This is getting absurd. Use Vista or don't. Upgrade now or wait for SP1. I don't particularly care.
I don't want to hear about how Vista is going to eat my children or destroy the Internet. I don't care whether some study indicates that it's "slower" than XP. I don't care that [H]ardOCP made a big deal out of the fact that Direct3D apps run 2-5% slower.
Vista is the OS that I use on my desktop and notebook. It's an OS that I have been using (in beta form) for over three years now. It doesn't stop me from playing XVID movies, my ripped MP3s, or my various-region DVDs. All of my software, with one exception (PDFCreator) runs just fine. It doesn't use up huge amounts of CPU time or gobble down my memory (I do have 1GB in my desktop, but I bet that most of you do as well).
You don't like it? Don't use it. There are legitimate beefs that you can have with Vista. But, please, don't post an article for every blowhard blogger who wants to spread some FUD about Vista.
I don't care. I have never blocked a specific topic on Slashdot before, but this is just getting old. If you feel like posting some real news about Windows, maybe I'll read it.
This is not new. I'm surprised that this is just hitting the wire, because T-Mobile has been blocking internet access from their $5.99 "T-MobileWeb" (WAP/Proxied HTTP) plan for some time now - at least a year in my area. This is being rolled out nationally, and it's still not the case everywhere.
If you want full internet, you need to pay for the $29.99 "T-Mobile Total Internet" plan. Compared to the "Handset Only" plans of other carriers, it's a bit more expensive (e.g. $10 more than Cingular), but it's still cheaper than Verizon's PDA plan ($40) or any of the PC plans ($60).
Unlike Cingular/Sprint/Verizon, T-Mobile is smart enough to realize that you can't prevent users from using their service with a PC. Verizon locks their phones down so you can't, as does Cingular, which is why they can offer a low-bandwidth, low-cost service. T-Mobile has far too many phones out there that can teather (most officially), so their only other option for offering a "low-bandwidth" service is to block outgoing connections.
If T-MobileWeb didn't block ports, than everyone who wanted internet access with their PC would get the $5.99 service rather than the $29.99 service. Good for the users, bad for T-Mobile. This deal lasted for a long time, but it's not the case anymore.
You cannot, however, condemn T-Mobile for false advertising. T-MobileWeb/T-Zones has always been advertised as a "WAP only" service. They are providing what you paid for, and, if you don't like the restrictions, you are free to remove the service at any time. I wish that the $20 data plan were still around, but it isn't. The new plan actually saves me $10 a month (HotSpots/EDGE previously was $40), but if you don't want HotSpots, it's a pretty hefty price increase. You are welcome to try Sprint's service (do know that Sprint can charge you $.01/KB for "PC Usage), Cingular's, or Verizon's, but for an official, PC supported service, T-Mobile's is the cheapest.
More likely, these groups won't need an ICBM. All they would need to do is make a phone call to someone in the US and tell them how they are going to smuggle the bomb in, what their orders are and how to carry them out. (You know, since we can't listen in on the phone call and all)
You know, this is such a shit argument. Wiretaps are, and have always been, legal in the US. The government can even wiretap for a limited period in a time-sensitive situation, before a warrant has been granted.
Circumventing the law and the system that was in place has nothing to do with national security. If the President believes that the law is too restrictive, he can appeal to Congress to amend it. That is his ONLY recourse - the President does not get to decide which laws he obeys.
The FISA was passed to protect us from government corruption. You can argue about whether it is too restrictive, but claiming that we "can't listen in on the phone call" is dishonest.
You wouldn't be so sure if Hillary were using a bogus legal argument to disregard the law. Strengthening presidential power only seems like a good idea when you like the person in charge. The ability of a single individual - or small group of individuals - to determine who should and should not be spied upon, in secret and without oversight - is a dangerous thing.
And, yes, the Democrats are absolutely guilty for doing this as well.
I know how it feels to wait a long time for TV shows. And I suspect many Americans do too.
Scifi channel delayed finishing up Stargate Atlantis' Season 3 and Stargate SG-1's last season until April. But Canadians and UK (Sky One) have been watching it since December and January. So many Americans have to wait 4 to 5 months just to watch their favorite show.
Not if you download the torrents! Hmmm.... wait 6 months to see the show on crappy analog cable (the only thing that is available in the dorms), or see it now in HD. Big choice there.
My speculation would be that no-one wants to sit and read a 6,000 page specification. 700 pages is far more palletable.
You don't need to. The only people who read entire specifications are their authors and the standards bodies. As a designer, you only care about the parts of the specification that you are responsible for implementing.
ODF is unfortunately rather incomplete in some areas. There are no specifications for which spreadsheet formulas have to be implemented, or how they are implemented. Tables aren't allowed in presentations. There is no scripting language. Nor is there any mathematical layout description (ODF relies on MathML, which is another 665 page specification).
Once you add the missing functionality and specification dependencies in, ODF starts to look a lot more like OOXML.
Quicksilver, or even Spotlight, on a Mac is easier - hit the key (or mouse button) to open it, start typing application name, within 3 or 4 letters, you got it, hit return. On my laptop, I never even move my hands off the keys.
You can do EXACTLY THAT in Vista. And anyone who has used it for five minutes should know that.
But, hey, apparently you don't actually need to USE Vista to crap all over it.
Even if you had some special quantum device to allow people to watch something once, only to have its quantum state collapse (or whatever), you could still record the output. With a camcorder, if it came to that.
That's why you use one-time-pad. Send the key first, then, after you know it has been recieived, send the data. If someone snoops, then you know about it, and you don't use the key.
It's not that Windows asks you once for "sudo" permission to change a setting, it's that it asks you 10 times when you do things like change your IP address.
Comments like this indicate that you've never used Vista. UAC prompts once to change your IP. Once. I just did it.
UAC is enabled on both of my Vista boxes. It will remain enabled. There are two cases where UAC is annoying:
- Installers - When using non-service applications that always need to elevate, particularly those that run at startup
The first case is a problem that exists on - among other oeprating systems - Linux (you almost always need to be root to install packages). It's not going away on Windows, as long as installing a program affects every user. Perhaps user-specific installs will help, but I don't see it happening.
The second problem is getting better every day. VMWare, for example, used to require elevation. It doesn't anymore. Antivirus programs don't require elevation anymore. Utility applications like SpeedFan don't require elevation anymore.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again - UAC isn't for users. It's for software designers. Annoying elevation prompts that pop up EVERY time you run the softwre are a sure fire way to ensure that users demand that software runs without them. ISVs are getting the message. In 5 years, Windows software that requires elevation - except, perhaps, for very specific functions - will be a rarity.
Vista is about getting rid of 15 years of bad design in Windows. It's compatible, but just compatible enough. Vista is a transitional product.
Chip + Pin does nothing to dissuade online fruad, unless you are going to require everyone to have a smartcard reader attached to their PC.
While credit card fruad at real (physical) merchants does happen, it's relatively small compared to what happens online. There are just too many cameras and too many opportunites to be caught or arrested.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't move to smartcards - just that they need to be supported for online transactions before they will be able to make a real dent in fraud.
It is all of that other crap like DRM running in the background that is causing everything to slow down.
Comments like this indicate that you have no idea how the DRM system in Vista works.
All I know is beyond whatever the benchmarks show Explorer is even slower in Vista than it was before. Go out on the network and wait in agony while the little green bar at the top of Explorer chugs along taking forever to finally display files.
That's because the thumbnailing system is downloading copies of the files you are viewing.
That's not true. Not only are drivers built into Vista for Intel audio (AC97 and HD), but most third party codecs are supported too (Realtek, NVIDIA, VIA, etc.)
Certain AC97 codecs may not be supported, but it's misleading to say that Vista doesn't come with AC97 drivers - for the vast majority of users, it does.
You can't get 10 MBps or 100 Mbps Internet links in the San Fernando Valler or the Washington-New York City area. At least, not without paying close to $1000 a month.
Apparently, you've never heard of Verizon FIOS. Or Cablevision. Or Time Warner Cable.
Comcast may offer low bandwidth for high prices, but not everyone else does.
Note, though, that the Comcast 6MBps connection I use regularly is almost as fast as the 100MBps connection at my university (excluding Akamai sites - we have a local mirror). It's a matter of how much the bandwidth is oversubscribed and what kind of connection whoever you are connecting to has.
We see one of these articles like every six fucking months. This is probably the 9th or 10th article I've seem about this on Slashdot. There are a mixture of reasons why this is the case (sparse population, little government intervention to lower the costs of broadband, cheap dial-up and landline phone service), but, in the long term, it just doesn't matter that much.
Population density doesn't tell the whole story. Look at a population density map - most of Canada's population lives less than 50 miles from the US-Canadian border.
namely the requirement to have admin privileges to backup your own files
Note that this is because the backup application uses the shadow copy service to take a snapshot of the system (so you can back up files that are currently locked / being written to), but, I agree that it shouldn't require admin privileges.
Also note that you can download the old backup program for Vista Business / Ultimate, IIRC.
How about just analog RGB and quit pretending we need digital connections at all?
How about we stop pretending that analog RGB looks good? Ever try screwing with the contrast setting on an LCD? That's analog technology at work.
DVI lets me see the image outputted by my graphics card - pixel and value precise. Neither my monitor nor my graphics card supports HDCP, so DRM isn't a problem.
As a public service, let me remind you that high-bandwidth analog signals are problematic. It doesn't take much for noise, crosstalk, or other issues to show up on an analog monitor at high resolutions.
Try connecting your monitor to your desktop with a 20 foot DVI cable - then try doing the same thing with an analog RGB cable.
Try using a crappy KVM. Most screw up resolutions greater than 1600x1200.
Analog is the reason my cable signal looks like shit. It's the reason why broadcast TV looks crappy. It's the reason why AMPS cellphones have static.
So, hell, why shouldn't we take a nice clean digital signal, run it throguh a DAC, throw it through a cable, and try to reconstruct it into a digital signal with an ADC at the other end. Extra components, extra complexity, and more chances for interference. What a great idea.
You ARE prompted when doing something that will affect other users of the system
You mean like modifying files that you don't have ownership of?
UAC does not, and has never, prompted users when they move files that they have permissions to. It does, however, prompt when you move files that are in the common desktop or in the common start menu folders.
Of course, linux and OSX have fine-grained mechanisms to grant/revoke permissions for any file, folder, or program.
Clearly, you don't understand anything about how Windows works. Windows has had access control lists practically everywhere in the OS since Windows NT.
Oh, and the ACLs in Windows are far, far more "fine-grained" than the usable-but-primitive permission bits in Linux.
Everyone who complains that UAC is annoying doesn't understand that the purpose of UAC is to be annoying. UAC makes elevation a pain, in the hope that software creators will write software which doesn't need to elevate!
VMWare 6, for example, constantly elevates on Vista. What do you want to bet that VMWare 7 won't?
Well behaved programs elevate only when and where they have to. Even if 50% of Vista users turn UAC off, that's still 50% of your client base who is being constantly bombarded by elevation dialogs. The solution? Write your software so it doesn't need to elevate.
As for the article - installers pretty much have to elevate. This is true on Windows and with Linux packages (when was the last time you ran apt-get without using sudo or running as root?). Some have pointed out that you can install most packages in Linux to be specific to your user account, using special flags. This, of course, is possible in Vista as well, if MSI packages are used.
Note that I do agree that it's a problem that you can't override UAC detection. There needs to be a "don't run as administrator" option.
Hmmm, abject failure to deliver on Longhorn and the fact that two years in they had to dump it because it wasn't going to work
Who the hell, other than Microsoft, cares that Vista is late? No one. The Vista development "reboot" was the best choice that Microsoft ever made - I used many, many pre-reboot Longhorn builds, and, let me tell you, they weren't pretty.
and do a simple retread of Windows 2003 with a bit of flashy OS X ripped off graphics is how I remember it
This is just blatantly wrong for so many reasons. You may not find value in the new features in Vista, but the list is neither short nor insubstantial. Apple adds search, widgets, some API improvements, and ships Tiger, which is welcomed as a big upgrade. Microsoft adds search, gadgets, multiple new APIs, major kernel changes, entirely new driver systems (audio, USB, video), tons of new security features (UAC, Defender, etc.), a whole new installation system, speech recognition, and hundreds of other features, and suddenly it's a "retread of Windows 2003".
Anyone who says Vista is just a rehash of XP obviously hasn't actually used it for more than 10 minutes. I direct them to glance at the Wikipedia article. You can claim that you don't care about UAC, Transactional NTFS, WPF, XPS, WDDM, CardSpace, SideShow, ReadyDrive/ReadyBoost, the new networking stack, or new color managment, but you can't claim that they aren't major new features that will have a lot of impact for some people.
Since Vista launched on the 30th, we've sold all of two copies
Really? You mean that you checked the inventory levels in the computer, and noticed you only sold two copies? Or, do you mean, "I only noticed two copies being sold". Because, if your store is as big as you claim, you probably don't have access to detailed sales records (unless "work in" means "manage"), and you're certainly not going to be there to see all of the potential sales.
No one expected Vista to fly off the shelves. Most people don't buy new copies of Windows on their own - they get them with a new PC. The only version of Windows that sold upgrades in substantial numbers was Windows 95, and there is no product that Microsoft could put out that would match the upgrade from Windows 3.11 to Windows 95.
As far as launches go, this one has been pretty pathetic.
Really? Because, your rant notwithstanding, the numbers tell otherwise.
PC sales for the week of Vista's release are up 173% compared to the week previous, and up 67% versus the same week in 2006.
A lot of the people that are coming in to look at new PC's or Laptops are deliberately avoiding the ones pre-loaded with vista because of all the horror stories they've heard
A lot of this is because of the massive FUD campaign against Vista that seems to be prevelent in the media. It is too early for most users to upgrade, but Vista isn't going to destroy the internet or eat your children. It's a solid, stable OS.
Hasn't anyone noticed that people said the EXACT SAME THINGS about Windows XP? Antivirus and CD burning programs were incompatible. Hardware support was sketchy. Games didn't run as fast. Everyone was going to stick with Windows 98, because it was "good enough".
There were complaints about how much XP Pro cost ($299/$199 upgrade). Five years later, and the "business" version of Vista is still $299/$199 - effectively, it's actually cheaper than XP professional was at launch. And you can still buy Vista as an OEM product, just like XP. Media Center Edition was ~$110 OEM, Vista Home Premium is ~$115. XP Home was ~$90 OEM, so is Vista Home Basic, which - unlike XP Home - doesn't have crippled filesharing or user options.
The Home premium upgrade refuses to install over an XP pro installation
Yes, just like XP Home refuses to upgrade over Windows 2000. This is neither new nor unexpected, although, unlike with XP, there is a workaround with Vista.
and of the two copies of Vista that we've sold, one has come back as unusable
Apparently, my previous assertion that you don't work at a large store is true - none of the major stores allow customers to return opened software.
and the other user is considering returning it as he can't even get on the net with it
At this point, I think you are just making shit up. Because, of course, at a major computer retailer, you not only know everybody who purchased and returned a specific product, you know the customers who have purchased and thought about returning the product, too! Apparently, your "farily large" store also provides free after-sale support! That sounds like the hallmark of a small business, not something like a Best Buy.
Crap on Vista all you want. You have a choice - buy a Mac or use Linux. Many people will probably do just that. But Vista supports my hardware just fine - ALL of it, and, with two exceptions (UltraVNC and PDFCreator), it supports all of my software too. It's running on my notebook and my desktop right now - I'm typing this comment in Vista. It's Windows, people, with everything that being Windows entails. If you liked XP, you'll probably like Vista. If you hate Windows, buy a Mac or use Linux - Vista isn't going to change anything.
First, on the donut front: my wife and I eat a vegan donut that a small company came up with. It's about as good as a crispy creme, which is as good as a donut needs to be, and has no refined sugars and no fat.
First, it's "Krispy Kreme", and, second of all, it's extordinarily difficult to make any kind of baked good taste good without at least some fat.
The vegan donut you eat may have no trans-fats and no saturated fat (particularly since it won't contain any kind of animal fat), but I'll bet that there is at least some veggie oil in there, particularly since they aren't going to contain eggs or milk.
it's absolutely conceivable to develop a technology that can achieve the stated goal without negative impact on the environment
WRONG.
Everything we do has environmental impact. Solar panels generate waste that must be disposed of. Wind turbines kill birds, take up lots of space, and require materials that must be mined or pumped out of the ground. Nuclear power produces nuclear waste and requries materials that must be mined. Trees need to be transported and planted - which requires energy, which causes a negative environmental inpact.
For instance: what if you could solve the problem with no difficulty whatsoever, provided every homeowner in America was willing to put a metal box on their roof?
Where are you going to get the metal for the box? Magic pixie dust? Or is it going to be dug out of the ground?
Is it recycled? Well, then you need energy to run the recycling process. If it's a metal like aluminum or iron, there is a net energy savings versus making the material new, but it's still not a zero impact process.
The devices were not large enough to cause significant structural damage and neither contained the shrapnel nor were placed correctly to be antipersonnel weapons.
Anything could be a bomb, but the question is, what would be effective as a bomb. It's far easier to make an effective bomb out of a trash can or a parked vehicle - we have, in fact, seen both in this country in multiple high-profile incidents. The ATHF signs had neither the size nor correct placement to be particularly effective.
The function of a booby trap is to tempt the greedy and the careless into doing something supremely stupid.
Why the hell would you place a booby trap 10 feet off the ground, where no one can touch it? It makes sense for the police to excersize caution when they investigate it, just as they would with an unattended bag in an airport or a suspicious package in the street. But caution doesn't mean paranoia.
But madness he cannot understand or accept on its own terms.
This, of course, has nothing to do with anything. We would be happy to have "mad" terrorists - no, it is the calculating, methodical terrorists that pose a real threat. A madman will run into a restaurant with a bomb and kill a few people. Someone who spends years planning an attack can kill thousands.
For those of you who live with this "Post 9/11" mentality, consider this: about 6800 people die in the US, every day, from a variety of causes. It's just a matter of when and from what. So, the question is, how do terrorist attacks rank against other causes of death in the US? They aren't even a blip on the radar.
Heart disease kills about as many people every two days as the attacks of 9/11 did. So where's the "war on heart disease"? Why aren't we banning fatty foods? After all, we have to be safe!
Motor vehicle accidents kill about as many people every two weeks as the attacks of 9/11 did. We're willing to spend billions on defense against terrorist attacks, yet we can't seem to require (what should be) basic safety equipment like side airbags and stability control. If an $8000 Kia (in fact, every new Kia) can have side airbags, why can't they be standard on every vehicle?
Terrorists want us to fear their attacks. But, when you look at it in context, terrorists just don't kill very many people. Being prepared makes sense - suspicious packages should be investigated, bomb threats should be taken seriously, and, yes, we should probably secure our borders. But being prepared doens't mean being afraid. Most homeowners have fire insurance, but they don't worry every minute about a fire burning down their house.
Of course, you're far more likely to die in a fire than you are to be killed by a terrorist attack. But that's not the impression you would get by listening to the news.
Slashdot Mirror
This is getting absurd. Use Vista or don't. Upgrade now or wait for SP1. I don't particularly care.
I don't want to hear about how Vista is going to eat my children or destroy the Internet. I don't care whether some study indicates that it's "slower" than XP. I don't care that [H]ardOCP made a big deal out of the fact that Direct3D apps run 2-5% slower.
Vista is the OS that I use on my desktop and notebook. It's an OS that I have been using (in beta form) for over three years now. It doesn't stop me from playing XVID movies, my ripped MP3s, or my various-region DVDs. All of my software, with one exception (PDFCreator) runs just fine. It doesn't use up huge amounts of CPU time or gobble down my memory (I do have 1GB in my desktop, but I bet that most of you do as well).
You don't like it? Don't use it. There are legitimate beefs that you can have with Vista. But, please, don't post an article for every blowhard blogger who wants to spread some FUD about Vista.
I don't care. I have never blocked a specific topic on Slashdot before, but this is just getting old. If you feel like posting some real news about Windows, maybe I'll read it.
This is not new. I'm surprised that this is just hitting the wire, because T-Mobile has been blocking internet access from their $5.99 "T-MobileWeb" (WAP/Proxied HTTP) plan for some time now - at least a year in my area. This is being rolled out nationally, and it's still not the case everywhere.
If you want full internet, you need to pay for the $29.99 "T-Mobile Total Internet" plan. Compared to the "Handset Only" plans of other carriers, it's a bit more expensive (e.g. $10 more than Cingular), but it's still cheaper than Verizon's PDA plan ($40) or any of the PC plans ($60).
Unlike Cingular/Sprint/Verizon, T-Mobile is smart enough to realize that you can't prevent users from using their service with a PC. Verizon locks their phones down so you can't, as does Cingular, which is why they can offer a low-bandwidth, low-cost service. T-Mobile has far too many phones out there that can teather (most officially), so their only other option for offering a "low-bandwidth" service is to block outgoing connections.
If T-MobileWeb didn't block ports, than everyone who wanted internet access with their PC would get the $5.99 service rather than the $29.99 service. Good for the users, bad for T-Mobile. This deal lasted for a long time, but it's not the case anymore.
You cannot, however, condemn T-Mobile for false advertising. T-MobileWeb/T-Zones has always been advertised as a "WAP only" service. They are providing what you paid for, and, if you don't like the restrictions, you are free to remove the service at any time. I wish that the $20 data plan were still around, but it isn't. The new plan actually saves me $10 a month (HotSpots/EDGE previously was $40), but if you don't want HotSpots, it's a pretty hefty price increase. You are welcome to try Sprint's service (do know that Sprint can charge you $.01/KB for "PC Usage), Cingular's, or Verizon's, but for an official, PC supported service, T-Mobile's is the cheapest.
You know, this is such a shit argument. Wiretaps are, and have always been, legal in the US. The government can even wiretap for a limited period in a time-sensitive situation, before a warrant has been granted.
Circumventing the law and the system that was in place has nothing to do with national security. If the President believes that the law is too restrictive, he can appeal to Congress to amend it. That is his ONLY recourse - the President does not get to decide which laws he obeys.
The FISA was passed to protect us from government corruption. You can argue about whether it is too restrictive, but claiming that we "can't listen in on the phone call" is dishonest.
You wouldn't be so sure if Hillary were using a bogus legal argument to disregard the law. Strengthening presidential power only seems like a good idea when you like the person in charge. The ability of a single individual - or small group of individuals - to determine who should and should not be spied upon, in secret and without oversight - is a dangerous thing.
And, yes, the Democrats are absolutely guilty for doing this as well.
Not if you download the torrents! Hmmm.... wait 6 months to see the show on crappy analog cable (the only thing that is available in the dorms), or see it now in HD. Big choice there.
You don't need to. The only people who read entire specifications are their authors and the standards bodies. As a designer, you only care about the parts of the specification that you are responsible for implementing.
ODF is unfortunately rather incomplete in some areas. There are no specifications for which spreadsheet formulas have to be implemented, or how they are implemented. Tables aren't allowed in presentations. There is no scripting language. Nor is there any mathematical layout description (ODF relies on MathML, which is another 665 page specification).
Once you add the missing functionality and specification dependencies in, ODF starts to look a lot more like OOXML.
You can do EXACTLY THAT in Vista. And anyone who has used it for five minutes should know that.
But, hey, apparently you don't actually need to USE Vista to crap all over it.
That's why you use one-time-pad. Send the key first, then, after you know it has been recieived, send the data. If someone snoops, then you know about it, and you don't use the key.
Comments like this indicate that you've never used Vista. UAC prompts once to change your IP. Once. I just did it.
UAC is enabled on both of my Vista boxes. It will remain enabled. There are two cases where UAC is annoying:
- Installers
- When using non-service applications that always need to elevate, particularly those that run at startup
The first case is a problem that exists on - among other oeprating systems - Linux (you almost always need to be root to install packages). It's not going away on Windows, as long as installing a program affects every user. Perhaps user-specific installs will help, but I don't see it happening.
The second problem is getting better every day. VMWare, for example, used to require elevation. It doesn't anymore. Antivirus programs don't require elevation anymore. Utility applications like SpeedFan don't require elevation anymore.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again - UAC isn't for users. It's for software designers. Annoying elevation prompts that pop up EVERY time you run the softwre are a sure fire way to ensure that users demand that software runs without them. ISVs are getting the message. In 5 years, Windows software that requires elevation - except, perhaps, for very specific functions - will be a rarity.
Vista is about getting rid of 15 years of bad design in Windows. It's compatible, but just compatible enough. Vista is a transitional product.
Chip + Pin does nothing to dissuade online fruad, unless you are going to require everyone to have a smartcard reader attached to their PC.
While credit card fruad at real (physical) merchants does happen, it's relatively small compared to what happens online. There are just too many cameras and too many opportunites to be caught or arrested.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't move to smartcards - just that they need to be supported for online transactions before they will be able to make a real dent in fraud.
Comments like this indicate that you have no idea how the DRM system in Vista works.
That's because the thumbnailing system is downloading copies of the files you are viewing.
That's not true. Not only are drivers built into Vista for Intel audio (AC97 and HD), but most third party codecs are supported too (Realtek, NVIDIA, VIA, etc.)
Certain AC97 codecs may not be supported, but it's misleading to say that Vista doesn't come with AC97 drivers - for the vast majority of users, it does.
I'll grant that C2D is faster than Opteron, but Opteron is hardly "obsolete".
Also, Woodcrest isn't obsolete at all - it's the server version of Core 2 Duo (Conroe).
Apparently, you've never heard of Verizon FIOS. Or Cablevision. Or Time Warner Cable.
Comcast may offer low bandwidth for high prices, but not everyone else does.
Note, though, that the Comcast 6MBps connection I use regularly is almost as fast as the 100MBps connection at my university (excluding Akamai sites - we have a local mirror). It's a matter of how much the bandwidth is oversubscribed and what kind of connection whoever you are connecting to has.
We see one of these articles like every six fucking months. This is probably the 9th or 10th article I've seem about this on Slashdot. There are a mixture of reasons why this is the case (sparse population, little government intervention to lower the costs of broadband, cheap dial-up and landline phone service), but, in the long term, it just doesn't matter that much.
Population density doesn't tell the whole story. Look at a population density map - most of Canada's population lives less than 50 miles from the US-Canadian border.
Note that this is because the backup application uses the shadow copy service to take a snapshot of the system (so you can back up files that are currently locked / being written to), but, I agree that it shouldn't require admin privileges.
Also note that you can download the old backup program for Vista Business / Ultimate, IIRC.
How about we stop pretending that analog RGB looks good? Ever try screwing with the contrast setting on an LCD? That's analog technology at work.
DVI lets me see the image outputted by my graphics card - pixel and value precise. Neither my monitor nor my graphics card supports HDCP, so DRM isn't a problem.
As a public service, let me remind you that high-bandwidth analog signals are problematic. It doesn't take much for noise, crosstalk, or other issues to show up on an analog monitor at high resolutions.
Try connecting your monitor to your desktop with a 20 foot DVI cable - then try doing the same thing with an analog RGB cable.
Try using a crappy KVM. Most screw up resolutions greater than 1600x1200.
Analog is the reason my cable signal looks like shit. It's the reason why broadcast TV looks crappy. It's the reason why AMPS cellphones have static.
So, hell, why shouldn't we take a nice clean digital signal, run it throguh a DAC, throw it through a cable, and try to reconstruct it into a digital signal with an ADC at the other end. Extra components, extra complexity, and more chances for interference. What a great idea.
You mean like modifying files that you don't have ownership of?
UAC does not, and has never, prompted users when they move files that they have permissions to. It does, however, prompt when you move files that are in the common desktop or in the common start menu folders.
Clearly, you don't understand anything about how Windows works. Windows has had access control lists practically everywhere in the OS since Windows NT.
Oh, and the ACLs in Windows are far, far more "fine-grained" than the usable-but-primitive permission bits in Linux.
Everyone who complains that UAC is annoying doesn't understand that the purpose of UAC is to be annoying. UAC makes elevation a pain, in the hope that software creators will write software which doesn't need to elevate!
VMWare 6, for example, constantly elevates on Vista. What do you want to bet that VMWare 7 won't?
Well behaved programs elevate only when and where they have to. Even if 50% of Vista users turn UAC off, that's still 50% of your client base who is being constantly bombarded by elevation dialogs. The solution? Write your software so it doesn't need to elevate.
As for the article - installers pretty much have to elevate. This is true on Windows and with Linux packages (when was the last time you ran apt-get without using sudo or running as root?). Some have pointed out that you can install most packages in Linux to be specific to your user account, using special flags. This, of course, is possible in Vista as well, if MSI packages are used.
Note that I do agree that it's a problem that you can't override UAC detection. There needs to be a "don't run as administrator" option.
It may not be "impressive", but it's hardly indicitive of Vista "not selling".
Who the hell, other than Microsoft, cares that Vista is late? No one. The Vista development "reboot" was the best choice that Microsoft ever made - I used many, many pre-reboot Longhorn builds, and, let me tell you, they weren't pretty.
This is just blatantly wrong for so many reasons. You may not find value in the new features in Vista, but the list is neither short nor insubstantial. Apple adds search, widgets, some API improvements, and ships Tiger, which is welcomed as a big upgrade. Microsoft adds search, gadgets, multiple new APIs, major kernel changes, entirely new driver systems (audio, USB, video), tons of new security features (UAC, Defender, etc.), a whole new installation system, speech recognition, and hundreds of other features, and suddenly it's a "retread of Windows 2003".
Anyone who says Vista is just a rehash of XP obviously hasn't actually used it for more than 10 minutes. I direct them to glance at the Wikipedia article. You can claim that you don't care about UAC, Transactional NTFS, WPF, XPS, WDDM, CardSpace, SideShow, ReadyDrive/ReadyBoost, the new networking stack, or new color managment, but you can't claim that they aren't major new features that will have a lot of impact for some people.
Really? You mean that you checked the inventory levels in the computer, and noticed you only sold two copies? Or, do you mean, "I only noticed two copies being sold". Because, if your store is as big as you claim, you probably don't have access to detailed sales records (unless "work in" means "manage"), and you're certainly not going to be there to see all of the potential sales.
No one expected Vista to fly off the shelves. Most people don't buy new copies of Windows on their own - they get them with a new PC. The only version of Windows that sold upgrades in substantial numbers was Windows 95, and there is no product that Microsoft could put out that would match the upgrade from Windows 3.11 to Windows 95.
Really? Because, your rant notwithstanding, the numbers tell otherwise.
PC sales for the week of Vista's release are up 173% compared to the week previous, and up 67% versus the same week in 2006.
A lot of this is because of the massive FUD campaign against Vista that seems to be prevelent in the media. It is too early for most users to upgrade, but Vista isn't going to destroy the internet or eat your children. It's a solid, stable OS.
Hasn't anyone noticed that people said the EXACT SAME THINGS about Windows XP? Antivirus and CD burning programs were incompatible. Hardware support was sketchy. Games didn't run as fast. Everyone was going to stick with Windows 98, because it was "good enough".
There were complaints about how much XP Pro cost ($299/$199 upgrade). Five years later, and the "business" version of Vista is still $299/$199 - effectively, it's actually cheaper than XP professional was at launch. And you can still buy Vista as an OEM product, just like XP. Media Center Edition was ~$110 OEM, Vista Home Premium is ~$115. XP Home was ~$90 OEM, so is Vista Home Basic, which - unlike XP Home - doesn't have crippled filesharing or user options.
Yes, just like XP Home refuses to upgrade over Windows 2000. This is neither new nor unexpected, although, unlike with XP, there is a workaround with Vista.
Apparently, my previous assertion that you don't work at a large store is true - none of the major stores allow customers to return opened software.
At this point, I think you are just making shit up. Because, of course, at a major computer retailer, you not only know everybody who purchased and returned a specific product, you know the customers who have purchased and thought about returning the product, too! Apparently, your "farily large" store also provides free after-sale support! That sounds like the hallmark of a small business, not something like a Best Buy.
Crap on Vista all you want. You have a choice - buy a Mac or use Linux. Many people will probably do just that. But Vista supports my hardware just fine - ALL of it, and, with two exceptions (UltraVNC and PDFCreator), it supports all of my software too. It's running on my notebook and my desktop right now - I'm typing this comment in Vista. It's Windows, people, with everything that being Windows entails. If you liked XP, you'll probably like Vista. If you hate Windows, buy a Mac or use Linux - Vista isn't going to change anything.
There's pretty much nothing we can do at this point that will prevent the Earth from returning to equillibrium in the long-term.
The problem is, we might not exist in that new equillibrium.
First, it's "Krispy Kreme", and, second of all, it's extordinarily difficult to make any kind of baked good taste good without at least some fat.
The vegan donut you eat may have no trans-fats and no saturated fat (particularly since it won't contain any kind of animal fat), but I'll bet that there is at least some veggie oil in there, particularly since they aren't going to contain eggs or milk.
WRONG.
Everything we do has environmental impact. Solar panels generate waste that must be disposed of. Wind turbines kill birds, take up lots of space, and require materials that must be mined or pumped out of the ground. Nuclear power produces nuclear waste and requries materials that must be mined. Trees need to be transported and planted - which requires energy, which causes a negative environmental inpact.
Where are you going to get the metal for the box? Magic pixie dust? Or is it going to be dug out of the ground?
Is it recycled? Well, then you need energy to run the recycling process. If it's a metal like aluminum or iron, there is a net energy savings versus making the material new, but it's still not a zero impact process.
The devices were not large enough to cause significant structural damage and neither contained the shrapnel nor were placed correctly to be antipersonnel weapons.
Anything could be a bomb, but the question is, what would be effective as a bomb. It's far easier to make an effective bomb out of a trash can or a parked vehicle - we have, in fact, seen both in this country in multiple high-profile incidents. The ATHF signs had neither the size nor correct placement to be particularly effective.
Why the hell would you place a booby trap 10 feet off the ground, where no one can touch it? It makes sense for the police to excersize caution when they investigate it, just as they would with an unattended bag in an airport or a suspicious package in the street. But caution doesn't mean paranoia.
This, of course, has nothing to do with anything. We would be happy to have "mad" terrorists - no, it is the calculating, methodical terrorists that pose a real threat. A madman will run into a restaurant with a bomb and kill a few people. Someone who spends years planning an attack can kill thousands.
For those of you who live with this "Post 9/11" mentality, consider this: about 6800 people die in the US, every day, from a variety of causes. It's just a matter of when and from what. So, the question is, how do terrorist attacks rank against other causes of death in the US? They aren't even a blip on the radar.
Heart disease kills about as many people every two days as the attacks of 9/11 did. So where's the "war on heart disease"? Why aren't we banning fatty foods? After all, we have to be safe!
Motor vehicle accidents kill about as many people every two weeks as the attacks of 9/11 did. We're willing to spend billions on defense against terrorist attacks, yet we can't seem to require (what should be) basic safety equipment like side airbags and stability control. If an $8000 Kia (in fact, every new Kia) can have side airbags, why can't they be standard on every vehicle?
Terrorists want us to fear their attacks. But, when you look at it in context, terrorists just don't kill very many people. Being prepared makes sense - suspicious packages should be investigated, bomb threats should be taken seriously, and, yes, we should probably secure our borders. But being prepared doens't mean being afraid. Most homeowners have fire insurance, but they don't worry every minute about a fire burning down their house.
Of course, you're far more likely to die in a fire than you are to be killed by a terrorist attack. But that's not the impression you would get by listening to the news.