Microsoft has a deal with Spyglass so that they could use their Mosaic browser software, but Microsoft needs to pay a royalty per sold item. So when they dropped the price to 0 there is no need to pay Spyglass anymore.
Ehm, and why would you need to run an ever restarting defrag program that doesn't play well with other programs resources and leaves gaps between consecutive files when there are better, simpler solutions?
(aka, when a file is accessed, try to partialy defrag it.)
With Open Source software I can usualy have a chat with the developer about the problem I'm experiencing, most of the time with positive results for both sides. Are there any plans for having something like that in the Windows consumer support infrastructure?
Why do we need 3rd party applications like Dirms* to keep NTFS defragmented? Of course there is no silver bullet, but some on-the-fly defragmentation wouldn't be that difficult to build into the OS. Mac OS X does this too already.
Or possibly a better question, why is there still no apt-get* alike MSI download backend where you could subscribe to repositories and have updates announced, etc.? Microsoft could do free hosting of small webinstall MSI packages, and ask a fee for full packages. The software producers who want something bigger, could host their own repository server. btw, I'm not talking about command line interface online.
Liability is the problem for Microsoft? It would be a free service, make sure to everybody that 'for free' here aren't any availability promises. On the other end, these would all be all static files, simple to serve in a distributed manner.
* Yes I know there are similar package managers, but apt-get is just well known.
What kind of system would you recommend to the "home administrators" -the Joe Sixpacks or Aunt Tillies of the world- and why? Please make sure to show you've looked at the other options. Or can actually administrating a personal computer be made easier or even unneeded?
Sadly, we live in a world where the OPERATING SYSTEM will soon require a 3D card to even function. (Windows Longhorn)
So what? Ofloading this stuff to a graphical processor is a Good Thing (TM); The CPU has less to do and interface responsiveness can improve.
The bottom line is, despite significant advances in hardware, the "User Experience" still feels as sluggish and slow as it did in the days of Windows 3.1 on a 386.
Yes, Windows feels really sluggish. If you don't have much tying yourself to Windows you should try a recent Linux distro for a while. I seriously mean it, responsiveness is much better under the 2.6 series kernel, and everything just feels more speedy.
We do millions of things each day to protect ourselves. Why should hopping on the 'Net and operating a computer be any different?
Because on other Operating Systems "hopping on the 'Net" can be done without much immediate harm. And it's not like that's because some magic voodoo incantation or something.
The people here are not screeming "Please make Windows more secure!" because they are lazy. They do because it's within reach for Microsoft to make it more secure.
Everyone KNOWS that gmail is ready for public launch, but having private invites gives it a cachet.
Btw, this is not all about marketing, it's also a bit about manageability. Say foobar@gmail.com turns into a spam address? Better check the one that send him an invite, and also those who he got into GMail. An invite is basicly saying "I think this person will use this service correctly".
Your emulator will not have a certified TPM key (those stay on the chip)
That is why CSS is still not broken for DVD, heh?
Seriously, pretty much any hardware can be emulated in software, albeit maybe at a slower speed. And when people want it bad enough they will find a way to ease finding valid keys, or either read data out of ICs or simply TCPA documents..
Another fun thing would be to pipe all the TCPA hardware requests over the network to some central machine. Tying software to a machine this way has never been more futile:)
Since the LS is addressed directly, and isn't mapped onto memory, there is no need for cache coherency protocols. A cache-coherent multi-processor system needs to communicate with it's peers to coordinate access to the cache.
Yes, I just installed Debian unstable on a P3-566 with 128MB RAM (Dell GX-100) and it worked remarkably well even under KDE. It will be used as a mediaplayer connected to a nice stereo.
Starting multiple apps was kind of slow, but that's more of an issue of the slow harddisk. Due to the 2.6 kernel, programs kept pretty responsive, thank you kernelhackers:)
I do hope they will like it, since it will be the first time with Linux for most people who will use it.
So then they abolish the cache. Caching: CPU > cache (1 or 2) > main memory > HD
and then implement another system that is *completely different* Non-Caching: APU > local memory > main memory Now first off, how is it different?
Let me take a vaguely educated guess.
Currently the cache managers in x86 CPUs "predict" what part of the memory space is needed. This prediction isn't always that good, and efforts to make programs hint to processor what to cache haven't worked good enough (or at least according to Cell CPU designers). So they force to program to operate in a 'small' memory space where data can be read in from a large RAM storage.
I don't know if it will actually help. To me it seems a bit like going back tot he 80268/80386 era with himem.drv under DOS so programs could acces higher memory regions by commanding the driver to swap in and out memory to the lower 640k.
But then, maybe Bill Gates -or whoever put up that quote in his name- was right, 640k RAM is enough for everyone (multiplied by the number of cores on dye..).
They only own this software for a month or so. Probably the only changes are a code review using Microsofts internal tools, a check if no weirdness happens with currently supported Microsoft software, and of course a banner change ("Giant" -> "Microsoft").
And there's the case that even if Microsoft plugs *all* the holes in all their software, people will still be stupid. There will be who execute funny screensavers their friends send them, no matter what. There will still be adware and spyware bundled with widely used programs.
So taking this step is a good one. You can't reach total imunity, but you can try to hit the point where it's no longer profitable to go the nasty route of spyware because some big fat company will be breathing in your neck in no time.
btw, I'm not a Microsoft apologist. I'm posting this from Linux, and have been running that for some time already, thank you.
..that they were invented much earlier and began to commercialise before the 80s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_circuit# Hi story (Yes, yes, never believe the Wikipedia article, so follow the links and do some other research.)
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft has a deal with Spyglass so that they could use their Mosaic browser software, but Microsoft needs to pay a royalty per sold item. So when they dropped the price to 0 there is no need to pay Spyglass anymore.
Martin,
Did you notice that several not very diffcult to implement improvements to Microsoft Windows were given by the Slashdot readers?
Ehm, and why would you need to run an ever restarting defrag program that doesn't play well with other programs resources and leaves gaps between consecutive files when there are better, simpler solutions?
(aka, when a file is accessed, try to partialy defrag it.)
With Open Source software I can usualy have a chat with the developer about the problem I'm experiencing, most of the time with positive results for both sides. Are there any plans for having something like that in the Windows consumer support infrastructure?
Why do we need 3rd party applications like Dirms* to keep NTFS defragmented? Of course there is no silver bullet, but some on-the-fly defragmentation wouldn't be that difficult to build into the OS. Mac OS X does this too already.
* Warning, ugly site, good program.
You know, it's already there, most of what you ask for. It's just that there aren't that much programs written for the Windows NT Native API.
l
http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/info/ntdll.shtm
s/online/only
Or possibly a better question, why is there still no apt-get* alike MSI download backend where you could subscribe to repositories and have updates announced, etc.? Microsoft could do free hosting of small webinstall MSI packages, and ask a fee for full packages. The software producers who want something bigger, could host their own repository server. btw, I'm not talking about command line interface online.
Liability is the problem for Microsoft? It would be a free service, make sure to everybody that 'for free' here aren't any availability promises. On the other end, these would all be all static files, simple to serve in a distributed manner.
* Yes I know there are similar package managers, but apt-get is just well known.
And Mr Taylor,
What kind of system would you recommend to the "home administrators" -the Joe Sixpacks or Aunt Tillies of the world- and why? Please make sure to show you've looked at the other options. Or can actually administrating a personal computer be made easier or even unneeded?
Thank you people, today I got my first "-1 Flamebait" moderation. For no special reason :-P
:-)
Please mod the TIPC reference further down to page too, it's as much off-topic and flamebait as my post. It's even a plug for his project.
Have a nice day
How does this compare to Jabber?
Sadly, we live in a world where the OPERATING SYSTEM will soon require a 3D card to even function. (Windows Longhorn)
So what? Ofloading this stuff to a graphical processor is a Good Thing (TM); The CPU has less to do and interface responsiveness can improve.
The bottom line is, despite significant advances in hardware, the "User Experience" still feels as sluggish and slow as it did in the days of Windows 3.1 on a 386.
Yes, Windows feels really sluggish. If you don't have much tying yourself to Windows you should try a recent Linux distro for a while. I seriously mean it, responsiveness is much better under the 2.6 series kernel, and everything just feels more speedy.
It made my jump Linux much easier.
We do millions of things each day to protect ourselves. Why should hopping on the 'Net and operating a computer be any different?
Because on other Operating Systems "hopping on the 'Net" can be done without much immediate harm. And it's not like that's because some magic voodoo incantation or something.
The people here are not screeming "Please make Windows more secure!" because they are lazy. They do because it's within reach for Microsoft to make it more secure.
..let the end-users do it all by themselves?
Does that help?
Everyone KNOWS that gmail is ready for public launch, but having private invites gives it a cachet.
Btw, this is not all about marketing, it's also a bit about manageability. Say foobar@gmail.com turns into a spam address? Better check the one that send him an invite, and also those who he got into GMail. An invite is basicly saying "I think this person will use this service correctly".
Invite = Vote; sounds like Google, doesn't it?
Your emulator will not have a certified TPM key (those stay on the chip)
That is why CSS is still not broken for DVD, heh?
Seriously, pretty much any hardware can be emulated in software, albeit maybe at a slower speed. And when people want it bad enough they will find a way to ease finding valid keys, or either read data out of ICs or simply TCPA documents..
Another fun thing would be to pipe all the TCPA hardware requests over the network to some central machine. Tying software to a machine this way has never been more futile :)
Since the LS is addressed directly, and isn't mapped onto memory, there is no need for cache coherency protocols. A cache-coherent multi-processor system needs to communicate with it's peers to coordinate access to the cache.
So they basicly built a "NUMA on a chip"?
heck you can even get emacs
And even Microsoft programmers do that, check out some of the video's on http://channel9.msdn.com/.
(If I remember correctly a video about Avalon and Indigo showed them using emacs for programming some quick demos of their XML based language)
Yes, I just installed Debian unstable on a P3-566 with 128MB RAM (Dell GX-100) and it worked remarkably well even under KDE. It will be used as a mediaplayer connected to a nice stereo.
:)
Starting multiple apps was kind of slow, but that's more of an issue of the slow harddisk. Due to the 2.6 kernel, programs kept pretty responsive, thank you kernelhackers
I do hope they will like it, since it will be the first time with Linux for most people who will use it.
So then they abolish the cache.
Caching: CPU > cache (1 or 2) > main memory > HD
and then implement another system that is *completely different*
Non-Caching: APU > local memory > main memory
Now first off, how is it different?
Let me take a vaguely educated guess.
Currently the cache managers in x86 CPUs "predict" what part of the memory space is needed. This prediction isn't always that good, and efforts to make programs hint to processor what to cache haven't worked good enough (or at least according to Cell CPU designers). So they force to program to operate in a 'small' memory space where data can be read in from a large RAM storage.
I don't know if it will actually help. To me it seems a bit like going back tot he 80268/80386 era with himem.drv under DOS so programs could acces higher memory regions by commanding the driver to swap in and out memory to the lower 640k.
But then, maybe Bill Gates -or whoever put up that quote in his name- was right, 640k RAM is enough for everyone (multiplied by the number of cores on dye..).
Well, yes and no..
They only own this software for a month or so. Probably the only changes are a code review using Microsofts internal tools, a check if no weirdness happens with currently supported Microsoft software, and of course a banner change ("Giant" -> "Microsoft").
And there's the case that even if Microsoft plugs *all* the holes in all their software, people will still be stupid. There will be who execute funny screensavers their friends send them, no matter what. There will still be adware and spyware bundled with widely used programs.
So taking this step is a good one. You can't reach total imunity, but you can try to hit the point where it's no longer profitable to go the nasty route of spyware because some big fat company will be breathing in your neck in no time.
btw, I'm not a Microsoft apologist. I'm posting this from Linux, and have been running that for some time already, thank you.
..that they were invented much earlier and began to commercialise before the 80s.
# Hi story
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_circuit
(Yes, yes, never believe the Wikipedia article, so follow the links and do some other research.)
Does anybody know if some SE Linux versions are also affected?
has it even made it to DVD yet?
Apparently yes.