This goes back to mathematics, where many people learn a formula to solve a problem, but MANY people never really understand where that formula came from, so do not understand how to come up with their own formula.
So, you have two types of people, those who can come up with their own solutions, and then you have those who can apply what is given to them, but developing new ways to do things will be outside of their natural thought process. It seems that this study shows that the natural trend at a very young age is to disregard the findings of others because learning how to solve problems is more natural. Considering the typical person is less prone to do this, the education system may be to blame for making a society of people without the ability to come up with their own solutions.
Most know that if something is really broken, you have two solutions, one is to spend an insane amount of time and effort to fix it, and the other is to throw out the old and come up with an all new solution from scratch. So, why is it that the education system in the USA, social security, and even government budgets all seem like they can't be fixed? Because no one seems to understand that a replacement way of doing things is needed, not just throwing money at the problem because replacing something broken just does not occur to most people.
For those in Europe, do you find that most people lack that ability to look at something that is clearly broken, so come up with all new ways to get a project done?
One thing that many people seem to forget is that you have the OS talking through the chipset to various components in the system. If you are using an Intel processor from the pre-i7 days, the chipset driver may be the source of many problems if you are on the Intel side of things.
Now, the fact that Linux works just shows that Linux may be doing things in a sane and more organized way when it comes to accessing the CPU and chipset(no matter how crazy the kernel code may seem). I have noticed that 64 bit driver support is rather weak on the Windows side of things, so that could be the source of your problems as well.
I would not jump to the conclusion that memory is your problem, but look for other factors. How good is your power supply since power issues can cause all sorts of unpredictable behavior?
I would expect that software that strips the unwanted versions out, or allows us to copy the "correct" version to portable devices will be released fairly quickly if/when this takes off.
You have to remember that a big complaint about MP3 is the lossy nature of the files. What you pay for when you legally buy an MP3 file online is never the same quality as a track off a CD or DVD, and this drives away potential customers. So, by providing both the "full" version of the track in the same file as the degraded version, everyone SHOULD be happy when they buy a track online.
With storage space getting cheaper all the time, it will not take long before we look at 20 megabytes for one music track as being tiny compared to how much space we have available. It really takes a bit of effort to fill up a 20GB device currently, and 60GB devices will be down under $100 in under five years. Will anyone really care at that point how large an individual music file is at that point?
Creationism WOULD be a science if the focus were on the creation of new forms of life via various methods. The basic idea is that if God could do it, then eventually, so can we.
Of course, that is not the intended goal, so no Creationism should NOT be seen as a science.
When you try to justify anything by using religion, it opens the door to a huge number of problems. Science implies the use of the scientific method, and while they might open a new field of study into trying to prove the existence of God, that is the ONLY way that a science degree in creationism might be seen as legit, but with almost no chance of proving anything.
So, if they want to really study how God could create life, then they would have to go into all those areas that the religious groups are against, like cloning, genetic manipulation, etc.
Just trying to pawn off creationism as other than a way to deny evolution by this sort of stunt just shows how stupid some people can be.
From what I have seen, the telcos know they can not win against VOIP, so since all of them are offering some form of high speed, they are also moving to offer voice services over the Internet service they provide.
This means that you can get VOIP from your ISP, the phone companies also offer Internet service, and VOIP over what they offer. The only problem is that ISPs may weight IP traffic for their own VOIP higher than other traffic, meaning companies like Vonage may have degraded service compared to what the ISP offers.
Note the mention of the iPhone, which means this isn't a comparison to EVERY phone out there. If you are using your phone as an Internet communications device, then writing e-mail and responding to posts on a web site may very well call for cut/copy and paste.
A real issue is that the iPhone may be a nice toy, but when some really basic features are missing, it means people will look for a device which DOES do what they want or need it to do.
Blackberry is really about e-mail while out of the office, but is NOT all that great for anything else.
The iPhone is for those who want an electronic toy that can do a lot of things, but who don't need a great phone, organizer, or anything else that is business-like. It may do the job, but it isn't great.
The Palm Pre when it becomes available is supposed to fit between these two, where you get a lot of the electronics features you see in the iPhone, but with the business type features that will make it better for those who use their phones for work/business purposes. The big question now is when it will be available for a carrier that people would want(AT&T, Verizon, or any European or Asian carrier).
Just because a device currently has a "cool" factor associated with it does not mean it is a great device for the primary purpose. For a cell phone, what good is it if call quality is horrible? And since the battery in a cell phone tends to go bad after only a year, being able to replace it without sending the phone away is CRITICAL.
Strange that a Treo 680 has a touch screen, has a SD slot for MP3s, pictures, or whatever, and has a useful calendar. Yes, it may have a very outdated operating system, and it doesn't REQUIRE the use of the touch screen, and yes, I know it isn't as powerful overall. But to say that the iPhone was the first to have these features is incorrect.
Really, the iPhone has a better package than the older Palm phones, but it is more about polish than about being the first to have all of those features. With that said, the Palm Pre looks like it may blow many people away, with a new OS, UI, and also more business-friendly features like cut and paste.
The thing about the iPhone is that it makes for a nice toy, but it just doesn't feel like a great phone for my needs.
I have been thinking about how things are going here at the company, and after many good and bad experiences, I have decided that your position as my employer is no longer necessary. Good luck to you.
The funny thing is that you seem to be chanting the mantra of "Vista sucks", based on old negative press. I and many others who have been running Vista since July or so of 2007 have not found Vista to be all that bad on new hardware.
The key to the whole Vista sucks issue is looking at a system with bad drivers as an example of how good or bad the OS is. People with Creative Labs sound cards may assume that problems are due to Vista, without even thinking that Creative Labs can't write a driver to save their lives. Look at Windows XP at launch and those who had a Sound Blaster Live sound card. People without any common sense might have bashed Windows XP if they didn't know that the drivers were at fault.
With 2GB or more of RAM and decent drivers, Vista runs decently. The pre-caching of software makes it seem like Vista is more memory hungry as well, but it isn't THAT bad. I am not saying that Vista is perfect, but too many people do not make an analysis of why they are having problems.
Did you try running Windows XP with only 128MB of RAM and then assume Windows XP sucked because it ran slower on your computer? Then later, running XP with only 256MB of RAM, but you put Norton Internet Security on your machine and then tried to play games, only to find the machine ran slower than Windows 98?
Microsoft is moving to Windows 7, not because Vista isn't good, but because there are has been so much regurgitated negative press from Feb 2007 that people without a clue are avoiding Vista.
The only real negatives in Vista that I have run into include some software compatibility issues relating to the Network and hardware layers, DOS applications can not run in full screen mode without DOSbox, and UAC being a nuisance. Most problems come from those with under 1.5GB of system memory, drivers either not being available or poorly written for some applications, or just bad software that wasn't written well in the first place but SOMEHOW managed to work.
Oh, and of course, there is no BartPE for Vista, which I still prefer to WinPE.
Slashdot Mirror
A key factor in this case is the motives involved, as well as where the profit comes from. A service that is designed, not to collect the works of students, but to help verify if a student is cheating or not is a VERY different thing than trying to make a copy of every last document for no other purpose than to collect more information.
In the comparison to verify if a student is cheating, that is a service to make sure people are not cheating. This can be clearly seen as a benefit to customers of that company. For Google though, what profitable services can they offer other than to sell access to that information to others, payable by either the end user or advertiser?
Making information public as well is not something most people want either, because if you are not a great writer or student, the last thing you want is to have the fact advertised to anyone trying to look into your background. Honestly, if you have a weakness in certain areas that do not have a direct impact on your job, do you want to encourage the development of a system that would let potential employers see your weaknesses? The danger could be as simple as looking for a job as a writer, and losing out on the job because you did poorly on some physics or calculus assignment in college which shows up because Google is seen as a way to get highly detailed information about potential employees.
So, fair use...that is the real key here. Posting the information for all to see vs. posting the information to have originality verified. Or, posting the information that someone else came up with for other motives.
Forking the code base would make more sense then, rather than forcing people to upgrade their version of Windows to keep up.
If you want to see a crazy example of this, look at Debian, which has a TON of different versions. The current list(from www.debian.org):
alpha
amd64(x86-64)
arm
armel
hppa
i386
ia64(Itanium)
mips
mipsel
powerpc
sparc
s390
The real key is that those who want to support older platforms still have the option to do so. The fact that Mozilla is looking to drop support for older operating systems is more about how to make the best use of the resources available. If they were to fork off support, or make it so they do not "officially support" older platforms while still working to make it work overall, that would satisfy the majority of people.
The biggest issue as I see it is that Microsoft is making changes to the networking layer in Windows, and it becomes a bit more difficult trying to keep up with the other browsers when you have to support old legacy hardware. By dropping a lot of legacy stuff from the most recent builds, they will improve the speed and reduce the memory footprint.
Now, the same could be said for building for older operating systems as well, where you can cut out the code that supports Vista and Windows 7 and make the older versions run a bit faster.
There may be another thing going on here as well, the whole move to 64 bit, and how that impacts the code. The longer they support older operating systems, the longer they will be in the mode of supporting 32 bit, without being able to really focus on 64 bit code. They could in theory have two teams, one for 32 bit and one for 64 bit, but within the next ten years, ALL computers will be running 64 bit Windows, and the longer it takes for them to stop supporting every last ancient OS, the harder it will be for them to make the cut from 32 bit to 64 bit.
32 bit for the main with SOME 64 bit code is never going to be as good as a pure 64 bit version.
one that allows the user to decide not to install potentially insecure software during the initial OS install. This is the biggest problem with Microsoft Windows when it comes to security, the huge amount of crap that gets installed automatically without the ability to decide DURING the install what features you want or do not want.
Linux as a whole does provide the ability to make a very minimal install with only those applications that you want on the machine. Solaris used to have this ability as well, though I am not sure if you can go package by package during the initial install to decide what you want or do not want on the machine.
You hear about Linux problems, but then it only applies to a specific Apache version that comes with a "typical" RedHat install, or some other issue which only applies to a certain software package. When a problem can be traced to the kernel or some other core component, that is when it applies to the OS as a whole.
So, saying that Vista is the most secure after SP2 means nothing if garbage like Internet Explorer is still open to all the exploits that Microsoft doesn't like to talk about.
There is a certain level of violence in almost every game out there, so except for games like bejeweled, there will be a tax on every game. You play an RPG, where you kill monsters, that is violent, so it gets taxed. You even have hunting games where you hunt animals, that is violent, so would count.
What is the limit, only games where you are running around in "civilized" areas killing stuff counts as violent are the ones to be taxed? Or first person shooters? Where are the limits here, since an in-game scene where you punch someone who is being obnoxious could be seen as violent, even if the game as a whole is not?
How difficult would it be to have the user enter his/her vote, and then before the "ballot" is registered, show a confirmation screen, which would then require the voter to hit yes or no?
If an ATM machine can do a decent job with touch screen technology, then why can't these systems?
The real key is the move to 64 bit operating systems, leaving 32 bit behind. We already see a huge jump in the number of systems running Vista 64 bit compared to 64 bit Windows XP. Going to Windows 7, there should be a continuation of this, with the death of 32 bit Windows due with the OS that follows Windows 7. This is because pretty much all new computers have a 64 bit enabled processor.
So, when all new computers have a 64 bit OS, then it will only take another 4-6 years for all new applications to also take that into account.
Good enough is a reason not to upgrade, but is not a reason to install the older OS.
Yes, Windows XP is a "lighter weight" OS than Vista, and so, people get more performance out of the older OS. That still won't make Vista a bad choice for people buying a new computer, because "Vista is good enough" for the vast majority of people buying a NEW computer.
Now, there are only a few situations where people will have a real need to run XP...
Compatibility issues with certain programs, including older DOS apps(Vista can't handle running a DOS app full screen without using DOSBox?!?).
Old computers or computers with substandard hardware by the standards of today, including single-core processor machines, or machines with less than 2GB of RAM(Superfetch really wants you to have extra memory. If you turn off Superfetch, you don't need more than 1GB in theory, but performance will not be great either).
Microsoft could easily embed a VM in the new operating systems to provide FULL support for DOS, Win9x, XP for those who really need that level of compatibility. It isn't as if they need to spend licensing money for the rights to their old software. If Microsoft were to do this decently, that would make a LOT of people willing to jump on the new OS since software compatibility would no longer be an issue in most cases. Since we are not talking about a cross-platform virtual machine, performance might not be a huge issue either.
Ah, but here is an odd way to look at things, if there is an edge to the universe(the universe is expanding), then there must be something beyond the edge of our universe. This means that there must be some set of laws that govern what is outside of the universe, and there is the possibility that in time, humanity COULD make use of those laws, which may circumvent the laws of this universe.
My own feeling is that people spend too much time accepting conventional wisdom, rather than looking for the reasons why things either work or do not work.
As with programming, the majority look at how to make something work. A smaller number look at how things may break. Then you have those who accept that things may break, so try to figure out WHY things may break. So, you have people trying to prove a theory, you have those who try to disprove a theory, but there are a small number trying to figure out why something "can not be done".
Now, keep in mind that by the time humanity is able to answer certain questions, humanity will have evolved into a much more advanced form of life, and solutions may be obvious to those "future humans". Thinking in four dimensions, perceptions that extend beyond the current five senses, and so on may be possible for some forms of life, and once your perceptions go beyond the three, who knows what laws may be governing the universe?
This goes to the limitations of humanity, and our perception of reality being limited. Since we use light to see, it really limits what most humans believe is possible. You can't accelerate faster than the speed of light because it would take infinite amounts of energy. People take this as an absolute, because they do not understand the idea that the REASON for the increasing amount of energy being needed is not fully understood.
The moment you go from "how do we do this?" to "what is stopping us from doing this?", many impossible problems become solvable.
People do not want this world to be disposable, but they want the option to get off this crazy panet, in the hopes that there will be some sanity once you get away from the current cultural stupidity we see from terrorists and those who support terrorism.
There is also the concern that the stupidity of a few may destroy the world, so getting off the planet is also a survival instinct for the species at this point.
The very people who should be aware how little they know compared to what is possible. They come up with these statements, and they forget that for every problem, there IS a solution, even if they can not figure it out themselves.
The question their current "findings" should be asking is "what makes it unstable?". They may not know, but that is the key to solving the problem.
People forget that scientists used to think that it was impossible to break the sound barrier for various reasons. Then they came up with the idea that the speed of light could not be broken. Time has proven again and again that the only thing stopping ANYTHING is not having the knowledge to do it. Not having knowledge does not make something impossible, it just means a CURRENT inability to do something.
If you look at the history of computers, there have only been three operating systems that really warranted an upgrade. The Windows 95 to 98, the 98/ME to XP, and the Windows NT to 2000. On Apple computers, there was never a huge need to upgrade from OS 9 to OS X, though that might have been a good idea too, depending on how old the system was.
Now, that does NOT mean there should not be a phased approach to adopting a new OS. If you allow a new OS to come with new computers(where appropriate), there is no extra cost since the cost of the OS would be there, with only the choice of OS being the question.
So, if Vista does the job when it comes with new computers, and there are no compatibility issues, I don't see a problem if there is no added cost. Vista at this point does NOT cost more than XP, so when getting a new computer, there is no extra cost. As far as performance is concerned, Vista may not be any slower than XP in many situations, so you can't even claim that performance is an issue with Vista. Yes, you may see performance issues on an OLD computer, but on new computers, the performance issues may very well be gone.
When is the last time you have seen a real benchmark comparing performance between XP and Vista on an acceptable system(2 or more gigs of RAM, dual core processor, and a modern GPU(old Intel Extreme integrated graphics does not qualify, but X3100 would))?
If there are compatibility issues, then that would be a technical reason not to go to Vista. Any law that uses "bad publicity" as a reason to do ANYTHING or not do anything without other facts(not subjective opinions) should never be allowed. It would be too easy for Microsoft to put out anti-Apple advertisements, and then push to make sure that based on the "negative press", no Apple products should be allowed.
I suspect that there may be a number of laws broken by making a law forbidding doing business with a specific named company. There are also other issues here that need to be looked at.
Now, while there has been negative press, the general rule should be if Vista does the job if it comes pre-installed on new computer systems. I am NOT talking about doing an upgrade on existing systems, which would cost more money, I am talking about buying a new computer, where the "downgrade" to XP would cost additional money.
ext3 would do the job, and with a Linux kernel, would make sense to use it. When you are using a program to handle transfers to the device in the first place, the program could handle any translation from the PC or Mac to the device.
You have to look at things from the perspective of the scientific method, not just about common sense. People are continually finding ways to do things, but the question of "why?" can often be a lot more complicated.
So, knowing the question, and knowing the answer are all well and good, but for many subjects, learning WHY the answer is correct is more important. This goes back to mathematics, where many people learn a formula to solve a problem, but MANY people never really understand where that formula came from, so do not understand how to come up with their own formula.
So, you have two types of people, those who can come up with their own solutions, and then you have those who can apply what is given to them, but developing new ways to do things will be outside of their natural thought process. It seems that this study shows that the natural trend at a very young age is to disregard the findings of others because learning how to solve problems is more natural. Considering the typical person is less prone to do this, the education system may be to blame for making a society of people without the ability to come up with their own solutions.
Most know that if something is really broken, you have two solutions, one is to spend an insane amount of time and effort to fix it, and the other is to throw out the old and come up with an all new solution from scratch. So, why is it that the education system in the USA, social security, and even government budgets all seem like they can't be fixed? Because no one seems to understand that a replacement way of doing things is needed, not just throwing money at the problem because replacing something broken just does not occur to most people.
For those in Europe, do you find that most people lack that ability to look at something that is clearly broken, so come up with all new ways to get a project done?
One thing that many people seem to forget is that you have the OS talking through the chipset to various components in the system. If you are using an Intel processor from the pre-i7 days, the chipset driver may be the source of many problems if you are on the Intel side of things.
Now, the fact that Linux works just shows that Linux may be doing things in a sane and more organized way when it comes to accessing the CPU and chipset(no matter how crazy the kernel code may seem). I have noticed that 64 bit driver support is rather weak on the Windows side of things, so that could be the source of your problems as well.
I would not jump to the conclusion that memory is your problem, but look for other factors. How good is your power supply since power issues can cause all sorts of unpredictable behavior?
I would expect that software that strips the unwanted versions out, or allows us to copy the "correct" version to portable devices will be released fairly quickly if/when this takes off.
You have to remember that a big complaint about MP3 is the lossy nature of the files. What you pay for when you legally buy an MP3 file online is never the same quality as a track off a CD or DVD, and this drives away potential customers. So, by providing both the "full" version of the track in the same file as the degraded version, everyone SHOULD be happy when they buy a track online.
With storage space getting cheaper all the time, it will not take long before we look at 20 megabytes for one music track as being tiny compared to how much space we have available. It really takes a bit of effort to fill up a 20GB device currently, and 60GB devices will be down under $100 in under five years. Will anyone really care at that point how large an individual music file is at that point?
Creationism WOULD be a science if the focus were on the creation of new forms of life via various methods. The basic idea is that if God could do it, then eventually, so can we.
Of course, that is not the intended goal, so no Creationism should NOT be seen as a science.
When you try to justify anything by using religion, it opens the door to a huge number of problems. Science implies the use of the scientific method, and while they might open a new field of study into trying to prove the existence of God, that is the ONLY way that a science degree in creationism might be seen as legit, but with almost no chance of proving anything.
So, if they want to really study how God could create life, then they would have to go into all those areas that the religious groups are against, like cloning, genetic manipulation, etc.
Just trying to pawn off creationism as other than a way to deny evolution by this sort of stunt just shows how stupid some people can be.
From what I have seen, the telcos know they can not win against VOIP, so since all of them are offering some form of high speed, they are also moving to offer voice services over the Internet service they provide.
This means that you can get VOIP from your ISP, the phone companies also offer Internet service, and VOIP over what they offer. The only problem is that ISPs may weight IP traffic for their own VOIP higher than other traffic, meaning companies like Vonage may have degraded service compared to what the ISP offers.
Note the mention of the iPhone, which means this isn't a comparison to EVERY phone out there. If you are using your phone as an Internet communications device, then writing e-mail and responding to posts on a web site may very well call for cut/copy and paste.
A real issue is that the iPhone may be a nice toy, but when some really basic features are missing, it means people will look for a device which DOES do what they want or need it to do.
Blackberry is really about e-mail while out of the office, but is NOT all that great for anything else.
The iPhone is for those who want an electronic toy that can do a lot of things, but who don't need a great phone, organizer, or anything else that is business-like. It may do the job, but it isn't great.
The Palm Pre when it becomes available is supposed to fit between these two, where you get a lot of the electronics features you see in the iPhone, but with the business type features that will make it better for those who use their phones for work/business purposes. The big question now is when it will be available for a carrier that people would want(AT&T, Verizon, or any European or Asian carrier).
Just because a device currently has a "cool" factor associated with it does not mean it is a great device for the primary purpose. For a cell phone, what good is it if call quality is horrible? And since the battery in a cell phone tends to go bad after only a year, being able to replace it without sending the phone away is CRITICAL.
Strange that a Treo 680 has a touch screen, has a SD slot for MP3s, pictures, or whatever, and has a useful calendar. Yes, it may have a very outdated operating system, and it doesn't REQUIRE the use of the touch screen, and yes, I know it isn't as powerful overall. But to say that the iPhone was the first to have these features is incorrect.
Really, the iPhone has a better package than the older Palm phones, but it is more about polish than about being the first to have all of those features. With that said, the Palm Pre looks like it may blow many people away, with a new OS, UI, and also more business-friendly features like cut and paste.
The thing about the iPhone is that it makes for a nice toy, but it just doesn't feel like a great phone for my needs.
I have been thinking about how things are going here at the company, and after many good and bad experiences, I have decided that your position as my employer is no longer necessary. Good luck to you.
The funny thing is that you seem to be chanting the mantra of "Vista sucks", based on old negative press. I and many others who have been running Vista since July or so of 2007 have not found Vista to be all that bad on new hardware.
The key to the whole Vista sucks issue is looking at a system with bad drivers as an example of how good or bad the OS is. People with Creative Labs sound cards may assume that problems are due to Vista, without even thinking that Creative Labs can't write a driver to save their lives. Look at Windows XP at launch and those who had a Sound Blaster Live sound card. People without any common sense might have bashed Windows XP if they didn't know that the drivers were at fault.
With 2GB or more of RAM and decent drivers, Vista runs decently. The pre-caching of software makes it seem like Vista is more memory hungry as well, but it isn't THAT bad. I am not saying that Vista is perfect, but too many people do not make an analysis of why they are having problems.
Did you try running Windows XP with only 128MB of RAM and then assume Windows XP sucked because it ran slower on your computer? Then later, running XP with only 256MB of RAM, but you put Norton Internet Security on your machine and then tried to play games, only to find the machine ran slower than Windows 98?
Microsoft is moving to Windows 7, not because Vista isn't good, but because there are has been so much regurgitated negative press from Feb 2007 that people without a clue are avoiding Vista.
The only real negatives in Vista that I have run into include some software compatibility issues relating to the Network and hardware layers, DOS applications can not run in full screen mode without DOSbox, and UAC being a nuisance. Most problems come from those with under 1.5GB of system memory, drivers either not being available or poorly written for some applications, or just bad software that wasn't written well in the first place but SOMEHOW managed to work.
Oh, and of course, there is no BartPE for Vista, which I still prefer to WinPE.