Washington University in St. Louis, my overpriced private school, recently pulled the same bullshit. They surveyed the student body and, despite our requests, ended up going with Ruckus.
Ruckus is Windows-only (despite a significant Mac base at my school) and only provides DRM-protected Windows Media downloads. Burning isn't free. You can't use it with an iPod, of course. To make matters worse, the software creates pop-up ads while the software is open.
Something dirty is happening behind the scenes in these Ruckus deals. Student's DON'T WANT IT. It's NOT USEFUL.
I wouldn't mind getting a list of one-time use passwords for places that aren't secure enough to enter my real password. It would be possible to implement this so that you could use either your standard password or a one-time use password. This wouldn't complicate things for users who don't wish to use this security feature; they just enter their normal password.
Show me one instance where the negatives attributes of Flash (ie accessibility problems, requirements for third party proprietary software, an inability to interact with the operating system, etc.) are outweighed by the positive attribute (it makes it easy for third graders to make pretty webpages).
They aren't legally allowed to drink, smoke, or vote, either.
They are allowed to smoke, but the tobacco must be purchased by someone 18 or over. They are allowed to drink under certain situations (i.e. parent present) in most states.
You could be right about the games; I don't play many PC games and wouldn't really know. As for other software, I've gotten everything to work except for anti-virus software that stubbornly requires XP. With a little research you can find compatible virus protection. Personally, I don't use anti-virus software on my workstation. I run Windows Update, use a decent firewall, disable all unnecessary services, use FF instead of IE, and am cautious with what I execute. If anti-virus is worth the performance hit for you, then go ahead.
I agree with your objection to the IE security recommendation. It's best to leave IE in its "advanced security" mode and use FF for normal browsing.
Windows 2000 is amazing-- blazing fast and solid as a rock. I tried XP for a couple months and quickly switched back to 2000. Unfortunately, as Microsoft slowly discontinues updates, patches, and support for Windows 2000, you will eventually have to migrate to XP, 2k3, or Longhorn.
I installed Windows Server 2003 a year or two ago and haven't looked back. It has all of the stability and speed of 2000, except with the improved compatibility and features of XP. Subjectively, I can tell you that it doesn't "deteriorate" like XP does. (Your mileage may vary.) And did I mention it was blazing fast on my dated hardware?
It uses a newer kernel than XP, for the record. One of the major differences I've noticed is that windows redraw more smoothly with less flickering, especially in Explorer. It includes XP's WiFi connectivity features, too.
There's an excellent site dedicated to using Server 2003 as a workstation, including instructions on how to disable unnecessary services and processes.
Complaining that these are "just point updates" is silly. You can't compare versioning schemes between software.
Compare: A typical open source Linux package, version 0.4 A typical commercial Windows package, version 1.1
The OSS 0.4 is generally more stable and mature.
Apple is using "point releases" because they're in trouble-- the Mac OS X brand name depends on the version being 10.x.
Had Apple not relied on the OS X brand name, this would be "Mac OS 14.0 Tiger."
Microsoft avoids the whole decimal versioning system by not displaying it in marketing materials. People would be less likely to buy Windows XP if they saw that it was NT 5.1, a "point release" update to NT 5.0 (Windows 2000).
One thing I do not take into account here (although it can play a significant role in real pages) is progressive rendering. For example, with Opera 6, the table was laid out faster, but nothing was displayed until the entire table was complete. With Opera 7+, the table takes longer to complete (about half a second), but it is progressively displayed, so the first part is displayed as soon as it is ready, without having to wait for the rest of the table to complete. As a result, you can actually start reading the page faster with Opera 7+. With pages that are served by slow servers (or if you have a slower connection), this can make overall browsing speed significantly faster.
The test is flawed. What are we measuring here?
on
Browser Speed Comparisons
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Each intermediate page must be allowed to load completely... This means that any indicators that the browser provides to show that the page is loading must show the page as loaded before navigating to the next page.
If you read this, you'll know that these benchmarks are mostly useless. How many people wait until a page is completely finished loading before looking at it or clicking links?
Users will tell you that Browser A "feels" faster than Browser B. This doesn't mean that A downloads and renders the entire page faster than B. It means that A displays the necessary content faster than B.
I don't care if it takes 2.5 seconds to load a page if I can see 75% of the content after 0.6 seconds.
If I'm allowed to change Windows' DPI setting (which is probably the only innovative GUI feature ever to grace the OS), then they should bug test to make sure that their apps work correctly with it.
Everything else I use supports it or ignores it. Trying to support it then fcking it up isn't an option.
I just paid $50 for Halo 2 and another $50 for an Xbox Live subscription. That's $100 for one game. Okay, whatever, fine.
Now they're telling me that the game is less than perfect and they want me to buy a new console and a new copy of the game. $200 for the console, $20 for a new headset adapter for the controller, and $50 for Halo 2.5.
Slashdot Mirror
Washington University in St. Louis, my overpriced private school, recently pulled the same bullshit. They surveyed the student body and, despite our requests, ended up going with Ruckus.
Ruckus is Windows-only (despite a significant Mac base at my school) and only provides DRM-protected Windows Media downloads. Burning isn't free. You can't use it with an iPod, of course. To make matters worse, the software creates pop-up ads while the software is open.
Something dirty is happening behind the scenes in these Ruckus deals. Student's DON'T WANT IT. It's NOT USEFUL.
I wouldn't mind getting a list of one-time use passwords for places that aren't secure enough to enter my real password. It would be possible to implement this so that you could use either your standard password or a one-time use password. This wouldn't complicate things for users who don't wish to use this security feature; they just enter their normal password.
Google, are you listening?
Sir, uh, we need $150,000 for a holographic 3D TV to watch the Superbowl on. For uh, national security.
Oh yeah, and... we need $1,000 for a large order of chicken wings. Those bad guys might try to poison those. We want to be the first to know.
And some beer. No reason for that one, just thought I'd ask.
--
Show me one instance where the negatives attributes of Flash (ie accessibility problems, requirements for third party proprietary software, an inability to interact with the operating system, etc.) are outweighed by the positive attribute (it makes it easy for third graders to make pretty webpages).
Google Video.
They aren't legally allowed to drink, smoke, or vote, either.
They are allowed to smoke, but the tobacco must be purchased by someone 18 or over. They are allowed to drink under certain situations (i.e. parent present) in most states.
http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/ 13443
Change your mouse acceleration.
Case law provides numerous specific allowance criteria for probable cause:
m
http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/315/315lect06.ht
The Google toolbar is mostly useless, but the Google Suggest extension is cool shit. It hooks into Firefox's built-in search box.
You could be right about the games; I don't play many PC games and wouldn't really know. As for other software, I've gotten everything to work except for anti-virus software that stubbornly requires XP. With a little research you can find compatible virus protection. Personally, I don't use anti-virus software on my workstation. I run Windows Update, use a decent firewall, disable all unnecessary services, use FF instead of IE, and am cautious with what I execute. If anti-virus is worth the performance hit for you, then go ahead.
I agree with your objection to the IE security recommendation. It's best to leave IE in its "advanced security" mode and use FF for normal browsing.
RTFA, this is about using Windows on dated hardware. Not everyone on Slashdot is loaded.
Windows 2000 is amazing-- blazing fast and solid as a rock. I tried XP for a couple months and quickly switched back to 2000. Unfortunately, as Microsoft slowly discontinues updates, patches, and support for Windows 2000, you will eventually have to migrate to XP, 2k3, or Longhorn.
I installed Windows Server 2003 a year or two ago and haven't looked back. It has all of the stability and speed of 2000, except with the improved compatibility and features of XP. Subjectively, I can tell you that it doesn't "deteriorate" like XP does. (Your mileage may vary.) And did I mention it was blazing fast on my dated hardware?
It uses a newer kernel than XP, for the record. One of the major differences I've noticed is that windows redraw more smoothly with less flickering, especially in Explorer. It includes XP's WiFi connectivity features, too.
There's an excellent site dedicated to using Server 2003 as a workstation, including instructions on how to disable unnecessary services and processes.
Who came up with this lousy standard? Were they high? How did they come up with the number 1080?
Why not make the larger resolution 960i to allow for easy scaling?
Exactly.
Complaining that these are "just point updates" is silly. You can't compare versioning schemes between software.
Compare:
A typical open source Linux package, version 0.4
A typical commercial Windows package, version 1.1
The OSS 0.4 is generally more stable and mature.
Apple is using "point releases" because they're in trouble-- the Mac OS X brand name depends on the version being 10.x.
Had Apple not relied on the OS X brand name, this would be "Mac OS 14.0 Tiger."
Microsoft avoids the whole decimal versioning system by not displaying it in marketing materials. People would be less likely to buy Windows XP if they saw that it was NT 5.1, a "point release" update to NT 5.0 (Windows 2000).
Tiger now supports parental controls... for the Dictionary!
Holy crap, where's my VISA?
I'm tired of my kids looking up naughty words in the online dictionary.
I'm not really into carnivorous plants, so I hadn't heard this word before.
Here's a WAV pronunciation.
tur-e-on
Not very phonetic. Shouldn't product names be easy to read without hearing them?
I imagine that I'll hear many tur-yun's, tur-eye-un's, and too-rye-un's.
Who "stocks up" on music just because a price boost is coming?
That's silly.
Everyone has a Plan B in mind, in case the prices do go up. Or should we call it Plan K.
Meant to quote this too:
One thing I do not take into account here (although it can play a significant role in real pages) is progressive rendering. For example, with Opera 6, the table was laid out faster, but nothing was displayed until the entire table was complete. With Opera 7+, the table takes longer to complete (about half a second), but it is progressively displayed, so the first part is displayed as soon as it is ready, without having to wait for the rest of the table to complete. As a result, you can actually start reading the page faster with Opera 7+. With pages that are served by slow servers (or if you have a slower connection), this can make overall browsing speed significantly faster.
Each intermediate page must be allowed to load completely ... This means that any indicators that the browser provides to show that the page is loading must show the page as loaded before navigating to the next page.
If you read this, you'll know that these benchmarks are mostly useless. How many people wait until a page is completely finished loading before looking at it or clicking links?
Users will tell you that Browser A "feels" faster than Browser B. This doesn't mean that A downloads and renders the entire page faster than B. It means that A displays the necessary content faster than B.
I don't care if it takes 2.5 seconds to load a page if I can see 75% of the content after 0.6 seconds.
Who cares when the progress bar disappears?
One word:
Kazaa
Did it work for them?
No.
Yeah man. It's pretty damned ugly in Windows, too.
Not to criticize your GUI fashion sense.
--
Microsoft should support their own feature.
If I'm allowed to change Windows' DPI setting (which is probably the only innovative GUI feature ever to grace the OS), then they should bug test to make sure that their apps work correctly with it.
Everything else I use supports it or ignores it. Trying to support it then fcking it up isn't an option.
Microsoft obviously doesn't care how their newest baby looks in Windows 2000.
:/
Check out this screenshot.
Many of the GUI quirks make it almost unusable.
Offtopic:
What's the use of your KnowYourCollege site when we have StudentsReview.com ?
At Microsoft, "innovations" are new ways to lock out competitors.
Look for patented IE-exclusive features in their next version.
--
Seriously.
I just paid $50 for Halo 2 and another $50 for an Xbox Live subscription. That's $100 for one game. Okay, whatever, fine.
Now they're telling me that the game is less than perfect and they want me to buy a new console and a new copy of the game. $200 for the console, $20 for a new headset adapter for the controller, and $50 for Halo 2.5.
Total cost: $370.
Is Halo 2 worth $370?