It means that the reviewer has finally spotted a number of features that have been available since XP was released, and is getting thrilled about them because he thinks they're new. I.e. image thumbnail view, photo album folder format, file metadata columns in explorer, etc.
In explorer, you can use the backspace key to go up a directory. In other dialogs, I doubt that would work, mostly because the text field will take it.
If the focus is on the file list, it works in dialogs. If the focus is on the input field, you can always use '..[enter]'.
It wasn't until recently that I realised that this was entirely because of the Recycle Bin (which I almost never use). If it's filled up with thousands of tiny files, XP can spend on the order of minutes looking at them, re-organising them, and deciding what to purge every time you decide to delete a file or two. Is it possible that this is also what's happening in Vista?
This can be very frustrating when you don't have a clue why it's taking so long, because all it states is that it's deleting the file you told it to delete. Until I figured it out, I often just opened up a command line to delete files because it went so much faster.
There's another cause of slow deletes from the Windows Explorer UI, which is that Windows (since XP, I think, although it might have happened before also) counts the number of files you have selected before deleting them. If you've selected several thousand files in hundreds of folders accessed over a network drive, it can take about ten minutes before it'll even start deleting them.
Uh? In Vista you can use Alt-Up (yeah, same as OSX) to go to the parent of an open folder. He must be thinking of XP with its retarded Back/Forward only navigation.
???
XP has a button in the toolbar that goes up. The keyboard shortcut is backspace.
> Exactly how is it less usable then XP. They pretty much both work.
I think the first post on this page (check out the images) summarize it pretty succinctly:
"Windows Media Player cannot play this DVD because there is a problem with digital copy protection between your DVD drive, decoder and video card. Try installing an updated driver for your video card."
I think the last post on the page summarizes why its wrong pretty succinctly:
don't forget, some things still need to have admin privileges to work properly...
Should using a CD writer be one of those things? Sure, admin should be able to assign whether or not a given user can use it, but I'd have thought it should be "on by default".
You need the latest version, go check nero's website for it. Is that a free upgrade, or will I have to pay through the nose to continue using software that came free with my hardware?
Again, the author shows his ignorance. Just click on the breadcrumb of where you want to go, ta-da! you're now there. Granted it's not a button, but it's infinitely more useful. Not only can I go up one level with one click I can go up n levels with one click.
Err... his screen shot doesn't show there being any breadcrumbs. Where exactly is he supposed to click?
Not only can I go up one level with one click I can go up n levels with one click.
How does it cope with long directory names? Say I had a 255 character directory name, too wide to display, and wanted to go up two levels, how would that work?
Re:Open Open Open? AROS!
on
AmigaOS 4
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
www.aros.org
is an open source cross platform community driven recreation of AmigaOS and all it's wonders that even modern OS's STILL just don't mangage 20+ years on such as
1. Logical Volume Assignment : Assign "Webs" to your web site dir and point your web server at the Drive called Webs, not a hard path attatched to a hardware controlled drive letter. oh and if you want to move your website or switch to a backup just reassign Webs to point to the new location, only the underlying OS will know that you've moved it. Also works for removable media, ram drives, network mappings. Beautiful and not tied to a mysterious legacy drive structure peppered with acronyms like unix/linux wither
You know you can tell Windows what letter to use for a drive, don't you? OK, so you can't use names, but I don't personally find that too limiting. And the directory naming convention on Linux is just a convention... if you wanted to, you could easily change it. Most programs have a configure script that allows you to specify the names of the directories that their files will be installed in.
2. ability to control window z-index. The window you are currently using isnt forced to be on top, again this may sound odd at first but imagine you are copy-pasting text line-by-line from one window to another, in windows you'd have to resize and move them around so you could always see both whichever was in focus just so you didn't give yourself an epliectic fit by switching back and forth constantly...
I've been able to do this with X11 since I first used it. I believe the feature has existed for as long as the platform has been available. You can achieve it with windows using any of a variety of focus management programs available. I believe there's one in the powertoys collection available from MS.
3. multiple screens, different software can open a new screen in a different resolution with different color depth. yeah you can kind of do this in windows when booting up a game but we all know it's actually re-setting the resolution of the system as a whole, illustrated by the fact that when a game bombs your desktop is f**ked. You can have as many as a like, so you can be tight with your desktop's video ram and run it in 256 colors if you wish, but imagine at the same time being able to host a HD movie on another screen, pause it, and switch back to the desktop instantly without waiting for the OS to have a fit first.
I can achieve this effect on Linux with virtual consoles.
4. actually well implimented multitasking, like being able to zip up a bunch of folders on your hard drive AND format a floppy ready to put them on at the same time. without a) a major slowdown or b) the whole system crashing and burning.
I've been able to do that with both Windows since NT4 was released (97, IIRC) and Linux since the first version I tried back in 95.
and what's with windows totally stopping dead when you stick anything in an optical drive, does Vista still do that?
I don't have this problem. Could be a driver issue with your machine?
There was an Ask Slashdot a while back about why Windows doesn't have a faster boot time. I don't remember what the final consensus was, but how come this OS is able to boot so quickly? Why can't Windows do this?
The biggest problem with Windows boot times is that Windows just does too much stuff. Windows XP, on a first full boot with no additional software, uses somewhere in the region of 90MB of RAM just do so standard system stuff. All those programs have to be loaded and initialised before you can log in.
At a guess, this system does less stuff by default, and is therefore faster to start. Simple, really.
Not that a brand new platform isn't cool but work desktop?
He's a writer. As a writer, I'd happily switch back to DOS and WordPerfect 5.1, if it wasn't for the other applications I need to run for other things. Writers have very basic requirements. The most important thing is that the computer doesn't get in the way of the work. Anything that distracts you from the words can cost a lot of time.
Intuition doesn't have anything to do with it. SHA-512 has not been cracked and so it meets the definition of a "secure" hash function.
I have a hashing algorithm that meets that definition of a secure hash. Of course, if I released the details of it would probably no longer be secure in approximatley five minutes, but it's secure now.
Do you suggest I use it for my strong authentication requirements, or should I perhaps use something a little more established?
A fairly stupid comment that dodges the question of the climate effect of increased relative humidity.
It doesn't "dodge the question". It points out that the question is meaningless because there won't be increased relative humidity. Note that the first step of the process isn't to combine hydrogen and oxygen to make water, but rather to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. The effect, therefore, will be decreased relative humidity.
In any case, it's closer to plain English to call them labels. That's what you're doing. If I'm in GMail and I want to indicate that an email is work related it is closer to plain English to say that I labelled it work than to say that I tagged it work.
Also, standard desktop e-mail clients have had the facility for a while (longer than there has been such a concept as "web 2.0" for certain) and generally use the name "label" for that, too. Mozilla Thunderbird certainly does. So it would have been incompatible with existing, established terminology in the mail client field to use the name "tag", which has is also existing terminology that has generally been interpreted in mail clients as "select this message as part of a group so I can perform some operation on all of them" since some time in the late eighties.
Sorry, original poster, but google were just following existing and long-established naming conventions that were in use by large numbers of existing applications in the same field.
Under this scheme if the thief breaks your car window and steals your iPod (and shares your music files), you are a criminal. Big difference.
Except you aren't, and **AA know you aren't. You just say to them, "Yes, that media file was on my iPod which was stolen three weeks ago. Here's the police reference number for the incident." They'll likely realise at that point that a claim against you is unlikely to succeed, and go away. If they don't, you will (a) probably be able to find a lawyer who will represent you free, because you are a victim of harrassment, and (b) you might even be able to make a claim of vexatious litigation stick against the **AA, which I believe even in an unenlightened legal system like the US one means you'd be able to claim your costs from them.
here's the thing, though - *why* would you do this?
*I* personally wouldn't. But I know people who would, and they fall into two categories:
1. People who aren't security conscious with their computer. The number of times I've been asked to "fix" somebody's computer because it's working slowly, and found some malware on there that had set up an FTP server or something to share their disks is scary. For these people, to avoid accusations of piracy that are bound to happen when somebody steals their media and uploads torrents of it, I'd recommend they neutralise any watermark as soon as the media hits their system.
2. People who intentionally share. Yes, what these people are doing is illegal. But it's naive to think they aren't just as smart as we are when it comes to finding workarounds for this kind of thing, and are just as motivated to crack this as we all were to crack CSS.
The watermark is destroyed the moment you re-encode the file into a different format format.
Not reliably. You can probably run a few originals through the same encoder with the same settings and spot noticeable differences. In this fashion you *may* be able to determine at least some of the bits from the watermark. If it features enough ECC bits, you should be able to reconstruct a unique segment.
You can't honestly say that simple entertainment is a luxury and, since we don't have a lifestyle that allow us to gather every evening around the fire to sing and play, listening to music and watching a movie is a real need for us
Have you ever heard of a book? They're cheap, and many of them are public domain.
If you know enough about what money you can include in which figures in the return to use tax software, you can go a step further, get the notes on how to fill in the return, and work it all out in a spreadsheet.
(Disclaimer: I've only ever done UK tax returns this way, but the principle's the same...)
I have a 100 year old home that had no insulation in the walls and had cellulose blown in to the wall cavities by the contractor drilling through the mortar in between the bricks and then patching up the holes later
Hah. I should be so lucky. I have an 80 year-old home, and when I called them out they said they couldn't do it because I don't have a cavity. You insensitive clod.
If you bring the insulation in the walls to about R50 (fibergalss is fine) and the ceiling to about R70 then you can get rid of the furnace.
What units are you using here? It sure as hell ain't W / m^2 K (or m^2 K / W, which probably has the same dimension as the figure you're quoting, as you have the ceiling at a higher value than the walls), which is the only unit I'm familiar with for such measurements.
Slashdot Mirror
"ui built for the era of video and photography"
JUST WHAT the hell does that mean ?!?!?!
It means that the reviewer has finally spotted a number of features that have been available since XP was released, and is getting thrilled about them because he thinks they're new. I.e. image thumbnail view, photo album folder format, file metadata columns in explorer, etc.
In explorer, you can use the backspace key to go up a directory. In other dialogs, I doubt that would work, mostly because the text field will take it.
If the focus is on the file list, it works in dialogs. If the focus is on the input field, you can always use '..[enter]'.
It wasn't until recently that I realised that this was entirely because of the Recycle Bin (which I almost never use). If it's filled up with thousands of tiny files, XP can spend on the order of minutes looking at them, re-organising them, and deciding what to purge every time you decide to delete a file or two. Is it possible that this is also what's happening in Vista?
This can be very frustrating when you don't have a clue why it's taking so long, because all it states is that it's deleting the file you told it to delete. Until I figured it out, I often just opened up a command line to delete files because it went so much faster.
There's another cause of slow deletes from the Windows Explorer UI, which is that Windows (since XP, I think, although it might have happened before also) counts the number of files you have selected before deleting them. If you've selected several thousand files in hundreds of folders accessed over a network drive, it can take about ten minutes before it'll even start deleting them.
Uh? In Vista you can use Alt-Up (yeah, same as OSX) to go to the parent of an open folder. He must be thinking of XP with its retarded Back/Forward only navigation.
???
XP has a button in the toolbar that goes up. The keyboard shortcut is backspace.
I think the last post on the page summarizes why its wrong pretty succinctly:
i've seen this error before, on windows xp.
don't forget, some things still need to have admin privileges to work properly...
Should using a CD writer be one of those things? Sure, admin should be able to assign whether or not a given user can use it, but I'd have thought it should be "on by default".
You need the latest version, go check nero's website for it. Is that a free upgrade, or will I have to pay through the nose to continue using software that came free with my hardware?
Again, the author shows his ignorance. Just click on the breadcrumb of where you want to go, ta-da! you're now there. Granted it's not a button, but it's infinitely more useful. Not only can I go up one level with one click I can go up n levels with one click.
Err... his screen shot doesn't show there being any breadcrumbs. Where exactly is he supposed to click?
Not only can I go up one level with one click I can go up n levels with one click.
How does it cope with long directory names? Say I had a 255 character directory name, too wide to display, and wanted to go up two levels, how would that work?
www.aros.org
is an open source cross platform community driven recreation of AmigaOS and all it's wonders that even modern OS's STILL just don't mangage 20+ years on such as
1. Logical Volume Assignment : Assign "Webs" to your web site dir and point your web server at the Drive called Webs, not a hard path attatched to a hardware controlled drive letter. oh and if you want to move your website or switch to a backup just reassign Webs to point to the new location, only the underlying OS will know that you've moved it. Also works for removable media, ram drives, network mappings. Beautiful and not tied to a mysterious legacy drive structure peppered with acronyms like unix/linux wither
You know you can tell Windows what letter to use for a drive, don't you? OK, so you can't use names, but I don't personally find that too limiting. And the directory naming convention on Linux is just a convention... if you wanted to, you could easily change it. Most programs have a configure script that allows you to specify the names of the directories that their files will be installed in.
2. ability to control window z-index. The window you are currently using isnt forced to be on top, again this may sound odd at first but imagine you are copy-pasting text line-by-line from one window to another, in windows you'd have to resize and move them around so you could always see both whichever was in focus just so you didn't give yourself an epliectic fit by switching back and forth constantly...
I've been able to do this with X11 since I first used it. I believe the feature has existed for as long as the platform has been available. You can achieve it with windows using any of a variety of focus management programs available. I believe there's one in the powertoys collection available from MS.
3. multiple screens, different software can open a new screen in a different resolution with different color depth. yeah you can kind of do this in windows when booting up a game but we all know it's actually re-setting the resolution of the system as a whole, illustrated by the fact that when a game bombs your desktop is f**ked. You can have as many as a like, so you can be tight with your desktop's video ram and run it in 256 colors if you wish, but imagine at the same time being able to host a HD movie on another screen, pause it, and switch back to the desktop instantly without waiting for the OS to have a fit first.
I can achieve this effect on Linux with virtual consoles.
4. actually well implimented multitasking, like being able to zip up a bunch of folders on your hard drive AND format a floppy ready to put them on at the same time. without a) a major slowdown or b) the whole system crashing and burning.
I've been able to do that with both Windows since NT4 was released (97, IIRC) and Linux since the first version I tried back in 95.
and what's with windows totally stopping dead when you stick anything in an optical drive, does Vista still do that?
I don't have this problem. Could be a driver issue with your machine?
There was an Ask Slashdot a while back about why Windows doesn't have a faster boot time. I don't remember what the final consensus was, but how come this OS is able to boot so quickly? Why can't Windows do this?
The biggest problem with Windows boot times is that Windows just does too much stuff. Windows XP, on a first full boot with no additional software, uses somewhere in the region of 90MB of RAM just do so standard system stuff. All those programs have to be loaded and initialised before you can log in.
At a guess, this system does less stuff by default, and is therefore faster to start. Simple, really.
Not that a brand new platform isn't cool but work desktop?
He's a writer. As a writer, I'd happily switch back to DOS and WordPerfect 5.1, if it wasn't for the other applications I need to run for other things. Writers have very basic requirements. The most important thing is that the computer doesn't get in the way of the work. Anything that distracts you from the words can cost a lot of time.
The sea is in my blood these days, so it is, so it is
You'll need medical attention for that, particularly if it be north cornwall sea, so you will.
Intuition doesn't have anything to do with it. SHA-512 has not been cracked and so it meets the definition of a "secure" hash function.
I have a hashing algorithm that meets that definition of a secure hash. Of course, if I released the details of it would probably no longer be secure in approximatley five minutes, but it's secure now.
Do you suggest I use it for my strong authentication requirements, or should I perhaps use something a little more established?
A fairly stupid comment that dodges the question of the climate effect of increased relative humidity.
It doesn't "dodge the question". It points out that the question is meaningless because there won't be increased relative humidity. Note that the first step of the process isn't to combine hydrogen and oxygen to make water, but rather to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. The effect, therefore, will be decreased relative humidity.
Lets call the whole thing off?
In any case, it's closer to plain English to call them labels. That's what you're doing. If I'm in GMail and I want to indicate that an email is work related it is closer to plain English to say that I labelled it work than to say that I tagged it work.
Also, standard desktop e-mail clients have had the facility for a while (longer than there has been such a concept as "web 2.0" for certain) and generally use the name "label" for that, too. Mozilla Thunderbird certainly does. So it would have been incompatible with existing, established terminology in the mail client field to use the name "tag", which has is also existing terminology that has generally been interpreted in mail clients as "select this message as part of a group so I can perform some operation on all of them" since some time in the late eighties.
Sorry, original poster, but google were just following existing and long-established naming conventions that were in use by large numbers of existing applications in the same field.
No. But I can, by simply taking the most common bit in each case, reconstruct:
o o . o o o
This is far enough away from any watermarked copies that you have no hope of distinguishing it.
Under this scheme if the thief breaks your car window and steals your iPod (and shares your music files), you are a criminal. Big difference.
Except you aren't, and **AA know you aren't. You just say to them, "Yes, that media file was on my iPod which was stolen three weeks ago. Here's the police reference number for the incident." They'll likely realise at that point that a claim against you is unlikely to succeed, and go away. If they don't, you will (a) probably be able to find a lawyer who will represent you free, because you are a victim of harrassment, and (b) you might even be able to make a claim of vexatious litigation stick against the **AA, which I believe even in an unenlightened legal system like the US one means you'd be able to claim your costs from them.
But if you happen to be the victim of "theft" a lot of times, then they could reasonably start asking questions.
Like "who's installed a rootkit on your computer?"
here's the thing, though - *why* would you do this?
*I* personally wouldn't. But I know people who would, and they fall into two categories:
1. People who aren't security conscious with their computer. The number of times I've been asked to "fix" somebody's computer because it's working slowly, and found some malware on there that had set up an FTP server or something to share their disks is scary. For these people, to avoid accusations of piracy that are bound to happen when somebody steals their media and uploads torrents of it, I'd recommend they neutralise any watermark as soon as the media hits their system.
2. People who intentionally share. Yes, what these people are doing is illegal. But it's naive to think they aren't just as smart as we are when it comes to finding workarounds for this kind of thing, and are just as motivated to crack this as we all were to crack CSS.
The watermark is destroyed the moment you re-encode the file into a different format format.
Not reliably. You can probably run a few originals through the same encoder with the same settings and spot noticeable differences. In this fashion you *may* be able to determine at least some of the bits from the watermark. If it features enough ECC bits, you should be able to reconstruct a unique segment.
You can't honestly say that simple entertainment is a luxury and, since we don't have a lifestyle that allow us to gather every evening around the fire to sing and play, listening to music and watching a movie is a real need for us
Have you ever heard of a book? They're cheap, and many of them are public domain.
If you know enough about what money you can include in which figures in the return to use tax software, you can go a step further, get the notes on how to fill in the return, and work it all out in a spreadsheet.
(Disclaimer: I've only ever done UK tax returns this way, but the principle's the same...)
I have a 100 year old home that had no insulation in the walls and had cellulose blown in to the wall cavities by the contractor drilling through the mortar in between the bricks and then patching up the holes later
Hah. I should be so lucky. I have an 80 year-old home, and when I called them out they said they couldn't do it because I don't have a cavity. You insensitive clod.
If you bring the insulation in the walls to about R50 (fibergalss is fine) and the ceiling to about R70 then you can get rid of the furnace.
What units are you using here? It sure as hell ain't W / m^2 K (or m^2 K / W, which probably has the same dimension as the figure you're quoting, as you have the ceiling at a higher value than the walls), which is the only unit I'm familiar with for such measurements.