A 1.6Ghz Atom N270 sits between a Celeron 2Ghz and a Celeron 2.4Ghz. It's twice as fast as a Pentium III (though it doesn't give a speed rating, but the fastest PIII was 1.4Ghz.
The Pentium M was based on the Pentium 3 design, but it is more efficient. Since PassMark rates a 1.6Ghz Pentium M at 377 and the 1.6Ghz Atom 270 at 306.. it's probably closer to a 1.4Ghz Pentium-M than a 1.5, but in either case actual benchmarks do not support your claims.
Of which, none of them work in IE8 standards mode, except for an apparent new bug in IE8 (which goes away in compatibility mode for some strange reason).
Honestly, I've not seen any of the problems you mention, and i've been using it since Beta 1. Not to say it's been perfect (particularly, Remote Desktop has several highly annoying bugs when used with Windows 2000 servers), but the things you mention specifically have not been a problem.
If Explorer goes crazy, more than likely this is due to an incompatibility with a 3rd party extension of some kind. Lots of stuff installs extensions that you may not even know about. WinZip, WinRar, and many other kinds of tools.
Windows 7 uses a lot less memory than Vista, particularly for WDM, but make sure you're using a WDM 1.1 Video driver. 1.0 drivers will still use a lot of memory.
I've seen no application crashes that are out of the ordinary, ie buggy programs that crash regardless of the OS. Internet Explorer 8 during beta had a lot of problems with memory management, and JavaScript in particular, but they seem to be gone in RC.
The behavior of Windows update is identical to Vista, so i'm not sure what you're complaining about. If you don't like it, set it to notify you, or download and notify. Same with XP.
Also, i've seen no problems with Vista's search service. You do have to tell it to search other areas outside of your user profile if that's what you want though. It's not got as many search parameters as i'd like, but oh well.
Perhaps the reason you "see little mention" of the things you complain about is because few others are experiencing them?
I think the difference is that, in all but rare cases, the "issue" with getting to work under windows is having the correct driver. Once you have it, you need only install it and it works. Most of the problems "techies" have is that they don't know what's inside the computer, so they don't know what driver to get (or what version of the driver to get) and they're often too lazy to open the case and look inside. I know, I'm exactly the same way.
I think someone could make a lot of money creating a program that scans all the hardware ID's on a computer and maintains a database of hardware. Something you could keep updated on a flash drive so it's not necessary to have network access when you use it.
However, with Linux, you're typically in a situation where you have the driver, but the default configuration doesn't work, and you have to try all kinds of different settings and configurations to figure out the magic state that makes everything work.
I think you missed his point. His point is that sudo can be easily circumvented by social engineering.
Let's say yuo have Sudo configured like the typical Ubuntu, where the current user need only enter their password to gain root access. Let's suppose that in some future reality Linux is really popular, and starts getting "normal" users. They install some nifty password saving program that asks for their password. They give it to it, and now the app can do anything it wants.
"But we can read the source code, so that won't happen", you'll yell.. sure YOU CAN, but not the "normal" person. "It would never make it into the repository" you say, well if Linux becomes popular people won't simply be using the repository, they'll be getting software from all over the place, just like they do with Windows now.
And the flaw in your thinking about the security model is that it ignores vulnerabilities in the software. Yes, browsing a web site *CAN* infect the entire system if there's a vulnerability in the browser which can be used to exploit a privilege escalation vulnerability in the system. Even on Linux. And there are plenty of them. In fact, Linux install so much software in a default install that it's more or less guaranteed that there will always be some vulnerabilities.
You do know you can do the exact same thing in Office 2007, right? They have the quickbar, which you can assign virtually any function to and it's always available, no matter what tab you're on.
OpenOffice's problem is that it's not really an open source app. Well, sure, the source is open and available, but it was developed as an open source app. It was developed as a commercial app that was later open sourced. What's worse, the company that open sourced it maintains their commercial version of it. This means they're still at the mercy of commercial interests and can't, for example as was the case with Firefox, rewrite it from scratch.
If you'd read what you're responding to, rather than skimming it and making assumptions, perhaps you wouldn't make such an ass of yourself.
The person you were responding to was complaining not because beta software had bugs, but because *RELEASED* software still had data corruption bugs that had been reported in beta.
Another simple method is to just copy the diagram and then paste it into Word or any graphics program. The diagram will be converted to a bitmap, then it can be saved as a JPG or GIF.
You can still assign custom commands to keyboard shortcuts, just like you could before. No, you can't create custom toolbar buttons.
Go to the office button, Word Options (for example, in word, excel options in excel, etc..), Go to the customize tab, click Customize Keyboard Shortcuts. Everything is there.
No, menus are not required. You can do everything you could do in Word 2003 in 2007 via the keyboard, all without menus. All the keyboard combinations are still there, and the ability to assign custom key combinations to custom commands.
No, all keyboard shortcuts still work. You tap alt, and the various commands are highlighted on the ribbon so you can see what key combinations are for what command.
I think you're the reason Microsoft is making this the only UI. Too many people refuse to change. It's been almost 10 years that Microsoft has had a new start menu, for instance, and how many people simply don't use it?
Why should they have to maintain multiple interfaces for decades? Isn't 10 years long enough? The idea of having a way to go back to the old method is to provide a segue, so that people can slowly learn the new version, but people don't do that. They just stay on the old one and never bother to learn the new one, so long as you give them the option.
Yes, you can change. You just don't want to. And it's not that the UI is poorly designed, it's that you have never given it a chance.
Imagine if, for example, airplane manufacturers were required to keep all their gauges exactly the same as the ones in the original planes from the early 1900's, so that people wouldn't have to relearn how to use new ones. Imagine if computers were required to have a running greenbar paper output instead of monitors, just so that people didn't have to learn how to use those new fangled screens.
Change happens. It's part of using computers. Get over it.
Other than ultra cheap monitors, most monitors these days can swivel between portrait and landscape. Some of them include software to automatically change your desktop, but some requires you to click a few buttons. It's not difficult.
I understand that you're upset about the current conditions, but the fact is.. it's a fact of life. It will never change, regardless of legislation or anything else. The cat is out of the bag, and you can't get the cat back in.
Search engines's job is to try to provide the best results. It will always be possible for spammers to game the system. So complaining that search engine companies aren't taking responsibility is stupid, and in fact a bit insulting to them. They do a lot to try to provide better results, but it's a war they can't win either. They can only try to stem the tide.
If it's such a problem for you, maybe you should help them work on the problem. Maybe you should help them figure out fool proof ways to provide good results. Put your work where your mouth is.
If you're not interested in doing that, then perhaps you need to accept things. Maybe you need to concentrate on things you CAN do.
For example, suppose you have a page in your book that says "If you did not pay for your copy of this book, and you find it useful, consider donating what you feel is apporpriate to help ensure future revisions and other great works get written" and provide a link for them to donate money.
Actually, it can be a felony. And not just for selling illegitimate copies, but there is a threshold where if you have $X of material, it's a felony. Typically, your average 8 year old will have more material than the threshold, so for most people it is in fact a felony if you do it at all.
Actually, it's $100k for first round, and the researcher can get another $100k in 6 months (up to 2 100k grants per year). That should be plenty to pay a researcher and his lab and overhead costs for a year. If his work shows promise, then he can recieve much more the next year. It's results driven.
You exhibit the common symptoms of an idealog. This is probably something that someone should invest some money into curing.
Whether or not you believe Microsoft did not earn their money (i.e. stolen it) is irrelevant to the money in Bill Gates personal fortune. His money came from sales of stock, which are all completely legitimate. Yes, those sales were based on the performance of Microsoft stock, but the stock sales themselves are completely above board.
To put this another way. Let's say a football team spent years overcharging their fans to get in the door. They forced them to buy overpriced concessions, and buy overpriced merchandise. One could make an argument that much of that money could be "stolen".
However, you can't take that argument and claim that the guy that makes a fortune betting on the outcome of the game "stole" his money too because the team stole theirs.
Slashdot Mirror
According to PassMark, you're wrong.
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/common_cpus.html
A 1.6Ghz Atom N270 sits between a Celeron 2Ghz and a Celeron 2.4Ghz. It's twice as fast as a Pentium III (though it doesn't give a speed rating, but the fastest PIII was 1.4Ghz.
The Pentium M was based on the Pentium 3 design, but it is more efficient. Since PassMark rates a 1.6Ghz Pentium M at 377 and the 1.6Ghz Atom 270 at 306.. it's probably closer to a 1.4Ghz Pentium-M than a 1.5, but in either case actual benchmarks do not support your claims.
Of which, none of them work in IE8 standards mode, except for an apparent new bug in IE8 (which goes away in compatibility mode for some strange reason).
Honestly, I've not seen any of the problems you mention, and i've been using it since Beta 1. Not to say it's been perfect (particularly, Remote Desktop has several highly annoying bugs when used with Windows 2000 servers), but the things you mention specifically have not been a problem.
If Explorer goes crazy, more than likely this is due to an incompatibility with a 3rd party extension of some kind. Lots of stuff installs extensions that you may not even know about. WinZip, WinRar, and many other kinds of tools.
Windows 7 uses a lot less memory than Vista, particularly for WDM, but make sure you're using a WDM 1.1 Video driver. 1.0 drivers will still use a lot of memory.
I've seen no application crashes that are out of the ordinary, ie buggy programs that crash regardless of the OS. Internet Explorer 8 during beta had a lot of problems with memory management, and JavaScript in particular, but they seem to be gone in RC.
The behavior of Windows update is identical to Vista, so i'm not sure what you're complaining about. If you don't like it, set it to notify you, or download and notify. Same with XP.
Also, i've seen no problems with Vista's search service. You do have to tell it to search other areas outside of your user profile if that's what you want though. It's not got as many search parameters as i'd like, but oh well.
Perhaps the reason you "see little mention" of the things you complain about is because few others are experiencing them?
I think the difference is that, in all but rare cases, the "issue" with getting to work under windows is having the correct driver. Once you have it, you need only install it and it works. Most of the problems "techies" have is that they don't know what's inside the computer, so they don't know what driver to get (or what version of the driver to get) and they're often too lazy to open the case and look inside. I know, I'm exactly the same way.
I think someone could make a lot of money creating a program that scans all the hardware ID's on a computer and maintains a database of hardware. Something you could keep updated on a flash drive so it's not necessary to have network access when you use it.
However, with Linux, you're typically in a situation where you have the driver, but the default configuration doesn't work, and you have to try all kinds of different settings and configurations to figure out the magic state that makes everything work.
I think you missed his point. His point is that sudo can be easily circumvented by social engineering.
Let's say yuo have Sudo configured like the typical Ubuntu, where the current user need only enter their password to gain root access. Let's suppose that in some future reality Linux is really popular, and starts getting "normal" users. They install some nifty password saving program that asks for their password. They give it to it, and now the app can do anything it wants.
"But we can read the source code, so that won't happen", you'll yell.. sure YOU CAN, but not the "normal" person. "It would never make it into the repository" you say, well if Linux becomes popular people won't simply be using the repository, they'll be getting software from all over the place, just like they do with Windows now.
And the flaw in your thinking about the security model is that it ignores vulnerabilities in the software. Yes, browsing a web site *CAN* infect the entire system if there's a vulnerability in the browser which can be used to exploit a privilege escalation vulnerability in the system. Even on Linux. And there are plenty of them. In fact, Linux install so much software in a default install that it's more or less guaranteed that there will always be some vulnerabilities.
Not if you choose Paste Special, then choose Bitmap.
You do know you can do the exact same thing in Office 2007, right? They have the quickbar, which you can assign virtually any function to and it's always available, no matter what tab you're on.
No, it's not. They obviously expanded the icon size for dramatic purposes.
Actually, no...
OpenOffice's problem is that it's not really an open source app. Well, sure, the source is open and available, but it was developed as an open source app. It was developed as a commercial app that was later open sourced. What's worse, the company that open sourced it maintains their commercial version of it. This means they're still at the mercy of commercial interests and can't, for example as was the case with Firefox, rewrite it from scratch.
If you'd read what you're responding to, rather than skimming it and making assumptions, perhaps you wouldn't make such an ass of yourself.
The person you were responding to was complaining not because beta software had bugs, but because *RELEASED* software still had data corruption bugs that had been reported in beta.
Another simple method is to just copy the diagram and then paste it into Word or any graphics program. The diagram will be converted to a bitmap, then it can be saved as a JPG or GIF.
You can still assign custom commands to keyboard shortcuts, just like you could before. No, you can't create custom toolbar buttons.
Go to the office button, Word Options (for example, in word, excel options in excel, etc..), Go to the customize tab, click Customize Keyboard Shortcuts. Everything is there.
What are you talking about, exactly?
No, menus are not required. You can do everything you could do in Word 2003 in 2007 via the keyboard, all without menus. All the keyboard combinations are still there, and the ability to assign custom key combinations to custom commands.
This argument is stupid, because it's not true.
No, all keyboard shortcuts still work. You tap alt, and the various commands are highlighted on the ribbon so you can see what key combinations are for what command.
I think you're the reason Microsoft is making this the only UI. Too many people refuse to change. It's been almost 10 years that Microsoft has had a new start menu, for instance, and how many people simply don't use it?
Why should they have to maintain multiple interfaces for decades? Isn't 10 years long enough? The idea of having a way to go back to the old method is to provide a segue, so that people can slowly learn the new version, but people don't do that. They just stay on the old one and never bother to learn the new one, so long as you give them the option.
Yes, you can change. You just don't want to. And it's not that the UI is poorly designed, it's that you have never given it a chance.
Imagine if, for example, airplane manufacturers were required to keep all their gauges exactly the same as the ones in the original planes from the early 1900's, so that people wouldn't have to relearn how to use new ones. Imagine if computers were required to have a running greenbar paper output instead of monitors, just so that people didn't have to learn how to use those new fangled screens.
Change happens. It's part of using computers. Get over it.
Other than ultra cheap monitors, most monitors these days can swivel between portrait and landscape. Some of them include software to automatically change your desktop, but some requires you to click a few buttons. It's not difficult.
I understand that you're upset about the current conditions, but the fact is.. it's a fact of life. It will never change, regardless of legislation or anything else. The cat is out of the bag, and you can't get the cat back in.
Search engines's job is to try to provide the best results. It will always be possible for spammers to game the system. So complaining that search engine companies aren't taking responsibility is stupid, and in fact a bit insulting to them. They do a lot to try to provide better results, but it's a war they can't win either. They can only try to stem the tide.
If it's such a problem for you, maybe you should help them work on the problem. Maybe you should help them figure out fool proof ways to provide good results. Put your work where your mouth is.
If you're not interested in doing that, then perhaps you need to accept things. Maybe you need to concentrate on things you CAN do.
For example, suppose you have a page in your book that says "If you did not pay for your copy of this book, and you find it useful, consider donating what you feel is apporpriate to help ensure future revisions and other great works get written" and provide a link for them to donate money.
Actually, it can be a felony. And not just for selling illegitimate copies, but there is a threshold where if you have $X of material, it's a felony. Typically, your average 8 year old will have more material than the threshold, so for most people it is in fact a felony if you do it at all.
Actually, it's $100k for first round, and the researcher can get another $100k in 6 months (up to 2 100k grants per year). That should be plenty to pay a researcher and his lab and overhead costs for a year. If his work shows promise, then he can recieve much more the next year. It's results driven.
You exhibit the common symptoms of an idealog. This is probably something that someone should invest some money into curing.
Whether or not you believe Microsoft did not earn their money (i.e. stolen it) is irrelevant to the money in Bill Gates personal fortune. His money came from sales of stock, which are all completely legitimate. Yes, those sales were based on the performance of Microsoft stock, but the stock sales themselves are completely above board.
To put this another way. Let's say a football team spent years overcharging their fans to get in the door. They forced them to buy overpriced concessions, and buy overpriced merchandise. One could make an argument that much of that money could be "stolen".
However, you can't take that argument and claim that the guy that makes a fortune betting on the outcome of the game "stole" his money too because the team stole theirs.
I was going to say:
"Why do they think they can violate my copyright and get away with it?"
Because they can.
What do you propose? Remove features? Yeah, that'll fly with the users.
Users want new features. They drive the development. A program that doesn't evolve is considered "dead" and people start to look elsewhere.
You have to accept the reality of software development. If you got no new features, you got nothing.
Sorry, it's Ctrl-F1, not F2.
I said less than 20%. I think Microsoft measured it at 13%. But still, that's seldom, because non-OS faults cause it 4x more often.
Ahh.. more excuses. Try right clicking on the location text and uncheck the Title, poof.. it's gone, as are your excuses.