Look, unless you have an actual piece of hardware that is just flat-out incompatible, I don't think 'stability' is a reason to refuse to upgrade from XP or Vista to Windows 7. I used the beta for months on a laptop, and the only problems I had were waking up from sleep mode and from the screensaver kicking in. Once I swapped the beta out for the RC, I've had no problems at all except the fingerprint reader occasionally doesn't work, forcing me to type in the password to login. No biggie. For me, even the RC of Win7 has been more stable than XP SP3. YMMV, of course.
If you haven't upgraded the IE6 on your older Windows machine, stability is definitely not something you're worried about, so go for it.
The Slashdot sample of wireless encryption users may be different than most samples, hehe...
I don't think WEP nor WPA are obsolete. People still use it fairly regularly, if anything at all.
As I said, just because people are still using something, that doesn't mean it isn't obsolete. WEP & WPA *are* obsolete. Unfortunately, people are still using older hardware, as well as installing stuff without knowing how to configure it. IE6 is a good example - (VERY) obsolete technology, still in wide use.
I think AP manufacturers should make it MORE difficult to use their equipment in unsecured or WEP/WPA mode than the other way around. I doubt most people really want to run an unsecured access point, though that's just a guess.
WEP isn't even obsolete, let alone WPA. Many people still use "old" standards. Not everyone keeps up to date with the latest wireless security. Many have unsecured networks. Many use WEP just to keep off annoying neighbors. I don't know anyone that uses WPA2+AES at home. I take it back, I do know one person that does.
WEP is obsolete and so is WPA. People still drive Model T cars - that doesn't mean they're not obsolete. Hell, lots of people still use *IE6*!
I've been using WPA2+AES at home for quite some time.:)
Windows Mobile is like the two Matrix sequels or the Star Wars prequels. We pretend it doesn't exist.
Dude, what are you talking about, they never made another Matrix or the Star Wars prequels! I *wish*!
Too bad they never made a sequel to Highlander, either. *sigh* Oh well...maybe someday.
Maybe some day they'll make a third Alien movie, too. Man, how kick ass would _that_ be! Hicks was a great addition - can't wait to see what they do with him _and_ Ripley in the mix again. And you know Newt is gonna grow up to kick some serious ass.
Still, sometimes you have to respect the maker's original vision. Some things aren't meant to be continued beyond an originally envisioned ending, like Babylon 5. Imagine trying to make more of that after such a perfect ending!
I can't wait for the price to drop, those 160GB intels were supposed to be $450....Newegg has them for around $650:\
Keep in mind NewEgg is one of the worst places to buy an SSD - for some reason their prices are quite a bit higher than others. It pays to shop around when dealing with SSDs. I dunno what NewEgg's problem is on this, but it's pissing a lot of people off.
I hate to advocate piracy, but in this case, everyone benefits, even Microsoft. When people get off of those old Windows 2000 machines, MS won't have to deal with the corporate support issues or negative publicity. Some people either WILL never, or CAN'T afford to pay for their new software, yet must still live in a world where MS-compatibility is a requirement to get things done. Well - if you really have a lot of IE6 users to support - I suppose....
It's around 15-20% of our user base, last time I heard. Lots of corporate users, who are among the slowest to change.
Can't you simply design out such totally brower-specific things in the first place?
I'm not using any browser-specific anything. That's the problem with IE 6 - it actually _breaks_ when you try to use standard HTML/CSS (mainly CSS) which it's supposed to support. Even the simplest things like the box model (how the dimensions of a div or other object are measured) are wrong. When you define in CSS the width of a div, and add a border or padding or margin, the standard says it should add those additional widths to the width specified for the div you're defining. What does IE 6 do? Why, it subtracts instead of adds! This is not a pleasant situation. There are workarounds, which I use, but it requires more code, and it's code that has to go into the HTML (extra div wrapper, depending on what you're doing) more often than one would believe. That means everyone has to download the extra HTML just to get around a ridiculous bug in IE 6. Other problems you can (and have to) fix via additional CSS. I haven't used anything stupid like an ActiveX control since the mid-nineties when I did some work for MS.
That's probably a stupid question to pro web developer, I guess - but honestly, as a lowly web user - I don't know why.
It's a matter of seeing the issue from the other side. Many people, even in my field, think every developer has the time to create browser-specific style sheets, etc. That's simply not the case for many of us. Some IE bugs require browser-specific HTML, which, if you were to separate out just for IE 6, would require even more work. Bleh.
In a perfect world, everyone could afford all the software they wanted, or would have control over their machine at work so they could upgrade their browser (or use another browser entirely). Or MS would make IE 8 work on Windows 2000, or, or, or. We don't live in that world, unfortunately.
Wouldn't a much simpler - and more honest - solution to the piracy you're advocating be to simply get people to switch to Opera or Firefox?
You'd think so, but if that was going to happen, it would have already done so.
You couldn't simply sense IE 6, state that it's not fully supported on your pages, and put in friendly links to Opera, Firefox, Safari, Chrome or the Microsoft Win7 homepages?
Sadly, no, I'm not allowed to do that at work. I work for a company; I don't get to decide what the product does. I would've done that years ago if I'd been allowed to. We still have a very high percentage of IE 6 users, too.
No - you come here and advocate piracy.
As a last resort, yeah. I said 'legally OR illegally'. My copy of Windows 7 is legal, and I'd prefer everyone be able to get it legally, too, and thus be more likely to be able to get support and updates. But let's face facts - MS has built their business at least partly on users with pirated copies of their OS & apps, to gain such a ridiculously large marketshare. It's a weird dynamic, but it worked pretty well. I'd rather people who refuse to go with Opera or Firefox or Chrome at least get an IE 8 machine, by whatever means. Considering the damage MS has done to the Web by stagnating IE development for years, and deliberately putting out a browser that doesn't properly support the standards they helped create in the first place, the very LEAST they owe everyone is a free upgrade to Win 7.
I would bet most clueless users will get Windows 7 by simply getting a new machine, which is not the worst idea I've heard, as other benefits come along with that. Lots of people get laptops now instead of desktop machines, too, which will also reduce power use. It's all good when you upgrade.
Windows 7 is a lovely gift to the Web (for all!)
on
A Tale of Two Windows 7s
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Why? Simple - it gets everyone, even the people who don't know any better, OFF of IE 6 and 7. IE 8 is no great technical achievement, but it sure makes my life easier as a web developer. When the hype is whipped up like it is for Win 7, then people are spurred to upgrade hardware, etc. It's a good deal.
If you have people in your life who won't change to a Mac or Ubuntu, try getting them to upgrade to Windows 7, PLEASE. Legally or illegally. All of us on Slashdot should know how to get a cracked/activated copy of Win 7 that doesn't call the mothership by now. If that's what it takes to get people off of IE 6, DO IT. The lesser of two evils here is moving people to Win 7/IE 8 rather than letting them stagnate the Web by continuing to use IE 6.
Core i3/i5 mini may come with suck build intel video if they make one same thing for the $1200 imac. half the video speed.
There are already Core i5/i7 (mobile) laptops announced with discrete graphics. The Dell Studio 17, for example, has "1GB ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4650". That's way better than what I have in my current desktop (for now). This shouldn't be a problem to build for anyone but Apple.
Unless they changed something, the Mac mini uses SATA internally, so you should be able to swap the two 500GB 2.5" mechanical drives for two 2.5" SSD drives.
I'd bet that's the case, too, but why buy spinning drives at all if you're just going to turn around and replace them with SSDs? I'd also like that eSATA port to hook it up to external storage at full speed. If they're calling this a mini 'server', I'd expect a bit more than the standard (already lame) selection of ports the desktop version comes with.
Apple will sell you (£20.00 here in the UK) a USB to Ethernet adapter.
No they won't.:)
I also have another PPC (bought off Ebay) that acts as my main fileserver. I have a Lacie Firewire Drive that is the same formfactor attached.
FW800 was great back in the day, but SSDs already have sequential read & write speeds far beyond what that connector can support. This thing was obsolete before it was released. It's frustrating to me because it's _so close_ to a really great machine. Apple seems to make a habit of this.
Unfortunately, they don't give you the option to use the slower CPU with the mini server option, or give you the option to use SSDs. I'd also like to see an eSATA port and a 2nd ethernet port, for the server build, anyway. Perhaps an Xserve mini? It'll be interesting to see these once they're updated with Core i5/i7 processors. At least they have decent discrete graphics now. Are the CPUs still soldered in, though?
>...the rest of us are not allowed to keep our own anonymous network, because anonymity is a threat to those in power by making monitoring people harder. Please cease researching growth hormones for Big Brother, it's huge enough already.
Either I have not explained things adequately or you have misunderstood. The goal is to enable disruptive, innovative network technologies which cannot currently be deployed because they might conflict with the existing technologies.
It appears you don't understand his concern. Whatever YOUR goal is, it seems to enable what he's worried about - once you enable the ISPs & content owners (which are rapidly merging into being the same entities) control over what KIND of connection you can have - anonymous or not - they will always default to non-anonymous so they can control what you can access. You may have a very laudable technical goal in mind, but the possibilities of your work are fairly horrific for a free and open society. Tools can often be used for both good and evil, but you've got to balance the amount of good your tool can do versus the evil. Is this level of control over people worth more than what you're trying to solve? I'd say very definitely not.
Slashdot Mirror
Get a seedbox. :)
Look, unless you have an actual piece of hardware that is just flat-out incompatible, I don't think 'stability' is a reason to refuse to upgrade from XP or Vista to Windows 7. I used the beta for months on a laptop, and the only problems I had were waking up from sleep mode and from the screensaver kicking in. Once I swapped the beta out for the RC, I've had no problems at all except the fingerprint reader occasionally doesn't work, forcing me to type in the password to login. No biggie. For me, even the RC of Win7 has been more stable than XP SP3. YMMV, of course.
If you haven't upgraded the IE6 on your older Windows machine, stability is definitely not something you're worried about, so go for it.
The Slashdot sample of wireless encryption users may be different than most samples, hehe...
I don't think WEP nor WPA are obsolete. People still use it fairly regularly, if anything at all.
As I said, just because people are still using something, that doesn't mean it isn't obsolete. WEP & WPA *are* obsolete. Unfortunately, people are still using older hardware, as well as installing stuff without knowing how to configure it. IE6 is a good example - (VERY) obsolete technology, still in wide use.
I think AP manufacturers should make it MORE difficult to use their equipment in unsecured or WEP/WPA mode than the other way around. I doubt most people really want to run an unsecured access point, though that's just a guess.
WEP isn't even obsolete, let alone WPA. Many people still use "old" standards. Not everyone keeps up to date with the latest wireless security. Many have unsecured networks. Many use WEP just to keep off annoying neighbors. I don't know anyone that uses WPA2+AES at home. I take it back, I do know one person that does.
WEP is obsolete and so is WPA. People still drive Model T cars - that doesn't mean they're not obsolete. Hell, lots of people still use *IE6*!
I've been using WPA2+AES at home for quite some time. :)
News at 11!
Wake me when someone's got something on WPA2.
I think someone should post a story about bugs in zmodem.
This is just brine gecko...don't be fooled!
There's a lot of speculation that T-Mobile G1 owners might not get the update, which would suck.
Well, they're _already_ T-Mo customers - they must be used to suckage by now, right?
Windows Mobile is like the two Matrix sequels or the Star Wars prequels. We pretend it doesn't exist.
Dude, what are you talking about, they never made another Matrix or the Star Wars prequels! I *wish*!
Too bad they never made a sequel to Highlander, either. *sigh* Oh well...maybe someday.
Maybe some day they'll make a third Alien movie, too. Man, how kick ass would _that_ be! Hicks was a great addition - can't wait to see what they do with him _and_ Ripley in the mix again. And you know Newt is gonna grow up to kick some serious ass.
Still, sometimes you have to respect the maker's original vision. Some things aren't meant to be continued beyond an originally envisioned ending, like Babylon 5. Imagine trying to make more of that after such a perfect ending!
I can't wait for the price to drop, those 160GB intels were supposed to be $450....Newegg has them for around $650 :\
Keep in mind NewEgg is one of the worst places to buy an SSD - for some reason their prices are quite a bit higher than others. It pays to shop around when dealing with SSDs. I dunno what NewEgg's problem is on this, but it's pissing a lot of people off.
Do any of you have a recommendation on what to use instead? Preferably PHP-based, so it has a realistic shot of being supported on most hosting plans?
Wonderful, now we can route our already-pokey 3G connections through a whole bunch of nodes to make them feel like old 2G connections.
Is retro back in style?
I just spoke with kibo; he says yes.
See, Linux _can_ do everything Windows can do! A better Windows than Windows...where have I heard that before?
I hate to advocate piracy, but in this case, everyone benefits, even Microsoft. When people get off of those old Windows 2000 machines, MS won't have to deal with the corporate support issues or negative publicity. Some people either WILL never, or CAN'T afford to pay for their new software, yet must still live in a world where MS-compatibility is a requirement to get things done.
Well - if you really have a lot of IE6 users to support - I suppose....
It's around 15-20% of our user base, last time I heard. Lots of corporate users, who are among the slowest to change.
Can't you simply design out such totally brower-specific things in the first place?
I'm not using any browser-specific anything. That's the problem with IE 6 - it actually _breaks_ when you try to use standard HTML/CSS (mainly CSS) which it's supposed to support. Even the simplest things like the box model (how the dimensions of a div or other object are measured) are wrong. When you define in CSS the width of a div, and add a border or padding or margin, the standard says it should add those additional widths to the width specified for the div you're defining. What does IE 6 do? Why, it
subtracts instead of adds! This is not a pleasant situation. There are workarounds, which I use, but it requires more code, and it's code that has to go into the HTML (extra div wrapper, depending on what you're doing) more often than one would believe. That means everyone has to download the extra HTML just to get around a ridiculous bug in IE 6. Other problems you can (and have to) fix
via additional CSS. I haven't used anything stupid like an ActiveX control since the mid-nineties when I did some work for MS.
That's probably a stupid question to pro web developer, I guess - but honestly, as a lowly web user - I don't know why.
It's a matter of seeing the issue from the other side. Many people, even in my field, think every developer has the time to create browser-specific style sheets, etc. That's simply not the case for many of us. Some IE bugs require browser-specific HTML, which, if you were to separate out just for IE 6, would require even more work. Bleh.
In a perfect world, everyone could afford all the software they wanted, or would have control over their machine at work so they could upgrade their browser (or use another browser entirely). Or MS would make IE 8 work on Windows 2000, or, or, or. We don't live in that world, unfortunately.
Wouldn't a much simpler - and more honest - solution to the piracy you're advocating be to simply get people to switch to Opera or Firefox?
You'd think so, but if that was going to happen, it would have already done so.
You couldn't simply sense IE 6, state that it's not fully supported on your pages, and put in friendly links to Opera, Firefox, Safari, Chrome or the Microsoft Win7 homepages?
Sadly, no, I'm not allowed to do that at work. I work for a company; I don't get to decide what the product does. I would've done that years ago if I'd been allowed to. We still have a very high percentage of IE 6 users, too.
No - you come here and advocate piracy.
As a last resort, yeah. I said 'legally OR illegally'. My copy of Windows 7 is legal, and I'd prefer everyone be able to get it legally, too, and thus be more likely to be able to get support and updates. But let's face facts - MS has built their business at least partly on users with pirated copies of their OS & apps, to gain such a ridiculously large marketshare. It's a weird dynamic, but it worked pretty well. I'd rather people who refuse to go with Opera or Firefox or Chrome at least get an IE 8 machine, by whatever means. Considering the damage MS has done to the Web by stagnating IE development for years, and deliberately putting out a browser that doesn't properly support the standards they helped create in the first place, the very LEAST they owe everyone is a free upgrade to Win 7.
I would bet most clueless users will get Windows 7 by simply getting a new machine, which is not the worst idea I've heard, as other benefits come along with that. Lots of people get laptops now instead of desktop machines, too, which will also reduce power use. It's all good when you upgrade.
Why? Simple - it gets everyone, even the people who don't know any better, OFF of IE 6 and 7. IE 8 is no great technical achievement, but it sure makes my life easier as a web developer. When the hype is whipped up like it is for Win 7, then people are spurred to upgrade hardware, etc. It's a good deal.
If you have people in your life who won't change to a Mac or Ubuntu, try getting them to upgrade to Windows 7, PLEASE. Legally or illegally. All of us on Slashdot should know how to get a cracked/activated copy of Win 7 that doesn't call the mothership by now. If that's what it takes to get people off of IE 6, DO IT. The lesser of two evils here is moving people to Win 7/IE 8 rather than letting them stagnate the Web by continuing to use IE 6.
Core i3/i5 mini may come with suck build intel video if they make one same thing for the $1200 imac. half the video speed.
There are already Core i5/i7 (mobile) laptops announced with discrete graphics. The Dell Studio 17, for example, has "1GB ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4650". That's way better than what I have in my current desktop (for now). This shouldn't be a problem to build for anyone but Apple.
Unless they changed something, the Mac mini uses SATA internally, so you should be able to swap the two 500GB 2.5" mechanical drives for two 2.5" SSD drives.
I'd bet that's the case, too, but why buy spinning drives at all if you're just going to turn around and replace them with SSDs? I'd also like that eSATA port to hook it up to external storage at full speed. If they're calling this a mini 'server', I'd expect a bit more than the standard (already lame) selection of ports the desktop version comes with.
Apple will sell you (£20.00 here in the UK) a USB to Ethernet adapter.
No they won't. :)
I also have another PPC (bought off Ebay) that acts as my main fileserver. I have a Lacie Firewire Drive that is the same formfactor attached.
FW800 was great back in the day, but SSDs already have sequential read & write speeds far beyond what that connector can support. This thing was obsolete before it was released. It's frustrating to me because it's _so close_ to a really great machine. Apple seems to make a habit of this.
Unfortunately, they don't give you the option to use the slower CPU with the mini server option, or give you the option to use SSDs. I'd also like to see an eSATA port and a 2nd ethernet port, for the server build, anyway. Perhaps an Xserve mini? It'll be interesting to see these once they're updated with Core i5/i7 processors. At least they have decent discrete graphics now. Are the CPUs still soldered in, though?
Everyone uses the _internet_, now. Who cares about ethernet?!
Springs and the support post are under the seat? Call me old fashioned (and it won't be the first time) but I'll take a horse, thank you.
Davey Jones' Locker?
Yup. Time to stop recommending his companies products.
Absolutely. And also recommend to people using them to STOP using them, and WHY.
He's free to express his idiotic opinion. As am I. :)
> ...the rest of us are not allowed to keep our own anonymous network, because anonymity is a threat to those in power by making monitoring people harder. Please cease researching growth hormones for Big Brother, it's huge enough already.
Either I have not explained things adequately or you have misunderstood. The goal is to enable disruptive, innovative network technologies which cannot currently be deployed because they might conflict with the existing technologies.
It appears you don't understand his concern. Whatever YOUR goal is, it seems to enable what he's worried about - once you enable the ISPs & content owners (which are rapidly merging into being the same entities) control over what KIND of connection you can have - anonymous or not - they will always default to non-anonymous so they can control what you can access. You may have a very laudable technical goal in mind, but the possibilities of your work are fairly horrific for a free and open society. Tools can often be used for both good and evil, but you've got to balance the amount of good your tool can do versus the evil. Is this level of control over people worth more than what you're trying to solve? I'd say very definitely not.
Magnet current? Like, in a transformer?
No, that's a 'spark'. Still, it might be disguised as a magnetic current.