Except for the fact that it says we don't need one, the other would be a better approach. Nowhere was it saying they both did exactly the same thing. Context is pretty important here.
But the alternatives offered do nothing to provide the same functionality as TPM. Which was my point.
OK. Sure. And there's nothing wrong with that. We're talking about dealing with an underlying problem. There's different ways of dealing with a problem. That some attack it from different angles is expected. That some angles might be better than others is also reasonable.
No. You've missed my point. The two have nothing to do with each other, because they fundamentally solve different problems, even though the solutions sometimes overlap.
I'm sure you don't really believe, with proper consideration, that TPM really ensures that a piece of code does what it claims to.
I never claimed that it did.
And that's not even touching on whether you can trust TPM working for or against you.
TPM is a tool. It can no more work "for you" or "against you" than your dishwasher.
Well, given that the comment goes, in the same paragraph, from talking about TPM to talking about buffer overflows, the interpretation hardware seems unreasonable.
Again - I don't believe the OP claimed that TPM would deal with buffer overflows and code injection. That's your interpretation.
Well, given that the comment goes, in the same paragraph, from talking about TPM to talking about buffer overflows, the interpretation hardware seems unreasonable.
What it does claim is that dealing with those would be better solutions than implementing TPM.
This is a bit like saying dealing with icy roads would be a better solution than implementing airbags.
As for what TPM does... at best, it might tell you who's key signed that code.
Which is a substantial improvement over the current situation, and a useful part of defense in depth. Where's the problem ?
Correct. Parent is reading something I never said.
Indeed. Apologies, I had just come from reading something else making the comparison.
(I still want to know how "network security" is "bolted on", however.)
Exactly. And we don't need anything nearly as complicated, baroque, or elitist as 'TPM' or 'Trusted Computing'. Simply designing-in protection from buffer overlows and code injection from the get-go will help a lot.
TPM isn't there to prevent buffer overflows and code injection, it's there so you can be sure that a piece of signed code is what it claims to be. A big objective of TPM is to reduce exposure to trojans (which a large proportion of "worms" and "viruses" really are) by allowing the user to make a better decision as to whether or not to trust a given piece of code.
The second biggest part of the problem was not designing network security into the OS from day one, but instead attempting to bolt it on on an OS that has always been designed to be a highly integrated one-size-fits-all solution.
How is "network security" any more (or less) "bolted on" in Windows NT vs UNIX (or Linux) ?
I've never seen an Xserve, but it seems to me that if it is truly a file server, the drives themselves are probably hot swappable and that explains that increase in cost over a standard drive.
All "standard drives" today are SATA, and hot-swap is part of the basic SATA spec.
Dell does the same thing with their poweredge drive modules and there are no electronics on the back, the sata connections go directly into the backplane . Prices are ridiculously out of whack. A 1TB drive is like $600 for a market priced $100 drive and a $10 piece of plastic and metal.
While they _are_ overpriced, it's not by that much. The 1TB drive you get in a Dell server will be something like a Seagate ES.2 - these retail for 50%-100% higher than the bottom of the barrel el-cheapos you are comparing to. They might even be SAS-interfaced drives.
This is why we always purchase the smallest 80 or 160GB drive module and put whatever SATA drive we need in. It's really stupid as are the idiots who purchase the larger storage modules.
Generally, by the time you account for the additional labour of selecting, ordering, unboxing and install the 3rd party drives - and *especially* if one goes tits up - any savings you might have made are eaten up.
They're way more verbose. Verdict: Apple sent me a disk of the wrong capacity-- the ones in my RAID are 74.5 GB and this one is 73.x or something. Of course, they're _supposed_ to know exactly what kind of disks I have; that's the whole point of the service.
That's a ridiculous error for them to have made.
One of the "tweaks" that "enterprise firmware" should have is to ensure that ALL drives from that vendor - regardless of which OEM they might be rebadged from - have the same logical size. This is so they don't have to worry about whether "73GB" means "72.9999999GB" or "73.0000001GB".
Now I can use my eyes to analyse the very clumsy looking breadcrumb bar, find the folder I want and click on it but this finding, selecting, confirming will take me maybe 1 or 2 seconds.
I somehow doubt it take syou 1-2 seconds to look at the left side of the path (this first part of which is always the same, move across two things (Media, Porn) and aim for it.
Or I can see the up arrow and i know I'm about 3 or 4 paths deep, I can just blindly hit that up arrow (as I know where it is, ALWAYS - especially as a maximised window user) and just go bam bam bam and I'm there.
Again, you still have to move the mouse, aim at the button and click (several times). This only difference is the extra "analysis" taken if you look at the directory tree first, which is already mostly done anyway when you decided what your target directory was.
In reality, most of the "processing" will take place in parallel with you reaching for the mouse and starting to move it. The only real difference comes with where you're aiming.
To state again also, what's wrong with the option of BOTH - let us enable the up arrow if we want, 2 different ways of doing things won't kill people.
Additional software development resources, for questionable benefit (the vast majority of people simply don't have complex directory structures to navigate - to say nothing of search features starting to make said directory structures less relevant).
They are fiddling with the UI to try and create something 'clever and amazing' - they've seen too many movies of Mac OS or Ubuntu with the 3D stuff enabled and think they need to copy and they sure as hell aren't planning exactly what to do and how to do it.
They're making small changes to the UI - well grounded in theory - to make it more efficient and intuitive. There's nothing "clever and amazing" about the breadcrumb trail. It's really just a slight (and obvious) modification of an existing UI element (the directory path bar), and it provides solid, well supported and measurable improvements.
Oh, you want to go up 8 levels? Yeah, that no longer shows in the box. So I should go to the tree? Wait, that doesn't fit in its box either? Wonderful... Now I have to click on a bunch of different folders in the breadcrumb thing to get there, or waste a bunch of time scrolling around in the tree (of which I can see very little).
Wow. Either your paths must be _huge_ or your screen must be tiny.
Their system is fine if you don't have a lot of files and you use the folder system they've set up for you, but I have hundreds of gigabytes of files broken up into very logical directories that are accessed from multiple computers. It is painful to get through them in the tiny open and save windows.
My home server has nearly 10TB of movies, TV shows, MP3s, porn, pictures, software, VMs, and various other bits and pieces. I'm sure you can understand that keeping it organised requires a somewhat complicated and "non standard" directory structure.
I don't have any trouble navigating around it in Vista's explorer (compared to using, say, Finder on my wife's Mac, it's almost incomprehensively better).
My only real gripe with Vista's Explorer is that the damn thing ALWAYS starts with the same small window and location, and it seems to be impossible to convince it to start any other way. That, I will agree, is very annoying.
I just wish I could disable it and use the treeview like I do in Explorer currently. The new treeview has NO option to re-enable lines like it did in Vista. I never used forward/back/up in Explorer and I removed the buttons to conserve screen space. Now I can't disable those buttons, remove the path, or make the treeview usable.
I'm kind of confused. *My* treeview in Vista has lines, although it does have those little rotating arrows connecting them instead of the [+] or [-] box of earlier versions.
I don't think in breadcrumbs, I think in paths, directories, drives, folders - whatever you like to call them.
It *is* a path:
C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc
Local Disk (C:) > Windows > System32 > drivers > etc These are the same thing, they just have different delimiters.
As I tried to unsuccessfully state, give us the damned OPTION to keep the full path in there, how can options be bad for anyone?
Because then there are two operational modes that have to be debugged, QAed, supported and maintained, instead of just one.
To drill down further, UI design is a fickle thing, Apple seem to understand it, Microsoft don't (I can't believe how much praise I heap on apple lately)
I can't agree they do, at least since OS X was released. This is especially true in the context of file management - Finder is flat-out *awful* for working with any non-trivial directory. There are plenty of other examples of bad UI in OS X as well.
With the 'amazing' breadcrumb bar, I need to analyse the bar, find the position I want, move the cursor to it and click once.
The only difference between these two procedures is the former requiring additional mouse clicks and the latter having to "analyse" the bar. Which, given you obviously know the tree structure, and you know where you want to go to in it, should not add up to any difference in time.
I am not going to try and argue the bradcrumb bar is meaningfully faster, because it's not - neither method takes any significant amount of time. I am, however, going to argue that it's better UI - it encompasses existing functionality, provides better feedback and allows additional functionality (moving directly to a "far away" place in the directory tree).
What's WRONG with the CAD menu not requiring alt, it was easier, why change something that was easier?
It's not easier, it's familiar. Both Win+L and Ctrl+Shift+Esc are no harder than having to use Ctrl+Alt+Del, Alt+Letter. Further, by any objective measure, the direct shortcut keys are both easier and quicker to hit (although, again, the time difference is going to be insignificant).
I will also add that using the Task Manager is not a common activity, for most users.
Either way, overall - using both Windows 7 and Windows Vista is a negative experience for compared to XP as someone who wants to simply get things done.
If you learn, and use, the new UI constructs, you will be "getting things done" more efficiently.
For the breadcrumb part, I've used computers long enough that my brain more or less keeps a map of where I am and I want to go 'up' rather than click on the folder I'm looking for. I think in directory structures now and it's hard to change it.
All you need to do is click the higher level directory you want in the breadcrumb trail.
Eg: if you are in "C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc", then the breadcrumb trail will look something like "Computer > Local Disk (C:) > Windows > System32 > drivers > etc".
To get to, say, "C:\Windows\System32", all you need to do is click on the "System32" part and you're there, in one step. So, to simulate the effect of the "Up one directory button", you just need to click on the second last thing in the breadcrumb trail.
Bonus: If you wanted to move to, say, "C:\Windows\System32\GroupPolicy" (to just pick a directory at random), then you could click on the ">" next to System32 in the breadcrumb trail, get a list of System32 subdirectories, then click on one to move directly to it.
I'd be fine with it if they brought back the up button and/or made the tree in the left panel a bit cleaner/easier.
Another alternative is Alt+Up arrow, which will move you one step up the directory tree.
I used to miss the up arrow toolbar button as well, until I understood how the breadcrumb trail worked. The latter is a _far_ better UI construct.
Also, the breadcrumb bar, time and time again I've tried to hassle people for an OPTION to disable the ghastly thing, I don't mind if new users prefer it, good for you! I work on machines to get things done, I need it quick and efficient and the breacrumb bar frankly frustrates me.
I don't know about you guys but I 'think in' paths, directories and drives, even if Microsoft doesn't want me to think that way anymore, it's likely how I will ALWAYS think of things on a machine, I translate things back in to paths when using the breadcrumb bar, so it's just slowing me down and... again I'm not 'getting the data' to my brain quick enough.
In all that, you don't actually manage to say _what_ is wrong with the breadcrumb bar. Ie: *why* is it not "quick and efficient" ? The "breadcrumb bar" offers a superset of the functionality in earlier Windows versions (as is typical with Windows UI changes). What's the problem ?
The control alt delete menu (the grey box under XP with 6 buttons) previously you could just hit space to lock the machine or t for the task manager - now you have to hold down alt. (I admit this is a small problem)
Win+L will also lock the screen. Much quicker.
He's absoloutely right, but the problem is WHY, WHY! and WHY did they introduce a 'requirement' to hold down alt before using the shortcut keys on the control alt delete menu?
The problem isn't the issue itself the problem is WHY did they do this when it simply changes something which didn't needed to be changed and adds a layer of complexity.
Because that's how it's _supposed_ to work, as per the Windows UI guidelines (Alt+accelerator key to access UI elements). Quite arguably, they've fixed a long-running UI bug.
Ctrl+Shift+Esc for Task Manager is quicker and has been around a _lot_ longer (at least NT 4.0, most likely NT 3.1). It was derived from Ctrl+Esc to get the running task list in Windows 3.x and OS/2.
A workstation is not a consumer desktop. A consumer desktop is not a workstation. A $800 Dell Studio XPS is not the same as as Quad Core Xeon Mac Pro or Quad Core Xeon Dell Precision. Details matter. For some people, good enough is fine. Don't buy a MacPro and complain you've overspent because all you do is play games and surf the web.
I haven't. I'm merely pointing out that for a lot of people, an $800 Studio XPS will deliver as much as a Mac Pro - lots of RAM, a fast CPU, the ability to connect external monitors, some expansion slots and room for several hard disks (and in some ways is even objectively superior - eg: memoroy capacity).
If you ignore the slower processor. And the slower bus speed. And the onboard video card. And the slower speed memory. And the less powerful OS. If you ignore all those things and more, then your statement is generally true.
No, you get a faster processor, faster bus, discrete video (the Mini's is "onboard"), bigger, faster hard disk, twice as much memory and faster memory. For the same price as a Mini, you'll get a PC with roughly twice the power.
Slashdot Mirror
Except for the fact that it says we don't need one, the other would be a better approach. Nowhere was it saying they both did exactly the same thing. Context is pretty important here.
But the alternatives offered do nothing to provide the same functionality as TPM. Which was my point.
OK. Sure. And there's nothing wrong with that. We're talking about dealing with an underlying problem. There's different ways of dealing with a problem. That some attack it from different angles is expected. That some angles might be better than others is also reasonable.
No. You've missed my point. The two have nothing to do with each other, because they fundamentally solve different problems, even though the solutions sometimes overlap.
I'm sure you don't really believe, with proper consideration, that TPM really ensures that a piece of code does what it claims to.
I never claimed that it did.
And that's not even touching on whether you can trust TPM working for or against you.
TPM is a tool. It can no more work "for you" or "against you" than your dishwasher.
It turns out that you can take two machines, put them side by side, and see for yourself. I did.
So give me an example benchmark where I can verify your claims for myself.
It doesn't seem either a difficult, nor unreasonable, request.
Well, given that the comment goes, in the same paragraph, from talking about TPM to talking about buffer overflows, the interpretation hardware seems unreasonable.
s/hardware/hardly/
Again - I don't believe the OP claimed that TPM would deal with buffer overflows and code injection. That's your interpretation.
Well, given that the comment goes, in the same paragraph, from talking about TPM to talking about buffer overflows, the interpretation hardware seems unreasonable.
What it does claim is that dealing with those would be better solutions than implementing TPM.
This is a bit like saying dealing with icy roads would be a better solution than implementing airbags.
As for what TPM does... at best, it might tell you who's key signed that code.
Which is a substantial improvement over the current situation, and a useful part of defense in depth. Where's the problem ?
Thanks for the heads up! It provided me a great sense of relief to realize I hadn't told any once I read and fulled grokked your incredible insight!
Perhaps, then, you can offer an example benchmark where I can confirm your claims for myself ?
UAC may add another layer of click between you and Dangerous Operation, but you're still running as an Administrator by default.
sudo may add another layer of typing between you and Dangerous Operation, but you're still running as root by default.
Linux on a single core 32 bit machine is faster than Vista on a Dual Core 64 Bit machine clocked at twice the rate.
Blatant lies do not help your credibility.
Correct. Parent is reading something I never said.
Indeed. Apologies, I had just come from reading something else making the comparison.
(I still want to know how "network security" is "bolted on", however.)
Exactly. And we don't need anything nearly as complicated, baroque, or elitist as 'TPM' or 'Trusted Computing'. Simply designing-in protection from buffer overlows and code injection from the get-go will help a lot.
TPM isn't there to prevent buffer overflows and code injection, it's there so you can be sure that a piece of signed code is what it claims to be. A big objective of TPM is to reduce exposure to trojans (which a large proportion of "worms" and "viruses" really are) by allowing the user to make a better decision as to whether or not to trust a given piece of code.
The second biggest part of the problem was not designing network security into the OS from day one, but instead attempting to bolt it on on an OS that has always been designed to be a highly integrated one-size-fits-all solution.
How is "network security" any more (or less) "bolted on" in Windows NT vs UNIX (or Linux) ?
What exactly do you mean by "network security" ?
By Ockham's Razor theorum, it would make more sense that the dating of this creature is horribly wrong
No, it would make more sense that it simply wasn't extinct.
Occam's Razor isn't a "theorum", it's a principle.
Atheism is a religion, at least in terms of a being a system of beliefs that governs a person's actions.
Atheism isn't "a system of beliefs". It's simply a lack of one belief - specifically in that of a deity (or deities).
(The old "atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby" is still the best way to put it.)
The religion a person practices is sorta like the OS a computer runs.
Where do atheists fit into your worldview ?
Thanks Vista for making that a thing of the past.
Have to hand this honour to OS X, which did it years before Vista was even released.
Still trying to figure out that one.
Easy. Rule 1 of sex crime laws: the woman is always a victim.
Here's what's wrong with the breadcrumb bar: You can't copy the path and paste it into a document or into a command shell.
Yes, you can.
I've never seen an Xserve, but it seems to me that if it is truly a file server, the drives themselves are probably hot swappable and that explains that increase in cost over a standard drive.
All "standard drives" today are SATA, and hot-swap is part of the basic SATA spec.
Dell does the same thing with their poweredge drive modules and there are no electronics on the back, the sata connections go directly into the backplane . Prices are ridiculously out of whack. A 1TB drive is like $600 for a market priced $100 drive and a $10 piece of plastic and metal.
While they _are_ overpriced, it's not by that much. The 1TB drive you get in a Dell server will be something like a Seagate ES.2 - these retail for 50%-100% higher than the bottom of the barrel el-cheapos you are comparing to. They might even be SAS-interfaced drives.
This is why we always purchase the smallest 80 or 160GB drive module and put whatever SATA drive we need in. It's really stupid as are the idiots who purchase the larger storage modules.
Generally, by the time you account for the additional labour of selecting, ordering, unboxing and install the 3rd party drives - and *especially* if one goes tits up - any savings you might have made are eaten up.
They're way more verbose. Verdict: Apple sent me a disk of the wrong capacity-- the ones in my RAID are 74.5 GB and this one is 73.x or something. Of course, they're _supposed_ to know exactly what kind of disks I have; that's the whole point of the service.
That's a ridiculous error for them to have made.
One of the "tweaks" that "enterprise firmware" should have is to ensure that ALL drives from that vendor - regardless of which OEM they might be rebadged from - have the same logical size. This is so they don't have to worry about whether "73GB" means "72.9999999GB" or "73.0000001GB".
Now I can use my eyes to analyse the very clumsy looking breadcrumb bar, find the folder I want and click on it but this finding, selecting, confirming will take me maybe 1 or 2 seconds.
I somehow doubt it take syou 1-2 seconds to look at the left side of the path (this first part of which is always the same, move across two things (Media, Porn) and aim for it.
Or I can see the up arrow and i know I'm about 3 or 4 paths deep, I can just blindly hit that up arrow (as I know where it is, ALWAYS - especially as a maximised window user) and just go bam bam bam and I'm there.
Again, you still have to move the mouse, aim at the button and click (several times). This only difference is the extra "analysis" taken if you look at the directory tree first, which is already mostly done anyway when you decided what your target directory was.
In reality, most of the "processing" will take place in parallel with you reaching for the mouse and starting to move it. The only real difference comes with where you're aiming.
To state again also, what's wrong with the option of BOTH - let us enable the up arrow if we want, 2 different ways of doing things won't kill people.
Additional software development resources, for questionable benefit (the vast majority of people simply don't have complex directory structures to navigate - to say nothing of search features starting to make said directory structures less relevant).
They are fiddling with the UI to try and create something 'clever and amazing' - they've seen too many movies of Mac OS or Ubuntu with the 3D stuff enabled and think they need to copy and they sure as hell aren't planning exactly what to do and how to do it.
They're making small changes to the UI - well grounded in theory - to make it more efficient and intuitive. There's nothing "clever and amazing" about the breadcrumb trail. It's really just a slight (and obvious) modification of an existing UI element (the directory path bar), and it provides solid, well supported and measurable improvements.
Oh, you want to go up 8 levels? Yeah, that no longer shows in the box. So I should go to the tree? Wait, that doesn't fit in its box either? Wonderful... Now I have to click on a bunch of different folders in the breadcrumb thing to get there, or waste a bunch of time scrolling around in the tree (of which I can see very little).
Wow. Either your paths must be _huge_ or your screen must be tiny.
Their system is fine if you don't have a lot of files and you use the folder system they've set up for you, but I have hundreds of gigabytes of files broken up into very logical directories that are accessed from multiple computers. It is painful to get through them in the tiny open and save windows.
My home server has nearly 10TB of movies, TV shows, MP3s, porn, pictures, software, VMs, and various other bits and pieces. I'm sure you can understand that keeping it organised requires a somewhat complicated and "non standard" directory structure.
I don't have any trouble navigating around it in Vista's explorer (compared to using, say, Finder on my wife's Mac, it's almost incomprehensively better).
My only real gripe with Vista's Explorer is that the damn thing ALWAYS starts with the same small window and location, and it seems to be impossible to convince it to start any other way. That, I will agree, is very annoying.
I just wish I could disable it and use the treeview like I do in Explorer currently. The new treeview has NO option to re-enable lines like it did in Vista. I never used forward/back/up in Explorer and I removed the buttons to conserve screen space. Now I can't disable those buttons, remove the path, or make the treeview usable.
I'm kind of confused. *My* treeview in Vista has lines, although it does have those little rotating arrows connecting them instead of the [+] or [-] box of earlier versions.
I don't think in breadcrumbs, I think in paths, directories, drives, folders - whatever you like to call them.
It *is* a path:
C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc
Local Disk (C:) > Windows > System32 > drivers > etc
These are the same thing, they just have different delimiters.
As I tried to unsuccessfully state, give us the damned OPTION to keep the full path in there, how can options be bad for anyone?
Because then there are two operational modes that have to be debugged, QAed, supported and maintained, instead of just one.
To drill down further, UI design is a fickle thing, Apple seem to understand it, Microsoft don't (I can't believe how much praise I heap on apple lately)
I can't agree they do, at least since OS X was released. This is especially true in the context of file management - Finder is flat-out *awful* for working with any non-trivial directory. There are plenty of other examples of bad UI in OS X as well.
With the 'amazing' breadcrumb bar, I need to analyse the bar, find the position I want, move the cursor to it and click once.
The only difference between these two procedures is the former requiring additional mouse clicks and the latter having to "analyse" the bar. Which, given you obviously know the tree structure, and you know where you want to go to in it, should not add up to any difference in time.
I am not going to try and argue the bradcrumb bar is meaningfully faster, because it's not - neither method takes any significant amount of time. I am, however, going to argue that it's better UI - it encompasses existing functionality, provides better feedback and allows additional functionality (moving directly to a "far away" place in the directory tree).
What's WRONG with the CAD menu not requiring alt, it was easier, why change something that was easier?
It's not easier, it's familiar. Both Win+L and Ctrl+Shift+Esc are no harder than having to use Ctrl+Alt+Del, Alt+Letter. Further, by any objective measure, the direct shortcut keys are both easier and quicker to hit (although, again, the time difference is going to be insignificant).
I will also add that using the Task Manager is not a common activity, for most users.
Either way, overall - using both Windows 7 and Windows Vista is a negative experience for compared to XP as someone who wants to simply get things done.
If you learn, and use, the new UI constructs, you will be "getting things done" more efficiently.
For the breadcrumb part, I've used computers long enough that my brain more or less keeps a map of where I am and I want to go 'up' rather than click on the folder I'm looking for. I think in directory structures now and it's hard to change it.
All you need to do is click the higher level directory you want in the breadcrumb trail.
Eg: if you are in "C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc", then the breadcrumb trail will look something like "Computer > Local Disk (C:) > Windows > System32 > drivers > etc".
To get to, say, "C:\Windows\System32", all you need to do is click on the "System32" part and you're there, in one step. So, to simulate the effect of the "Up one directory button", you just need to click on the second last thing in the breadcrumb trail.
Bonus: If you wanted to move to, say, "C:\Windows\System32\GroupPolicy" (to just pick a directory at random), then you could click on the ">" next to System32 in the breadcrumb trail, get a list of System32 subdirectories, then click on one to move directly to it.
I'd be fine with it if they brought back the up button and/or made the tree in the left panel a bit cleaner/easier.
Another alternative is Alt+Up arrow, which will move you one step up the directory tree.
I used to miss the up arrow toolbar button as well, until I understood how the breadcrumb trail worked. The latter is a _far_ better UI construct.
See here for example.
Also, the breadcrumb bar, time and time again I've tried to hassle people for an OPTION to disable the ghastly thing, I don't mind if new users prefer it, good for you! I work on machines to get things done, I need it quick and efficient and the breacrumb bar frankly frustrates me. I don't know about you guys but I 'think in' paths, directories and drives, even if Microsoft doesn't want me to think that way anymore, it's likely how I will ALWAYS think of things on a machine, I translate things back in to paths when using the breadcrumb bar, so it's just slowing me down and... again I'm not 'getting the data' to my brain quick enough.
In all that, you don't actually manage to say _what_ is wrong with the breadcrumb bar. Ie: *why* is it not "quick and efficient" ? The "breadcrumb bar" offers a superset of the functionality in earlier Windows versions (as is typical with Windows UI changes). What's the problem ?
The control alt delete menu (the grey box under XP with 6 buttons) previously you could just hit space to lock the machine or t for the task manager - now you have to hold down alt. (I admit this is a small problem)
Win+L will also lock the screen. Much quicker.
He's absoloutely right, but the problem is WHY, WHY! and WHY did they introduce a 'requirement' to hold down alt before using the shortcut keys on the control alt delete menu? The problem isn't the issue itself the problem is WHY did they do this when it simply changes something which didn't needed to be changed and adds a layer of complexity.
Because that's how it's _supposed_ to work, as per the Windows UI guidelines (Alt+accelerator key to access UI elements). Quite arguably, they've fixed a long-running UI bug.
Ctrl+Shift+Esc for Task Manager is quicker and has been around a _lot_ longer (at least NT 4.0, most likely NT 3.1). It was derived from Ctrl+Esc to get the running task list in Windows 3.x and OS/2.
A workstation is not a consumer desktop. A consumer desktop is not a workstation. A $800 Dell Studio XPS is not the same as as Quad Core Xeon Mac Pro or Quad Core Xeon Dell Precision. Details matter. For some people, good enough is fine. Don't buy a MacPro and complain you've overspent because all you do is play games and surf the web.
I haven't. I'm merely pointing out that for a lot of people, an $800 Studio XPS will deliver as much as a Mac Pro - lots of RAM, a fast CPU, the ability to connect external monitors, some expansion slots and room for several hard disks (and in some ways is even objectively superior - eg: memoroy capacity).
If you ignore the slower processor. And the slower bus speed. And the onboard video card. And the slower speed memory. And the less powerful OS. If you ignore all those things and more, then your statement is generally true.
No, you get a faster processor, faster bus, discrete video (the Mini's is "onboard"), bigger, faster hard disk, twice as much memory and faster memory. For the same price as a Mini, you'll get a PC with roughly twice the power.