I have a 50MB/s connection with DOCSIS 3 modem with 4 channels, and i have never noticed any real issues with peak hours, i can saturate it with a well seeded bittorrent connection.
An RV016 may work well for a multiple connection http or ftp download, but will not gain you much for bittorrent.
You remind me of all the whiners who installed FF4, then promptly switched back to FF3.x because they couldn't figure out how to go back more than one page at a time, and assumed it was impossible. You people have absolutely no patience, and when something doesn't behave exactly as you expect it to, in the manner you expect it to, you assume it doesn't do what you want.
Hint: Yes, you can turn of cleartype. And i'm not sure why you care about seperate search bar, you can force the address bar to search by prepending a ? to the query. For example, ? WaffleMonster
If you use services like Gmail, and have multiple accounts.. you need multiple browsers in order to keep them all open in real-time. For some reason, they haven't figured out yet that people might need multiple accounts.
I think you misunderstand the point. The point was that they would have to basically build D2D and other support libraries for XP just to support a single app. The abstraction layers are easy, it's supplying the emulation for the OS's that don't support it that is the pain in the ass.
I haven't had any trouble with WIndows 7 search, but if you have.. my guess is that you have a permissions issue that search isn't able to look in some locations.
I'm not sure what you mean about the useless clutter. Every option in the network config has text links, some have icons next to them but the actual controls themselves are text.
UAC is essentially the same as that used by OSX and Linux... At some point, a user has to have some knowledge. If they don't, then they need to contact someone that does before clicking Yes willy nilly. There is no magic bullet that tells users when it's ok to give a program access and when it's not. THEY have to make that decision for themselves.
That really depends on the usage. if you take 10 P33's and use them to do protein folding, it would probably be an overall energy savings to replace them with a single Core i7 laptop, even if you factor in the cost to produce the new laptop. You would gain more operations per second for less total energy cost.
Only if you're throwing away an older device for the sole purpose of saving money. A newer laptops cost will far exceed the difference in the cost to run it over its lifetime.
Also, consider the incremental effects. One doesn't get to a Chevy Volt in one step from a 1969 Mustang. Each step along the path of producing productrs for less energy requires that someone buy those products to pay for the next stage. Otherwise, we'd all still be driving 1969 Mustangs and the Prius would have never been built.
Microsoft did not say Google apps for government was certified. It said the Department of justice made that claim in official court documents, which it in fact did. Since many of the documents were sealed, and there was no evidence that countered the DOJ's claim, one cannot say that Microsoft intentionally lied.
However, the Department of Justice rejected Googles claim that it was certified, and they claimed the GSA did not view it as certified. So, both sides seem to be at odds over what the GSA actually did or didn't do.
You do, huh? Then explain why PJ is making a big fuss over something that never happened.
Microsoft wasn't saying that Google should not be chosen because they weren't FISMA certified, they said that the Department of Justice, in court documents, stated that Google Apps for Goverment was not certified, and that the DOJ claimed that the GSA did not view them as certified. This is not an implication that their (MS's) product was certified, just that Google's wasn't as Google claimed. Somehow PJ inferred a claim that wasn't there, and then proceeded to make a big stink about said non-existent claim. Yeah, that's good research.
Googles response seems a bit odd. They claim that their Google Apps Premier certification carried over to the Google Apps for Government product, even though they admit that GAfG has several significant differences from GAP that requires it to be recertified, and that recertification was not yet complete. It's a bit like driving on a temporary drivers license, technically you have a valid license, but it's under review.
Claiming that GAfG was FISMA certified in their bid, and failing to mention that it needed to complete recertification was certainly misleading (the term Microsoft used). What if GAfG was chosen (specifically because Google had claimed it was certified) and then it failed recertification? What if the changes Google made proved to be insecure?
I think it's certainly understandable that Microsoft interpreted the need for recertification as admission that GAfG wasn't certified. That would seem the logical conclusion. If GAfG was still certified through the GAP certification, then that would be an incorrect (but logical) assumption.. especially given that the DOJ documents made the claim of lacking certification.
People in the blogosphere seem to be quick to throw the word "lied" around. Even Microsoft didn't say google Lied. In fact, Microsoft merely stated the fact that the Department of Justice made the claim that GAfG wasn't certified. The DOJ also made the claim that the GSA didn't view GAfG as certified. So it was apparently the DOJ that was wrong about the GSA's views.
I'm very happy with my iPad, and I do use it for email, light word processing and presentation. No, i don't need a USB port, bluetooth works great. I use my iPad for presentations all the time. Keynote is good, but sometimes i would prefer to have an actual powerpoint. Even an official powerpoint player would be nice.
Few.NET apps use COM or ActiveX. Well, that's not quite true, but the majority fo COM use is for OS based components (like COM+ stuff, MTS, etc..). Those would likely exist in a ported OS as well. Most third party controls for.NET apps are pure.net code, or at most using p/invoke to OS API's which would work just fine on a ported OS because those API's are still there).
What's more, there's been a lot of progress in native code "translation", which basically recompiles the application from binary to new binary before it's run. It takes a few minutes the first time it's run, then it runs at native speed (or at worse a little less because it may have simulate complex instructions with several RISC instructions).
devs don't have to recompile anything with.net. The same binary will work on ARM systems without change, so long as it doesn't require any native code like a native DLL or OCX.
Origami failed for a lot of reasons, but the Windows OS wasn't really one of them. The problems were that the hardware was expensive, and under powered. They used crappy resistive touch screens that had poor resolution. They were power hungry (mostly because the displays were designed for in-dash GPS's of cars, and not power sipping portable devices) and they were heavy.
Basically, the technology wasn't ready yet. If they had cheap capacitive screens, low-power LED backlighting (rather than power hungry CF lighting), and could make the things cost half the price... they probably would have been much more successful. Although, granted, they would still need to develop multi-touch and other OS technologies to make them more usable.
Windows 2000 and XP were not that dissimilar. There shouldn't have been many differences between rolling out Windows 2000 versus XP. XP SP2 was a different story, but that was 3 years later.
IE6 was supported on Windows 2000 up until it was End of Lifed last year. IE7 didn't ship until 2007, and IE6 was supported on 2000 up until that time.
What's interesting is that you're right, but for the wrong reasons. Longhorn (the codename for what eventually became Vista) was very poorly managed and was a disaster. The reason that it was poorly managed is that most of Microsofts attention and resources were spent on rewriting XP for XP SP2. It wasn't until after SP2 shipped that they turned their attention back to the fiasco that Longhorn had become. After some more undulating and twisting, they finally shit canned it and started over with XP SP2 code base.
Vista was expected to be an unwelcome release, and a bomb. That's why Windows 7 was planned for release a mere 18 months later. They knew people would cry blood murder over UAC, and they knew that people would not react well to increased lock down. Vista was a martyr, sort of like a drill sargeant sent in to break down the troops, so that everyone will be happy with the much nicer, but still strict commanding officer that comes later.
It was actually a very brilliant move in many ways, and Vista was not at all a failure because it achieved the goal of getting people used to locked down security, and forcing app developers to adapt to new security policy.
And if you think that this wasn't planned, you aren't looking at history. Windows 2000 was the same sort of thing. Although not as severe. Windows 2000 introduced a lot of new policies and ways of doing things. XP shipped a mere 18 months after Windows 2000, and it basically made XP very popular.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a 50MB/s connection with DOCSIS 3 modem with 4 channels, and i have never noticed any real issues with peak hours, i can saturate it with a well seeded bittorrent connection.
An RV016 may work well for a multiple connection http or ftp download, but will not gain you much for bittorrent.
You remind me of all the whiners who installed FF4, then promptly switched back to FF3.x because they couldn't figure out how to go back more than one page at a time, and assumed it was impossible. You people have absolutely no patience, and when something doesn't behave exactly as you expect it to, in the manner you expect it to, you assume it doesn't do what you want.
Hint: Yes, you can turn of cleartype. And i'm not sure why you care about seperate search bar, you can force the address bar to search by prepending a ? to the query. For example, ? WaffleMonster
If you use services like Gmail, and have multiple accounts.. you need multiple browsers in order to keep them all open in real-time. For some reason, they haven't figured out yet that people might need multiple accounts.
That's funny, Firefox needs to be closed in order to upgrade over the top of it as well. That must mean Firefox is part of the OS. Oh noes!
I think you misunderstand the point. The point was that they would have to basically build D2D and other support libraries for XP just to support a single app. The abstraction layers are easy, it's supplying the emulation for the OS's that don't support it that is the pain in the ass.
I haven't had any trouble with WIndows 7 search, but if you have.. my guess is that you have a permissions issue that search isn't able to look in some locations.
I'm not sure what you mean about the useless clutter. Every option in the network config has text links, some have icons next to them but the actual controls themselves are text.
UAC is essentially the same as that used by OSX and Linux... At some point, a user has to have some knowledge. If they don't, then they need to contact someone that does before clicking Yes willy nilly. There is no magic bullet that tells users when it's ok to give a program access and when it's not. THEY have to make that decision for themselves.
Bittorrent will saturate any connection if you configure it well enough, and there are enough seeders.
It's a 250GB cap if you have 105Mb or 5Mb. Would you rather download your large files in minutes or hours?
That really depends on the usage. if you take 10 P33's and use them to do protein folding, it would probably be an overall energy savings to replace them with a single Core i7 laptop, even if you factor in the cost to produce the new laptop. You would gain more operations per second for less total energy cost.
Only if you're throwing away an older device for the sole purpose of saving money. A newer laptops cost will far exceed the difference in the cost to run it over its lifetime.
Also, consider the incremental effects. One doesn't get to a Chevy Volt in one step from a 1969 Mustang. Each step along the path of producing productrs for less energy requires that someone buy those products to pay for the next stage. Otherwise, we'd all still be driving 1969 Mustangs and the Prius would have never been built.
Indeed. And how much more energy does it take to recycle the batteries that burn up faster if the laptops use more energy?
That may be true, but unless it takes more energy to produce energy efficient computers than the savings in running them, it's still a net savings.
That should read Microsoft did not say Google apps for government was NOT certified.
Microsoft did not say Google apps for government was certified. It said the Department of justice made that claim in official court documents, which it in fact did. Since many of the documents were sealed, and there was no evidence that countered the DOJ's claim, one cannot say that Microsoft intentionally lied.
However, the Department of Justice rejected Googles claim that it was certified, and they claimed the GSA did not view it as certified. So, both sides seem to be at odds over what the GSA actually did or didn't do.
You do, huh? Then explain why PJ is making a big fuss over something that never happened.
Microsoft wasn't saying that Google should not be chosen because they weren't FISMA certified, they said that the Department of Justice, in court documents, stated that Google Apps for Goverment was not certified, and that the DOJ claimed that the GSA did not view them as certified. This is not an implication that their (MS's) product was certified, just that Google's wasn't as Google claimed. Somehow PJ inferred a claim that wasn't there, and then proceeded to make a big stink about said non-existent claim. Yeah, that's good research.
Googles response seems a bit odd. They claim that their Google Apps Premier certification carried over to the Google Apps for Government product, even though they admit that GAfG has several significant differences from GAP that requires it to be recertified, and that recertification was not yet complete. It's a bit like driving on a temporary drivers license, technically you have a valid license, but it's under review.
Claiming that GAfG was FISMA certified in their bid, and failing to mention that it needed to complete recertification was certainly misleading (the term Microsoft used). What if GAfG was chosen (specifically because Google had claimed it was certified) and then it failed recertification? What if the changes Google made proved to be insecure?
I think it's certainly understandable that Microsoft interpreted the need for recertification as admission that GAfG wasn't certified. That would seem the logical conclusion. If GAfG was still certified through the GAP certification, then that would be an incorrect (but logical) assumption.. especially given that the DOJ documents made the claim of lacking certification.
People in the blogosphere seem to be quick to throw the word "lied" around. Even Microsoft didn't say google Lied. In fact, Microsoft merely stated the fact that the Department of Justice made the claim that GAfG wasn't certified. The DOJ also made the claim that the GSA didn't view GAfG as certified. So it was apparently the DOJ that was wrong about the GSA's views.
Why? It's perfectly adequate for it, so long as you're using a keyboard (via bluetooth).
I'm very happy with my iPad, and I do use it for email, light word processing and presentation. No, i don't need a USB port, bluetooth works great. I use my iPad for presentations all the time. Keynote is good, but sometimes i would prefer to have an actual powerpoint. Even an official powerpoint player would be nice.
Few .NET apps use COM or ActiveX. Well, that's not quite true, but the majority fo COM use is for OS based components (like COM+ stuff, MTS, etc..). Those would likely exist in a ported OS as well. Most third party controls for .NET apps are pure .net code, or at most using p/invoke to OS API's which would work just fine on a ported OS because those API's are still there).
What's more, there's been a lot of progress in native code "translation", which basically recompiles the application from binary to new binary before it's run. It takes a few minutes the first time it's run, then it runs at native speed (or at worse a little less because it may have simulate complex instructions with several RISC instructions).
devs don't have to recompile anything with .net. The same binary will work on ARM systems without change, so long as it doesn't require any native code like a native DLL or OCX.
Origami failed for a lot of reasons, but the Windows OS wasn't really one of them. The problems were that the hardware was expensive, and under powered. They used crappy resistive touch screens that had poor resolution. They were power hungry (mostly because the displays were designed for in-dash GPS's of cars, and not power sipping portable devices) and they were heavy.
Basically, the technology wasn't ready yet. If they had cheap capacitive screens, low-power LED backlighting (rather than power hungry CF lighting), and could make the things cost half the price... they probably would have been much more successful. Although, granted, they would still need to develop multi-touch and other OS technologies to make them more usable.
Windows 2000 and XP were not that dissimilar. There shouldn't have been many differences between rolling out Windows 2000 versus XP. XP SP2 was a different story, but that was 3 years later.
IE6 was supported on Windows 2000 up until it was End of Lifed last year. IE7 didn't ship until 2007, and IE6 was supported on 2000 up until that time.
What's interesting is that you're right, but for the wrong reasons. Longhorn (the codename for what eventually became Vista) was very poorly managed and was a disaster. The reason that it was poorly managed is that most of Microsofts attention and resources were spent on rewriting XP for XP SP2. It wasn't until after SP2 shipped that they turned their attention back to the fiasco that Longhorn had become. After some more undulating and twisting, they finally shit canned it and started over with XP SP2 code base.
Vista was expected to be an unwelcome release, and a bomb. That's why Windows 7 was planned for release a mere 18 months later. They knew people would cry blood murder over UAC, and they knew that people would not react well to increased lock down. Vista was a martyr, sort of like a drill sargeant sent in to break down the troops, so that everyone will be happy with the much nicer, but still strict commanding officer that comes later.
It was actually a very brilliant move in many ways, and Vista was not at all a failure because it achieved the goal of getting people used to locked down security, and forcing app developers to adapt to new security policy.
And if you think that this wasn't planned, you aren't looking at history. Windows 2000 was the same sort of thing. Although not as severe. Windows 2000 introduced a lot of new policies and ways of doing things. XP shipped a mere 18 months after Windows 2000, and it basically made XP very popular.
There is no compelling reason to recompile for AMD64. 32 bit apps run just fine under a 64 bit OS.
I'd love to have office on my ipad, or at least a subset of it. Outlook, Powerpoint, Word, and Excel. That would TRULY justify the purchase.