...coupled with uncertainty about when Microsoft will next update Windows
Why would firms be uncertain as to when Microsoft will next update Windows? Windows Server 2003 has recently been released, and it's not like Microsoft are going to stop supporting it any time soon.
To gather more information about a crash, different approaches have been taken. For example, America Online has the ability to determine the location of a crash of Microsoft's "INTERNET EXPLORER" web browser and report this information to Microsoft. However, other information regarding the state of a user's machine at the time of the crash is not known and it is difficult to distinguish between different crashes. Without this valuable information, not much can be done to determine whether there is a bug and, if so, correct the bug. Other approaches have been taken to tackle the problems of failures. For example, Netscape's "COMMUNICATOR" web browser includes a quality feedback agent to report a crash to Netscape, although it is not known what information is reported to Netscape. Moreover, both of these approaches apply to fatal crashes, i.e., when the operating system has decided to kill the application. Thus, there is a need for a method and system for reporting non-fatal crashes, such as when the operating system continues executing the application's code.
But the key thing is that Netscape's error reporting only occurred in the case of a fatal crash, whereas Microsoft's patent covers non-fatal program failures as well.
Besides, the uniqueness of the Windows desktop is an artificial situation, not a natural one! If we had a decent market, there would be no MS monopoly, and instead we'd have 4-5 competing desktop OSes, probably based on standards.
Umm, what standards do you think these operating systems would be based on?
"Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition (SE), and Windows 95 also are not affected by this issue."
So we can save ourselves by downgrading to previous windows versions? Or is this just a shameless plug?
Perhaps Microsoft says this so these users don't have to uneccesarily update their systems? It saves users the uncertainty of whether they need to update or not.
Unfortunately there is no patch to get rid of the W32.MS.AutoUpdateRequired worm.
Duh! That's because you can turn it off yourself. Right click on My Computer --> Automatic Updates --> and uncheck Keep my computer up to date (for WinXP).
Re:All Your Base is post-Dot Com
on
Dotcom Era Fads
·
· Score: 1
If you RTFA (i know, this is/.), it never mentions the Dotcom Era, that's just the submitters imagination.
That's true, but it the era is a valid period of time that the fads occurred in (well, most of them).
Though then again, they only are fads. It's not like we are going to stop see them continue to come and go. As the fads really have nothing to do with the dotcom boom itself, perhaps it would have been better to simply start with "Nostalgic USA Today looks at past internet fads".
The spectre in the back of many of our minds is that in a few years we may be replaced by an underpaid programmer in India.
Are they really underpaid? By whose standards? By Indian standards they may be paid quite well. I do software development here in New Zealand, and think I'm probably underpaid compared to my American counterparts, but by New Zealand standards I'm paid well.
Then why, in Windows 2000 Explorer as configured by default, is there a 1-pixel gap between the corner of the screen and the Start menu?
Because, perhaps, Microsoft got it wrong? You'll note this 1px gap is gone in Windows XP.
And why, in the taskbar, does a selected program lighten in Windows 2000 but darken in Windows XP?
You're focussing on the wrong thing here. If you only have two windows open, and the only differentiating feature between them in the taskbar was colour, you'd have no way of knowing which was the selected program unless you knew what the selected program 'colour' was. The key here is the selected program taskbar button appears depressed. The colours of the taskbar buttons just help emphasise this.
The article title is indeed somewhat misleading. All the points the author makes about Windows being insecure are due to the (insecure) default configuration Windows ships with, and the lack of Microsoft having a reliable mechanism of ensuring end users keep their machines updated. Nothing is said to suggest that Windows is insecure due to design problems (i.e. from an architecture point of view).
I only hope that with Longhorn you can disable the absurd glossification and get it to run 10% faster.
It's a pity only the screenshots were linked to, as the Road to Windows Longhorn article contains a lot of interesting information. From the article:
Microsoft is working on a three-tiered user experience model. In the simplest mode, Longhorn will emulate the Windows 2000 user experience, complete with the Classic Windows display.
A good MUA will display inline code proportional without any problem
I'm don't quite follow you here here, as I want the code fragments to be displayed in a fixed width font, something like the following line:
Use DateFormat to format a date to the locale of the client machine.
I use Gnus, and it converts *this* to this for me automatically.
So *this* is essentially markup that tells Gnus to display this, just like <b>this</b> is markup that tells Outlook Express (or any other MUA that can display HTML) to display the same thing in an HTML formatted email. While it is indeed a nice feature, it is based on a kind of de-facto, non-standardised markup. It basically enhances the plain text, just like HTML does.
But the problem here is that the user composing the message needs to know the markup. If you aren't a plain text email zealot;) and do write a HTML formatted message, you aren't going to mark it up yourself, but you are going to compose it with the WYSIWYG editor in your email client. The key thing is that the markup is abstracted away from end users.
Most users hate HTML mail and almost all are too clueless to even create it in the first place.
Riiight. I'll take the bait and answer this.
An average non-technical user would have no idea that an email message can be either plain text or HTML format. In their eyes, it's just an email message. Saying most technical users hate HTML email would be a have been a better claim IMHO.
You are wrong saying users are too clueless to even create HTML email in the first place. Outlook Express is configured to send HTML formatted email by default. I believe average users generally won't know they can change the default mail sending format, let alone the difference between the two formats. Outlook also sends HTML formatted email by default as well, IIRC.
I don't want to see your tables, highlighted text, bullet points, different and "creative" use of fonts, "cute" Javascript scrolling signature or any of that shit.
Sometimes HTML formatted email can be useful. I will sometimes send email with bits of code 'inlined' in the message. I believe using proportional font with a fixed width font for the code fragments presents my message much more clearly than a plain text would. I can also emphasise important sections of my message a lot more nicely than using something like *emphasised text*.
Nonetheless, if I am not using any HTML formatting in my message, I will always send it in plain text format.
The debate here is whether the NYTimes is reporting the statistics right.
...
Whether the NYTimes reporter can tell the difference between an application crash and an OS crash is up for debate (I'd say there are 50/50 odds either way).
From the article:
Mr. Gates acknowledged today that the company's error reporting service indicated that 5 percent of all Windows-based computers now crash more than twice each day.
The reporter is simply reporting what Bill said. There is nothing up for debate.
Slashdot Mirror
That's why you hit the Print button and read it all on one big long page.
Full book text (warning: the page is 1/2Mb).
So why hasn't Linus registered? Anyone know?
And the award for the best word palindrome attempt goes to...
Dark Matter's profile.
Interesting...three of the four standards you've named are standards any desktop OS worth its salt (including Windows) supports.
Though then again, they only are fads. It's not like we are going to stop see them continue to come and go. As the fads really have nothing to do with the dotcom boom itself, perhaps it would have been better to simply start with "Nostalgic USA Today looks at past internet fads".
Are they really underpaid? By whose standards? By Indian standards they may be paid quite well. I do software development here in New Zealand, and think I'm probably underpaid compared to my American counterparts, but by New Zealand standards I'm paid well.
Just tell them 'no', and explain to them the reason why the request is unreasonable.
The article title is indeed somewhat misleading. All the points the author makes about Windows being insecure are due to the (insecure) default configuration Windows ships with, and the lack of Microsoft having a reliable mechanism of ensuring end users keep their machines updated. Nothing is said to suggest that Windows is insecure due to design problems (i.e. from an architecture point of view).
I'm don't quite follow you here here, as I want the code fragments to be displayed in a fixed width font, something like the following line:
Use DateFormat to format a date to the locale of the client machine.
So *this* is essentially markup that tells Gnus to display this, just like <b>this</b> is markup that tells Outlook Express (or any other MUA that can display HTML) to display the same thing in an HTML formatted email. While it is indeed a nice feature, it is based on a kind of de-facto, non-standardised markup. It basically enhances the plain text, just like HTML does.
But the problem here is that the user composing the message needs to know the markup. If you aren't a plain text email zealot ;) and do write a HTML formatted message, you aren't going to mark it up yourself, but you are going to compose it with the WYSIWYG editor in your email client. The key thing is that the markup is abstracted away from end users.
Riiight. I'll take the bait and answer this.
An average non-technical user would have no idea that an email message can be either plain text or HTML format. In their eyes, it's just an email message. Saying most technical users hate HTML email would be a have been a better claim IMHO.
You are wrong saying users are too clueless to even create HTML email in the first place. Outlook Express is configured to send HTML formatted email by default. I believe average users generally won't know they can change the default mail sending format, let alone the difference between the two formats. Outlook also sends HTML formatted email by default as well, IIRC.
Sometimes HTML formatted email can be useful. I will sometimes send email with bits of code 'inlined' in the message. I believe using proportional font with a fixed width font for the code fragments presents my message much more clearly than a plain text would. I can also emphasise important sections of my message a lot more nicely than using something like *emphasised text*.
Nonetheless, if I am not using any HTML formatting in my message, I will always send it in plain text format.
Hehe. I've been watching Revenge of the Nerds, and I read this comment right after Lambda Lambda Lambda were selling 'pie' at the charity sale.
Mmmmmmmmm.....pie
From the article:
The reporter is simply reporting what Bill said. There is nothing up for debate.