Funny that the link you provided is comprised ENTIRELY of mirrors for sites that no longer have v10.20 available. Many of those mirrors were dead. The only versions that were available there are v9.3 (very old version with many of the functions of 10.20 missing) and v10.21, the first MS version.
So now it's *too* old ? You should have been more specific in the first place, Goldilocks.
Thanks for lending some credence to my original post. You simply validated my assertion that MS has pulled as many old versions from the web as they could possibly get away with.
I stated my opinion, in such a way that anyone can verify it for themselves...and get modded a Troll.
Because you're trolling with paranoid conspiracy theories.
Curious readers can find older copies of Process Explorer here and verify for themselves that running it under - or merely inserting a USB key into a system with - newer versions of Windows (eg Win7) does not result in it being automatically overwritten with 10.2.
Customers want as much power from a single chip as they can get with the virtualization targeted products.
Why ? For starters, virtualisation is nearly always limited by IOPS and/or RAM, long before it is by CPU. Further, it's a textbook example of a situation where adding more cores will (typically) deliver more benefit than adding more performance per core.
When building virtualisation infrastructure, individual CPU core performance is about the last thing that matters.
I pay for my own healthcare and I didn't have wealthy parents yet I'm against publically funded healthcare. Why, you ask? It's because it is NOT the Government's job to be our nanny. People need to care for themselves. If someone truly cannot do so then yes there should be safety nets, but the health care of the bulk of the population should not be paid for by their fellow taxpayers. Get a fucking job and earn some money and care for yourself.
I agree. We should also immediately disband the Police, Fire Services and Armed Forces.
NT stole _massively_ from VMS memory management. I'm taking testimony from DEC developers who had access to NT development toolkits as evidence, and the articles from the lawsuits.
This (I mean the original allegation) would ring a lot more true if the architecture of WinNT* was more akin to that of VMS. Yes, there is some structural similarity - but not particularly a lot
Actually, it *is* very similar architecturally. Numerous articles have been written showing this and Cutler has said it himself multiple times. The similarity was the whole basis of DEC's lawsuit.
And then, having put together a pretty decent, consistent architecture with a good security model, the rest of Microsoft largely ignored much of what NT set out to do and created the security swiss cheese we all know and love today... * Remember, NT does not stand for New Technology.
The vast, vast majority of "security issues" with NT have had little to do with the OS itself.
In fact can anyone think of anything technically innovative that Microsoft ever put their name on, that wasn't originally bought, copied, 'embraced', assimilated, or blatantly stolen from some other company? I can't.
Can you highlight any "innovations" from anyone else, though, that aren't in a similar situation ?
That wasn't due to innovation. That was plain old software piracy: they hired David Cutler from DEC, one of the authors of VMS, and stole its internals like a pirate robbing Spanish galleons.
So hiring someone who has ever worked anywhere else on any software is "software piracy" ? Guess that makes any remotely modern piece of software "pirated".
The resulting lawsuits are one of the reasons NT ran so well on Alphas: its internals had frankly been writen for Alphas originally by Cutler and the personal he hired away from DEC.
Except NT didn't run especially well on Alphas. Heck, they never even released a 64-bit version.
The result was the fundamentally crippled, by comparison, NT on Pentium.
Data synchronisation is probably the biggest single reason.
The benefits outweight the disadvantages. Come on, this is Slashdot - doesn't everyone have at least three computers?;)
Sure, but every time I sit down in front of one of them and it doesn't have a particular application installed, or doesn't have some data file I'm after, or anything similar, I get annoyed.
A single computer is the Holy Grail as far as I'm concerned. My E4300 with docking stations and dual screen setups at home and work comes pretty close, but it still bogs down sometimes so I'd like more performance.
But remember, netbooks are optimized for the net and only the net.
They're not even particularly good at that, with today's flash-heavy internet.
(Even Intel's Atom processor is essentially an overclocked 486.)
It's more like an overclocked Pentium than 486.
I must admit I just don't "get" the whole Netbook class of machine. They're not really viable as an only computer, so I need either a bigger, faster laptop or some sort of desktop for "serious" usage. Why would I want to suffer the annoyance of multiple computers when I could just get something like a MacBook (or my 13" Latitude) and use it for everything (short of gaming) ?
There are many cases like this. I don't make any claims, but this study isn't the only reason for the debate.
Yes it is. Blaming it on the vaccine makes about as much sense as blaming it one whatever she had for dinner, and would be as likely if it weren't for the "OH NOES THE VACCINES ARE CAUSING AUTISM" crowd.
In any case saying that customers have a choice is bollocks. They had a choice ten years ago, and hopefully will again after five or ten years... Let's hope so.
10 years ago was nearly the height of Microsoft's "monopoly power", to say nothing of the relatively dismal quality of the alternatives. Probably the point of least "choice" in the last two decades.
Prestige. If you had a choice of LEO capable companies, wouldn't you be more apt to choose one that's gone to the moon? Sure, LEO and the moon are wildly different, but that's the point: To stick out and say "Hey, look what we can do!" There's no way that wouldn't impress potential clients.
There's a difference between running third party plugins, and running operating system components.
ActiveX controls are not "operating system components" in way other than being included by default. Like, say, 'rm' on any Linux machine.
Internet Explorer can run any ActiveX control. Many Microsoft-signed controls get run automatically when requested, even with security settings set to disable automatic running of ActiveX.
For example ?
The Windows OS comes with hundreds of ActiveX controls, all of which can have security problems, and can affect any file on the system, given appropriate access rights.
Yes. Just like on any other platform that comes with $FUNCTIONALITY.
Other browsers and third party plugins aren't even in the same league.
They're in exactly the same league. You haven't described anything "unique" about how IE works compared to its equivalents on other platforms.
You don't need Internet Explorer to run an ActiveX control, as they're supported natively by the system. Without UAC on Vista/7, ActiveX controls in IE run at the same privilege level as any other user process, because they actually DO run natively on the system.
And that's "unique" how, exactly ? Are you suggesting other browsers don't run plugins or third party code at the same privilege level as other user processes ?
Slashdot Mirror
Funny that the link you provided is comprised ENTIRELY of mirrors for sites that no longer have v10.20 available. Many of those mirrors were dead. The only versions that were available there are v9.3 (very old version with many of the functions of 10.20 missing) and v10.21, the first MS version.
So now it's *too* old ? You should have been more specific in the first place, Goldilocks.
Thanks for lending some credence to my original post. You simply validated my assertion that MS has pulled as many old versions from the web as they could possibly get away with.
The very first Google result for "Process Explorer 10.2" takes you a site you can download it from.
I stated my opinion, in such a way that anyone can verify it for themselves...and get modded a Troll.
Because you're trolling with paranoid conspiracy theories.
Curious readers can find older copies of Process Explorer here and verify for themselves that running it under - or merely inserting a USB key into a system with - newer versions of Windows (eg Win7) does not result in it being automatically overwritten with 10.2.
Customers want as much power from a single chip as they can get with the virtualization targeted products.
Why ? For starters, virtualisation is nearly always limited by IOPS and/or RAM, long before it is by CPU. Further, it's a textbook example of a situation where adding more cores will (typically) deliver more benefit than adding more performance per core.
When building virtualisation infrastructure, individual CPU core performance is about the last thing that matters.
I pay for my own healthcare and I didn't have wealthy parents yet I'm against publically funded healthcare. Why, you ask? It's because it is NOT the Government's job to be our nanny. People need to care for themselves. If someone truly cannot do so then yes there should be safety nets, but the health care of the bulk of the population should not be paid for by their fellow taxpayers. Get a fucking job and earn some money and care for yourself.
I agree. We should also immediately disband the Police, Fire Services and Armed Forces.
Really ?
First of all, it is possible to secure an OS.
How do you secure an OS upon which any end user can run arbitrary code ?
If this bug was in NT 3.1, I wonder if it's also in OS/2?
Given that the two were completely different codebases, I'd have to go with "no".
NT stole _massively_ from VMS memory management. I'm taking testimony from DEC developers who had access to NT development toolkits as evidence, and the articles from the lawsuits.
Define "steal". Copyright infringement ? Patent infringement ? Industrial espionage ?
NT on Pentium was crippled relative to VMS on Alphas, which was a powerful, robust, and relatively secure operating system.
How was it crippled ? How is the comparison to VMS relevant to your original (and further, below) comment comparing NT on Alpha vs Pentium ?
The genuine 64-bit architecture was massively useful for such work.
NT on Alpha was only 32 bit until NT 5.0 (which never made it out of RC on Alpha). How did the 64 bit architecture make a difference ?
This (I mean the original allegation) would ring a lot more true if the architecture of WinNT* was more akin to that of VMS. Yes, there is some structural similarity - but not particularly a lot
Actually, it *is* very similar architecturally. Numerous articles have been written showing this and Cutler has said it himself multiple times. The similarity was the whole basis of DEC's lawsuit.
And then, having put together a pretty decent, consistent architecture with a good security model, the rest of Microsoft largely ignored much of what NT set out to do and created the security swiss cheese we all know and love today... * Remember, NT does not stand for New Technology.
The vast, vast majority of "security issues" with NT have had little to do with the OS itself.
In fact can anyone think of anything technically innovative that Microsoft ever put their name on, that wasn't originally bought, copied, 'embraced', assimilated, or blatantly stolen from some other company? I can't.
Can you highlight any "innovations" from anyone else, though, that aren't in a similar situation ?
Recent economic research shows that people seem to be more motivated by notions of fairness and reciprocity than selfish gain.
The current global economic situation suggests otherwise.
That wasn't due to innovation. That was plain old software piracy: they hired David Cutler from DEC, one of the authors of VMS, and stole its internals like a pirate robbing Spanish galleons.
So hiring someone who has ever worked anywhere else on any software is "software piracy" ? Guess that makes any remotely modern piece of software "pirated".
The resulting lawsuits are one of the reasons NT ran so well on Alphas: its internals had frankly been writen for Alphas originally by Cutler and the personal he hired away from DEC.
Except NT didn't run especially well on Alphas. Heck, they never even released a 64-bit version.
The result was the fundamentally crippled, by comparison, NT on Pentium.
"Crippled" how ?
I don't see why multiple computers are annoying?
Data synchronisation is probably the biggest single reason.
The benefits outweight the disadvantages. Come on, this is Slashdot - doesn't everyone have at least three computers? ;)
Sure, but every time I sit down in front of one of them and it doesn't have a particular application installed, or doesn't have some data file I'm after, or anything similar, I get annoyed.
A single computer is the Holy Grail as far as I'm concerned. My E4300 with docking stations and dual screen setups at home and work comes pretty close, but it still bogs down sometimes so I'd like more performance.
Which logically means the above is wrong. Which logically proves the above is right.
No, it does not. I think you need to work on your logic.
But remember, netbooks are optimized for the net and only the net.
They're not even particularly good at that, with today's flash-heavy internet.
(Even Intel's Atom processor is essentially an overclocked 486.)
It's more like an overclocked Pentium than 486.
I must admit I just don't "get" the whole Netbook class of machine. They're not really viable as an only computer, so I need either a bigger, faster laptop or some sort of desktop for "serious" usage. Why would I want to suffer the annoyance of multiple computers when I could just get something like a MacBook (or my 13" Latitude) and use it for everything (short of gaming) ?
Still when your child starts acting weird, and stops talking within days after getting a shot it is easy to draw a conclusion.
"For every problem, there is an answer that is simple, obvious, and wrong."
There are many cases like this. I don't make any claims, but this study isn't the only reason for the debate.
Yes it is. Blaming it on the vaccine makes about as much sense as blaming it one whatever she had for dinner, and would be as likely if it weren't for the "OH NOES THE VACCINES ARE CAUSING AUTISM" crowd.
Just because one side of the debate has used bad data and judgment doesn't mean there is no merit to the debate.
It does when the only reason the debate ever started was because of that bad data.
In any case saying that customers have a choice is bollocks. They had a choice ten years ago, and hopefully will again after five or ten years... Let's hope so.
10 years ago was nearly the height of Microsoft's "monopoly power", to say nothing of the relatively dismal quality of the alternatives. Probably the point of least "choice" in the last two decades.
Prestige. If you had a choice of LEO capable companies, wouldn't you be more apt to choose one that's gone to the moon? Sure, LEO and the moon are wildly different, but that's the point: To stick out and say "Hey, look what we can do!" There's no way that wouldn't impress potential clients.
Impress them enough to cover the cost ? Doubtful.
There's a difference between running third party plugins, and running operating system components.
ActiveX controls are not "operating system components" in way other than being included by default. Like, say, 'rm' on any Linux machine.
Internet Explorer can run any ActiveX control. Many Microsoft-signed controls get run automatically when requested, even with security settings set to disable automatic running of ActiveX.
For example ?
The Windows OS comes with hundreds of ActiveX controls, all of which can have security problems, and can affect any file on the system, given appropriate access rights.
Yes. Just like on any other platform that comes with $FUNCTIONALITY.
Other browsers and third party plugins aren't even in the same league.
They're in exactly the same league. You haven't described anything "unique" about how IE works compared to its equivalents on other platforms.
So you don't believe innocent until proven guilty is part of a healthy democracy and legal system then?
Of course.
However, by becoming a politician, they are no longer "innocent". Everyone should be wary of people who actively seek to hold power over them.
You don't need Internet Explorer to run an ActiveX control, as they're supported natively by the system. Without UAC on Vista/7, ActiveX controls in IE run at the same privilege level as any other user process, because they actually DO run natively on the system.
And that's "unique" how, exactly ? Are you suggesting other browsers don't run plugins or third party code at the same privilege level as other user processes ?
CPUs aren't getting much faster quickly, ditto video cards [...]
Actually, they are, it's just that typical requirements are plateauing.
Really, I don't know who came up with the idea that PCs should be replaced annually or even every two years or so.
No-one outside of enthusiasts does this. Businesses typically work on a 3-5 year cycle, and home users frequently even longer.
None of those changes should require more processing power. In fact, many of them should require significantly less!
What makes you say that ? It's pretty much completely wrong.