Now before I get labled as a troll, the registry setting I am talking about is this:
On the non-home versions of XP, you need to manually enable the Guest account for "anonymouse" sharing. You can do this in Users and Groups, or you can do it the hard way and edit the Registry.
In the Home versions, AFAICR, there's a sharing wizard that achieves the same end (of course, this being Slashdot, where everyone knows better, that's probably not widely known).
Culture has changed. File sharing is a fact of life for the majority of PC users. People share their files, not only documents and music, but also video files. Apple and Canonical have responded by giving users better tools and greater freedom with their files. Microsoft has responded by locking its systems down, putting barriers in the way of people trying to us their PCs.
Looks pretty doubtful from the X-rays, but you're welcome to do the research yourself.
Links to these X-Rays ? A cursory Google search doesn't show them up.
Seriously, do some googling. The battery is wedge in around other components, basically.
The only battery pictures I've seen are from the iFixit disassembly, and it looks like a standard rectangular prism taking up roughly 1/2 the depth and 3/4 the width, starting from one corner. Nothing appears to even vaguely suit the description of being "wedged" around it. If it were some funky shape around other components like an 'S', or even something a bit less exciting like a 'U' or an 'L', you could say it was weirdly shaped. But it certainly appears from the photos to be no more 'weirdly' shaped than the battery on the back of my E4300.
They really didn't change that much about the internal layout of the machine other than the battery, so it's not completely invalid.
Say what ? The internal arrangement of the new MBP 17 is almost completely different to the outgoing model (optical drive moved, battery moved and resized, mainboard resized, ports all moved to one side). About the only component that _hasn't_ changed location and/or shape and/or size is the hard disk.
Well, the size comparison is correct; it's been verified independently by just x-raying the laptops. The new battery really is 40% bigger, and there is no way to have fit that battery in the old laptop.
The point is this says nothing about whether the same size increase would have been possible in the new machine with a removable battery.
It's weirdly shaped (which is hard to impossible to do with a user-removable battery) and really does take advantage of just that much extra space.
Please explain why you think it's "hard to impossible" for a removable battery to be "weirdly shaped". (Or even what's "weird" about the shape.)
Or were you blanket-accusing Apple of lying without having done your homework?
I'm saying their comparison is not valid. I'm not calling it "lying" because while the invalidity of the comparison is obvious to anyone with even the slightest critical analysis capabilities, it probably never crossed the mind of a marketdroid whose whole life revolves around trying to _avoid_ such things.
Art in the 1700s was only accessible to the wealthy patrons who had personal artists.
So you're saying the poor people didn't sing and dance ? They didn't play music ? They didn't perform silly plays to keep each other entertained, or to make money ?
The working class was not invited to enjoy the arts. Art was also a status symbol.
Oh, *that* kind of "Art". Well, I have news for you - the "working class" are _still_ not invited to "enjoy the Arts" and "Art" is still very much a status symbol.
But take a popular film such as Iron Man. That's going to cost $100 million dollars to make. Or LOTR. That's going to take $200 million to make. There isn't really any way around that.
Not paying the actors involved multiple millions of dollars each would probably go a long way towards making them cost less.
Where are you going to find someone willing to front $200 million dollars except for a very large organization which can afford to LOSE $200 million dollars.
Movies like Iron Man generate 100s of millions of dollars in revenue in a matter of days when they are released to cinemas. That's before even getting into revenue from product placement, DVD sales, rentals, toys, and the like.
The entertainment industry isn't going to go broke, even in the face of rampant piracy. They might not make as much profit as they do today, but they're not going to go out of business. Suggestions to the contrary are ridiculous on their face.
The 40% number comes from Apple's product announcement, and is a direct comparison of the battery size in the new 17" Macbook Pro to the battery size in their previous 17" Macbook Pro.
Well, that should give everyone a good idea of how honest a comparison it is.
Yes, of course relative living standards have declined. As our technology increases, the scale of what we can build increases along with it - even a Roman-era palace probably involved fewer resources to build than Google's main data center. I mean, in theory, I could be living in a space palace, surrounded by a terahertz Beowulf cluster. Obviously, though, that's not economically feasible for anyone.
I'm not quite sure I follow how your premise leads to your example. I also find it rather depressing that you think "relative living standard have declined" being an "of course" conclusion rather than an "unfortunately" one.
If your answer is "relative to what we could theoretically have", then you're implying that humanity would be better off if we didn't research things (thus raising the "theoretical maximum".)
When you're throwing around obscenely broken reasoning like that, I don't think we'll be able to have a meaningful discussion on the topic.
And yes, you are entirely right on your last point. I'd be saying exactly those things, and I'd be making the same point I am now - namely, that as technology increases, humans get more comfortable, more advanced, and have better, more interesting forms of leisure, as well as the time to spend on that leisure if they simply stop feeling obliged to buy the newest and shiniest toys.
Except the previous poster's point is they're _not_ getting "more comfortable", they _don't_ have "more interesting forms of leisure, as well as the time to spend on that leisure" and that buying "the newest and shiniest toys" is more difficult, relative to contemporary standards.
As the OP said. "Back in the day" a family could live well (at the contemporary standards) on a single _average_ income. Today, it's much more difficult to do so, if it's possible at all, and arguing that it's primarily because people are buying "the newest and shiniest toys" is specious.
Living standards - both relative and absolute - should NOT be decreasing (yet you seem to think this is both normal, and expected). At worst, they should be remaining static. Ideally, they should be increasing. I should have to spend less of my time - not more - earning an income, than my father did, so as to live as relatively comfortably as he did.
Finally, to summarise, what the OP is really complaining about is the rapidly widening gap between the rich and everyone else. Historically speaking, such a large - and widening - gap has not produced favourable results.
Does it still? I thought they'd finally taken that out. (I think it does still make it entirely too easy for the user to launch executable attachments though.)
No version of Outlook has ever behaved as GP described by design (bugs are a different matter).
However, the person staying at home had fewer luxuries. No large-screen TV. No XBox 360. No electronic picture frames.
This argument pops up all the time in these types of discussions, and it's specious. Yes, people might not have had a TV half a room wide, or a massive SUV, or any of those fancy toys they have today.
But they had contemporary equivalents, which is the OP's point - while absolute living standards have continued to increase, relative living standards (may) have declined.
(Back then, of course, people like you would have been saying how half a century earlier no-one had cars, washing machines or electricity - and 50 years before that it would have been about how no-one had running water.)
Using Occam's Razor we would conclude that our planet revolves around a very ordinary star, everything else observed about our planet suggests it is unexceptional, therefore the emergence of life is likely to be unexceptional.
We don't have enough data to draw any meaningful conclusions. The list of known Earth-like planets is extremely short (one might even say, nonexistant). Therefore, trying to assert _anything_ about whether the Earth is "ordinary" or not is, by definition, pure speculation.
Handy hint: Wine runs quite a lot of this sort of niche vertical-market app very nicely and has powerful ambitions to run the rest. Worth a try.
Of course, this requires accepting that you will get zero vendor support should anything go wrong - not a tradeoff many organisations are prepared to take.
Show me another machine with the specs of the MBP that is as thin and cool.
Usually when people say this they have a very specific feature - or combination of features - that are unique to Apple machines in mind. Which ones are yours ?
However, one excellent alternative to the MBP is Dell's E6400. You can even attach it to a docking station, which for my money is an infinitely more important feature than a tenth of inch more thickness (particularly for the price).
5+ years? The Windows version cycle is only 2/3 years. Windows XP was an exception thanks to the huge delay that Windows Vista got.
Note that if you count ALL the versions of NT, as you should, the cycle looks much more consistent:
December 1999: Windows 2000
October 2001: Windows XP
April 2003: Windows 2003 (/Windows XP x64)
(Q3 2004: "Longhorn reboot" - restart of Vista development from the Windows 2003 codebase)
December 2006: Windows Vista
December 2009: Windows 7
One interesting item of note: The old reg hack to move the IE menu bar back up on top where it belongs no longer works. Oh, the reg key is there, and you can change it, but simply changing it to 0 or 1 no longer works. The default setting is decimal 21, and I haven't been able to figure out the correct decimal number to fix it. So I installed FF3 on it instead.
I'm genuinely curious what you (or anyone else, for that matter) use the menus for often enough to need them visible all the time. (Particularly given your complaints below about wasting screen space).
I remember when XP came out I absolutely hated the Start menu functionality. After about six months I was used to it and found the Win2K menu to be limited. Microsoft has some good UI engineers, but they don't seem too concerned with retaining old conventions.
What ? To use your example, the "old conventions" of the Windows 2000 Start Menu remain with the newer XP Start Menu, the XP one just has additional functionality and features.
I'm sure that helps them when new people use the latest version of the OS or application for the first time. For me, it's just kind of annoying have to relearn things every three to four years when they roll out fairly radical interface redesigns.
The last "radical interface redesign" for Windows was in 1995. The fundamentals of using the Windows GUI have not changed since then, and none of the modifications have been anything more than evolutionary.
Slashdot Mirror
So, thats the problem with sharing with anony on a XP install. I was wondering if I broke something.
The proper way to do this is to enable the Guest account, which is disabled by default. You can do that in User Management.
Now before I get labled as a troll, the registry setting I am talking about is this:
On the non-home versions of XP, you need to manually enable the Guest account for "anonymouse" sharing. You can do this in Users and Groups, or you can do it the hard way and edit the Registry.
In the Home versions, AFAICR, there's a sharing wizard that achieves the same end (of course, this being Slashdot, where everyone knows better, that's probably not widely known).
Culture has changed. File sharing is a fact of life for the majority of PC users. People share their files, not only documents and music, but also video files. Apple and Canonical have responded by giving users better tools and greater freedom with their files. Microsoft has responded by locking its systems down, putting barriers in the way of people trying to us their PCs.
Er, what ?
Looks pretty doubtful from the X-rays, but you're welcome to do the research yourself.
Links to these X-Rays ? A cursory Google search doesn't show them up.
Seriously, do some googling. The battery is wedge in around other components, basically.
The only battery pictures I've seen are from the iFixit disassembly, and it looks like a standard rectangular prism taking up roughly 1/2 the depth and 3/4 the width, starting from one corner. Nothing appears to even vaguely suit the description of being "wedged" around it. If it were some funky shape around other components like an 'S', or even something a bit less exciting like a 'U' or an 'L', you could say it was weirdly shaped. But it certainly appears from the photos to be no more 'weirdly' shaped than the battery on the back of my E4300.
They really didn't change that much about the internal layout of the machine other than the battery, so it's not completely invalid.
Say what ? The internal arrangement of the new MBP 17 is almost completely different to the outgoing model (optical drive moved, battery moved and resized, mainboard resized, ports all moved to one side). About the only component that _hasn't_ changed location and/or shape and/or size is the hard disk.
Well, the size comparison is correct; it's been verified independently by just x-raying the laptops. The new battery really is 40% bigger, and there is no way to have fit that battery in the old laptop.
The point is this says nothing about whether the same size increase would have been possible in the new machine with a removable battery.
It's weirdly shaped (which is hard to impossible to do with a user-removable battery) and really does take advantage of just that much extra space.
Please explain why you think it's "hard to impossible" for a removable battery to be "weirdly shaped". (Or even what's "weird" about the shape.)
Or were you blanket-accusing Apple of lying without having done your homework?
I'm saying their comparison is not valid. I'm not calling it "lying" because while the invalidity of the comparison is obvious to anyone with even the slightest critical analysis capabilities, it probably never crossed the mind of a marketdroid whose whole life revolves around trying to _avoid_ such things.
How so?
Because it suggests the world is more than 6000 years old.
/duh
Art in the 1700s was only accessible to the wealthy patrons who had personal artists.
So you're saying the poor people didn't sing and dance ? They didn't play music ? They didn't perform silly plays to keep each other entertained, or to make money ?
The working class was not invited to enjoy the arts. Art was also a status symbol.
Oh, *that* kind of "Art". Well, I have news for you - the "working class" are _still_ not invited to "enjoy the Arts" and "Art" is still very much a status symbol.
But take a popular film such as Iron Man. That's going to cost $100 million dollars to make. Or LOTR. That's going to take $200 million to make. There isn't really any way around that.
Not paying the actors involved multiple millions of dollars each would probably go a long way towards making them cost less.
Where are you going to find someone willing to front $200 million dollars except for a very large organization which can afford to LOSE $200 million dollars.
Movies like Iron Man generate 100s of millions of dollars in revenue in a matter of days when they are released to cinemas. That's before even getting into revenue from product placement, DVD sales, rentals, toys, and the like.
The entertainment industry isn't going to go broke, even in the face of rampant piracy. They might not make as much profit as they do today, but they're not going to go out of business. Suggestions to the contrary are ridiculous on their face.
The 40% number comes from Apple's product announcement, and is a direct comparison of the battery size in the new 17" Macbook Pro to the battery size in their previous 17" Macbook Pro.
Well, that should give everyone a good idea of how honest a comparison it is.
But how does that matter?
Because it's the metric being discussed.
Yes, of course relative living standards have declined. As our technology increases, the scale of what we can build increases along with it - even a Roman-era palace probably involved fewer resources to build than Google's main data center. I mean, in theory, I could be living in a space palace, surrounded by a terahertz Beowulf cluster. Obviously, though, that's not economically feasible for anyone.
I'm not quite sure I follow how your premise leads to your example. I also find it rather depressing that you think "relative living standard have declined" being an "of course" conclusion rather than an "unfortunately" one.
If your answer is "relative to what we could theoretically have", then you're implying that humanity would be better off if we didn't research things (thus raising the "theoretical maximum".)
When you're throwing around obscenely broken reasoning like that, I don't think we'll be able to have a meaningful discussion on the topic.
And yes, you are entirely right on your last point. I'd be saying exactly those things, and I'd be making the same point I am now - namely, that as technology increases, humans get more comfortable, more advanced, and have better, more interesting forms of leisure, as well as the time to spend on that leisure if they simply stop feeling obliged to buy the newest and shiniest toys.
Except the previous poster's point is they're _not_ getting "more comfortable", they _don't_ have "more interesting forms of leisure, as well as the time to spend on that leisure" and that buying "the newest and shiniest toys" is more difficult, relative to contemporary standards.
As the OP said. "Back in the day" a family could live well (at the contemporary standards) on a single _average_ income. Today, it's much more difficult to do so, if it's possible at all, and arguing that it's primarily because people are buying "the newest and shiniest toys" is specious.
Living standards - both relative and absolute - should NOT be decreasing (yet you seem to think this is both normal, and expected). At worst, they should be remaining static. Ideally, they should be increasing. I should have to spend less of my time - not more - earning an income, than my father did, so as to live as relatively comfortably as he did.
Finally, to summarise, what the OP is really complaining about is the rapidly widening gap between the rich and everyone else. Historically speaking, such a large - and widening - gap has not produced favourable results.
Does it still? I thought they'd finally taken that out. (I think it does still make it entirely too easy for the user to launch executable attachments though.)
No version of Outlook has ever behaved as GP described by design (bugs are a different matter).
However, the person staying at home had fewer luxuries. No large-screen TV. No XBox 360. No electronic picture frames.
This argument pops up all the time in these types of discussions, and it's specious. Yes, people might not have had a TV half a room wide, or a massive SUV, or any of those fancy toys they have today.
But they had contemporary equivalents, which is the OP's point - while absolute living standards have continued to increase, relative living standards (may) have declined.
(Back then, of course, people like you would have been saying how half a century earlier no-one had cars, washing machines or electricity - and 50 years before that it would have been about how no-one had running water.)
I have been modded "troll".
[...]
I'm still in shock.
Well there's no '-1, Wrong', so what are the mods supposed to do ?
Using Occam's Razor we would conclude that our planet revolves around a very ordinary star, everything else observed about our planet suggests it is unexceptional, therefore the emergence of life is likely to be unexceptional.
We don't have enough data to draw any meaningful conclusions. The list of known Earth-like planets is extremely short (one might even say, nonexistant). Therefore, trying to assert _anything_ about whether the Earth is "ordinary" or not is, by definition, pure speculation.
Handy hint: Wine runs quite a lot of this sort of niche vertical-market app very nicely and has powerful ambitions to run the rest. Worth a try.
Of course, this requires accepting that you will get zero vendor support should anything go wrong - not a tradeoff many organisations are prepared to take.
Nope. Free software people don't give a rats ass about copyright law. The GPL is actually a hack to circumvent copyright law. Think about it.
The GNU/Free Software people most certainly care about copyright law, because without it their pet license is unenforcable.
No Copyright turns every OSS license into something that makes the BSDL look restrictive.
Rocks may not have DNA or intelligence, but they do form, change, multiply and there's a recognisable process for destroying them.
How many of these things happen without an outside force causing them ?
How could the writer blatantly ignore the 486sx, the winchip, or the original (cacheless) Celeron??
The 486SX was hardly a flop, they _very_ well.
Developed by a set of dcotors who got fed up with Direct X and the quicksand that is WDDM and DRM nonsense.
These had nothing to do with the creation of Osirix.
Some of our Radiologists use (and love) Osirix.
Show me another machine with the specs of the MBP that is as thin and cool.
Usually when people say this they have a very specific feature - or combination of features - that are unique to Apple machines in mind. Which ones are yours ?
However, one excellent alternative to the MBP is Dell's E6400. You can even attach it to a docking station, which for my money is an infinitely more important feature than a tenth of inch more thickness (particularly for the price).
I will admit they're not as pretty, however.
I still cannot fathom why people scramble to get the latest copy of a Windows OS way before it's really even declared "ready."
Some of us are just interested in technology for technology's sake. Ostensibly, we are the people Slashdot caters to.
5+ years? The Windows version cycle is only 2/3 years. Windows XP was an exception thanks to the huge delay that Windows Vista got.
Note that if you count ALL the versions of NT, as you should, the cycle looks much more consistent:
December 1999: Windows 2000
October 2001: Windows XP
April 2003: Windows 2003 (/Windows XP x64)
(Q3 2004: "Longhorn reboot" - restart of Vista development from the Windows 2003 codebase)
December 2006: Windows Vista
December 2009: Windows 7
One interesting item of note: The old reg hack to move the IE menu bar back up on top where it belongs no longer works. Oh, the reg key is there, and you can change it, but simply changing it to 0 or 1 no longer works. The default setting is decimal 21, and I haven't been able to figure out the correct decimal number to fix it. So I installed FF3 on it instead.
I'm genuinely curious what you (or anyone else, for that matter) use the menus for often enough to need them visible all the time. (Particularly given your complaints below about wasting screen space).
I remember when XP came out I absolutely hated the Start menu functionality. After about six months I was used to it and found the Win2K menu to be limited. Microsoft has some good UI engineers, but they don't seem too concerned with retaining old conventions.
What ? To use your example, the "old conventions" of the Windows 2000 Start Menu remain with the newer XP Start Menu, the XP one just has additional functionality and features.
I'm sure that helps them when new people use the latest version of the OS or application for the first time. For me, it's just kind of annoying have to relearn things every three to four years when they roll out fairly radical interface redesigns.
The last "radical interface redesign" for Windows was in 1995. The fundamentals of using the Windows GUI have not changed since then, and none of the modifications have been anything more than evolutionary.