Climb down from your high horse. You really have no idea what you're referring to. You're talking about the Win32 subsystem, not the Posix subsystem. Posix subsystem is not document on MSDN.
NT has several "personality modules". It has Win32, OS/2, and Posix. There's also Services for Unix, which provides a greater degree of Posix conformance.
Win32 and OS/2 subsystems don't support fork(), but Posix subsystems do.
No. Posix support is still in every version of Windows NT based OS's. It's true that Vista also has the Services For Unix layer, which provides a much larger degree of posix compatibility, but the basic posix is still there even without SFU.
You're only partially correct. PAE only works for memory > 4GB. Because the I/O registers are below 4GB, they shadow over real memory. That memory can't be remapped on a 32 bit OS, PAE or not.
With a 64 bit OS, the complete physical memory can be remapped anywhere in the 64 bit range, leaving the I/O registers and memroy free to not be shared with physical memory.
Of course this is also dependant on your BIOS also, which has to allow it.
PAE is irrelevant with 4GB. PAE is only useful if you have > 4GB. The problem is that the.75GB of memory that is reserved for I/O can't be mapped outside the 4GB range, thus PAE doesn't come into effect.
Actually, it's a bit of both. Only items which relate to the current task show up. So, for instance, when you're not doing Database related things, you don't see all the database related icons (other than a way to enter that mode).
Plus, the right click menu has become more task oriented as well.
The problem with the standard menu and toolbars is that they don't scale. As each new release of hte product adds new functions, you add more menus and more toolbars and pretty soon your screen is full of toolbars, and you can't find anything in your menus (the stupid auto-hiding menus of Office 2000 was an attempt to deal with this issue, and everyone hated it).
Like it or not, those that give the Ribbon a real chance like it. They find it easier to use. New users find the Ribbon more intuitive.
It's only the people who are set in their ways and those that have to be "trained" in everything they do that hve trouble with the transition.
This is not to say that OOo should have a ribbon. Just that there are real reasons why MS moved to it, and OOo is starting to see some of the same problems. They have to do something.
Ummm. no. WinFS was canceled. Completely. Kaput. It was never promised for a future version. The people working on WinFS were disbanded and most of their work became the basis for the new Entity Framework database model.
What's unusable? Vista is susceptable to far fewer viruses and malware (even without anti-virus) than XP. Cost? It's basically the same price as XP was, unless you want Ultimate. Convenience? I find Vista far more convenient because I can do things (mostly) much faster.
Poor performance happens. Every OS gets slower with every new version, especially on older hardware because newer OS's are designed to take advantage of greater resources to improve performance and if those resources aren't there it slows down. Linux and OSX both get slower and use more resources than previous versions.
The error your seeing is typically caused by a third party kernel module, such as anti-virus or in some cases a driver. Are you using an older version of ESET NOD32?
Blue screens are seldom the fault of the OS. usually less than 20% of the time. All OS's are vulnerable to bad 3rd party kernel modules.
Uhh.. the exact same quicklaunch is available for 7 as in previous versions. It's just not called "Quicklaunch". Just right click on the taskbar, choose Toolbars->New Toolbar. Point it to some location where you want to keep icons, and presto.. same old standard quicklaunch.
And i'm not sure what you mean about the notification icons. They disappear by default. And you can set them to work any way you want. Did you even spend 5 minutes playing with it?
Every new version of an OS adds new features. New features require more memory. What's more, hardware is expected to get faster and have more resources available and the prevailing wisdom is to use those resources to improve performance (for instance, pre-fetching expected code and data so it doesn't have to be loaded from disk).
It's all about increasing the *perceived* speed, which sometimes reduces the actual speed. Simply put, Vista does more than XP, thus it uses more CPU cycles, thus there are fewer CPU cycles for applications, thus they run a little slower on the same hardware.
You really have no idea what you're talking about.
The reason you can only see 3.2GB or so of RAM in 32 bit versions of Windows is because of hardware I/O reservations. Roughly 768MB of memory is reserved for hardware I/O devices, but this changes depending on BIOS and hardware installed.
IIS5? That's Windows 2000. almost 3 generations behind the current version. No wonder. The security differences between IIS5 and 6 are massive. IIS6 and 7 has yet to have any serious vulnerabily found in it, while IIS5 was swiss cheese.
Also, Windows 2000 is in "extended" support phase, which means it doesn't get anything but the most critical security patches, and even that will stop next year.
Anyone still using Win2k on a computer connected to the internet deserves what they get.
Well, for starters, 2 gig of ram costs about $35. Even less if you're buying in bulk like an OEM.
Next, the starter edition (limited to 3 apps) is more like $10 than $200. Microsoft's idea is that those that need more will upgrade to a versin that doesn't have the limit.
Next, Microsoft has recently said they will be providing Antivirus free sometime in the future, not sure when that will happen though. There are also half a dozen free anti-virus options like AVG and Avast.
Then you can run OpenOffice or Symphony.
So really, the only difference is the $10 cost of Windows starter (though limited to 3 apps), and even then there is a cost associate with Linux because vendors typically create their own distributions to go on their netbooks, so the end cost is probably about the same.
If you want unlimited apps, then an upgrade to Home Premium is going to be about $50.
You do realize that you can put gadgets on the desktop in Vista as well, right? And you can make the sidebar not take up additional real-estate by making it sit below everything.
However, yes, Aero Peek makes this much more usable in 7.
There are two schools of thought on this issue. There is yours, then there is what most experts believe.
Most experts will tell you that there is no reason to keep 50+% of the app in memory when it's not being used. That memory can be put to better use by increasing the buffers and caches. It's silly to keep parts of an app in memory that aren't being used.
Most apps these days are written with the assumption that the user will have at least 2GB. When 2GB of memory costs $35, there's little reason to spend 3x the time optimizing your app to run in 64K of memory.
Even Linux has this problem. Any modern distro that uses KDE is going to be a dog in 512MB, and 1GB will be pushing it. New features consume more memory, and if you don't worry about memory, you can write a lot more code.
Visio has never "hogged the registry" that i'm aware of, even if it did though, this is largely irrelevant today.
People that use Visio heavily have an investment in pre-designed shapes, often specifically for things like network equipment and enhanced shapes. They don't just use the stock stuff. I don't think Dia can import those, can it?
One of the major issues with the typical package manager is information overload. It's just way too much stuff, and there's no way for someone to easily compare two apps that do the same thing. No screenshots, no user reviews, nothing but a typically terse description of what the app is supposed to do (which may not even be what it really does).
Unless you like installing apps and playing around with them, you're stuck going out to freshmeat or something similar to read more detailed descriptions of thigns, but then you're in the same boat as the typical windows users that goes to download.com or similar. In other words, the information overload combined with the lack of detailed information to make judgements with make the typical package manager very difficult to use for most people.
Slashdot Mirror
Climb down from your high horse. You really have no idea what you're referring to. You're talking about the Win32 subsystem, not the Posix subsystem. Posix subsystem is not document on MSDN.
NT has several "personality modules". It has Win32, OS/2, and Posix. There's also Services for Unix, which provides a greater degree of Posix conformance.
Win32 and OS/2 subsystems don't support fork(), but Posix subsystems do.
No. Posix support is still in every version of Windows NT based OS's. It's true that Vista also has the Services For Unix layer, which provides a much larger degree of posix compatibility, but the basic posix is still there even without SFU.
No, YOUR claim is false. Reread what I wrote, and try it for yourself. The Superbar is not Quicklaunch, and both are available in Windows 7.
You're only partially correct. PAE only works for memory > 4GB. Because the I/O registers are below 4GB, they shadow over real memory. That memory can't be remapped on a 32 bit OS, PAE or not.
With a 64 bit OS, the complete physical memory can be remapped anywhere in the 64 bit range, leaving the I/O registers and memroy free to not be shared with physical memory.
Of course this is also dependant on your BIOS also, which has to allow it.
PAE is irrelevant with 4GB. PAE is only useful if you have > 4GB. The problem is that the .75GB of memory that is reserved for I/O can't be mapped outside the 4GB range, thus PAE doesn't come into effect.
Actually, it's a bit of both. Only items which relate to the current task show up. So, for instance, when you're not doing Database related things, you don't see all the database related icons (other than a way to enter that mode).
Plus, the right click menu has become more task oriented as well.
I think it's a good combination of both worlds.
That's a maintenance nightmare waiting to happen. You can't simply "keep both" every time you change something.
I don't know. But I didn't say OOo should use a Ribbon, just that the existing system doesn't scale and needs some kind of solution.
Ever tried pressing F2 when using Office 2007? You might be surprised.
The problem with the standard menu and toolbars is that they don't scale. As each new release of hte product adds new functions, you add more menus and more toolbars and pretty soon your screen is full of toolbars, and you can't find anything in your menus (the stupid auto-hiding menus of Office 2000 was an attempt to deal with this issue, and everyone hated it).
Like it or not, those that give the Ribbon a real chance like it. They find it easier to use. New users find the Ribbon more intuitive.
It's only the people who are set in their ways and those that have to be "trained" in everything they do that hve trouble with the transition.
This is not to say that OOo should have a ribbon. Just that there are real reasons why MS moved to it, and OOo is starting to see some of the same problems. They have to do something.
You do realize you're supposed to plug it in when the battery gets low, right?
Ummm. no. WinFS was canceled. Completely. Kaput. It was never promised for a future version. The people working on WinFS were disbanded and most of their work became the basis for the new Entity Framework database model.
What's unusable? Vista is susceptable to far fewer viruses and malware (even without anti-virus) than XP. Cost? It's basically the same price as XP was, unless you want Ultimate. Convenience? I find Vista far more convenient because I can do things (mostly) much faster.
Poor performance happens. Every OS gets slower with every new version, especially on older hardware because newer OS's are designed to take advantage of greater resources to improve performance and if those resources aren't there it slows down. Linux and OSX both get slower and use more resources than previous versions.
The error your seeing is typically caused by a third party kernel module, such as anti-virus or in some cases a driver. Are you using an older version of ESET NOD32?
Blue screens are seldom the fault of the OS. usually less than 20% of the time. All OS's are vulnerable to bad 3rd party kernel modules.
Uhh.. the exact same quicklaunch is available for 7 as in previous versions. It's just not called "Quicklaunch". Just right click on the taskbar, choose Toolbars->New Toolbar. Point it to some location where you want to keep icons, and presto.. same old standard quicklaunch.
And i'm not sure what you mean about the notification icons. They disappear by default. And you can set them to work any way you want. Did you even spend 5 minutes playing with it?
Every new version of an OS adds new features. New features require more memory. What's more, hardware is expected to get faster and have more resources available and the prevailing wisdom is to use those resources to improve performance (for instance, pre-fetching expected code and data so it doesn't have to be loaded from disk).
It's all about increasing the *perceived* speed, which sometimes reduces the actual speed. Simply put, Vista does more than XP, thus it uses more CPU cycles, thus there are fewer CPU cycles for applications, thus they run a little slower on the same hardware.
You really have no idea what you're talking about.
The reason you can only see 3.2GB or so of RAM in 32 bit versions of Windows is because of hardware I/O reservations. Roughly 768MB of memory is reserved for hardware I/O devices, but this changes depending on BIOS and hardware installed.
Akalabeth Rules!
IIS5? That's Windows 2000. almost 3 generations behind the current version. No wonder. The security differences between IIS5 and 6 are massive. IIS6 and 7 has yet to have any serious vulnerabily found in it, while IIS5 was swiss cheese.
Also, Windows 2000 is in "extended" support phase, which means it doesn't get anything but the most critical security patches, and even that will stop next year.
Anyone still using Win2k on a computer connected to the internet deserves what they get.
Well, for starters, 2 gig of ram costs about $35. Even less if you're buying in bulk like an OEM.
Next, the starter edition (limited to 3 apps) is more like $10 than $200. Microsoft's idea is that those that need more will upgrade to a versin that doesn't have the limit.
Next, Microsoft has recently said they will be providing Antivirus free sometime in the future, not sure when that will happen though. There are also half a dozen free anti-virus options like AVG and Avast.
Then you can run OpenOffice or Symphony.
So really, the only difference is the $10 cost of Windows starter (though limited to 3 apps), and even then there is a cost associate with Linux because vendors typically create their own distributions to go on their netbooks, so the end cost is probably about the same.
If you want unlimited apps, then an upgrade to Home Premium is going to be about $50.
You do realize that you can put gadgets on the desktop in Vista as well, right? And you can make the sidebar not take up additional real-estate by making it sit below everything.
However, yes, Aero Peek makes this much more usable in 7.
There are two schools of thought on this issue. There is yours, then there is what most experts believe.
Most experts will tell you that there is no reason to keep 50+% of the app in memory when it's not being used. That memory can be put to better use by increasing the buffers and caches. It's silly to keep parts of an app in memory that aren't being used.
Most apps these days are written with the assumption that the user will have at least 2GB. When 2GB of memory costs $35, there's little reason to spend 3x the time optimizing your app to run in 64K of memory.
Even Linux has this problem. Any modern distro that uses KDE is going to be a dog in 512MB, and 1GB will be pushing it. New features consume more memory, and if you don't worry about memory, you can write a lot more code.
Visio has never "hogged the registry" that i'm aware of, even if it did though, this is largely irrelevant today.
People that use Visio heavily have an investment in pre-designed shapes, often specifically for things like network equipment and enhanced shapes. They don't just use the stock stuff. I don't think Dia can import those, can it?
One of the major issues with the typical package manager is information overload. It's just way too much stuff, and there's no way for someone to easily compare two apps that do the same thing. No screenshots, no user reviews, nothing but a typically terse description of what the app is supposed to do (which may not even be what it really does).
Unless you like installing apps and playing around with them, you're stuck going out to freshmeat or something similar to read more detailed descriptions of thigns, but then you're in the same boat as the typical windows users that goes to download.com or similar. In other words, the information overload combined with the lack of detailed information to make judgements with make the typical package manager very difficult to use for most people.