Service Pack 1 brings new improvements that are based on feedback we heard from our customers. It further improves the reliability and performance of Windows Vista. The information we collect thanks to tools like the Customer Experience Improvement Program, Online Crash Analysis, and Windows Error Reporting help us learn about where and when customers are having issues with Windows Vista and the applications that run on it. Since these issues have a direct impact on our customers' experiences, we've invested time and energy to make this better. While Windows Vista Service Pack 1 is an important milestone, we will continue to invest in the continuous improvement process.
Is it just me, or does this sound like a weaselly way of saying: "Yeah, we really haven't got a friggin' clue why our OS is messed up, so hopefully after this release we'll be able to start looking at the problems people are having."
Overall, I think the review was fair, except for this point:
Needless to say, programs written for Mac OS X or Windows that you can buy online or in a retail store won't work on the Linux-based gPC--it's mainly a Web-based PC.
Well, yeah, it's a different OS. If you know what you're doing, you can run Windows software on Macs, but most people generally don't. The point is to have alternatives available, but still have compatibility where it counts; for example, MS Office isn't available, so you use OpenOffice or StarOffice, which can read MS Office files if necessary.
So the question is not whether you can run Windows/Mac software, but whether there is enough functionality there to allow the user to do the same things they would on a Mac or PC. From what I read in the review, the answer is a somewhat shaky "yes," though there are some serious performance issues.
I think manufacturers have long overestimated the market for simple, cheap computers that are little more than word processors and web-surfing machines. It's true that for a lot of people out there, those are the main functions of their computer--but I don't think that means people want to be limited to that functionality.
Mostly just for the hell of it, I recently started using Google Apps to document some of my personal projects. I've largely been using the Word Processor and Spreadsheet, though I messed around with the "Presentation" application a bit. I can easily see why it's slow catching on: Because the Google Apps suck.
Don't get me wrong; I like the idea behind Google Apps, and with some work I think they could be a contender for MS Office and OO. However, they still need a lot of work. The "Word Processor" is nothing more than a basic html editor; its functionality is roughly on par with WordPad. The Presentation and Spreadsheet apps seem a bit farther along, but they still have a ways to go.
What I do like about it:
Export to PDF, Word, ODF, etc--but OO does that, too.
The revision history view. Very convenient.
The collaboration features - much more straightforward than MS Office or OO
Interface is very smooth and quick, and with some work it could take on Sharepoint.
So it's got potential, IMO, and with some work it very well could be a contender. But it's not there yet. Google needs to stop, look harder at the functionality of the office suites already out there, and focus on enhancements to bring it up to date. Then in a year or two, they'll be in a better spot to compete with OO or MS Office.
Let us take a moment to remember SCO, and all that they did for us. For yea, they did take douchebaggery to new heights, and may their executives never again find work, and their lawyers develop sores. May their stockholders be infested with fleas in places they cannot scratch, and the offices that they occupied cursed for all time. As we prepare to bury this pitiful excuse for a company in the grave of history, may its death continue to be slow and painful.
Microsoft can't be happy about this; they're already pissed off that Windows CE doesn't dominate the cell phone market the way Windows does for desktops.
But Apple is going to be the ones crapping their pants; they've bet the farm on the iPhone, and major competition coming from Google won't be making them happy.
If Apple's smart, they'll make the next generation iPhone fully able to run and support Google Phone applications--that'll really make some folks in Redmond change their underwear.
If you taxed SUVs into oblivion or had them outlawed*, the most that would happen is that slightly more road space would be opened up--and probably not much, considering that there are also vans, trucks, 18-wheelers, RVs, and various other large vehicles taking up their fare share as well.
Whether you do that or expand existing roads, what happens when you open more road space is that people move farther out; the traffic problem is temporarily alleviated, but long-term you still have the same problem.
(* Thanks, but I like my CR-V. Good power, great handling, and gets better mileage than many sedans.)
As a motorcyclist, the idea of "automated braking systems" scare me almost as much as women who are applying makeup while driving SUVs so large they should have "USS" on the license plate.
Regarding traffic jams, the main cause of traffic jams is very simple, and doesn't require a mathematician to figure out: There are too many people on the fracking road! Whether people are braking perfectly efficiently or not, if enough cars are crammed on the road, there's going to be a traffic jam.
The main problem with solar power technology so far has been cost-efficiency; it's cost more to manufacture them than they produce, both in terms of money and in terms of energy. Last time I checked, the technology for that to change was still a good decade or two off.
If this is for real, it could very well revolutionize how the world is powered. Major props to these guys, and here's hoping the trend continues.
Ah, you're right, my mistake. It seems that so many people were trying to get patents for their swindle machines--excuse me, Perpetual Motion Devices--that the USPTO instituted a rule that they actually have to work. However, this rule applies only to "perpetual motion" gadgets.
My point stands, though--the USPTO grants a lot of BS patents without a second thought.
The article, I notice, is rather light on details about what sort of patents they're talking about. As the OP says, people don't buy patents--they buy products. So concretely, what sort of innovation is Microsoft involved in? The article doesn't really go into that.
Frankly, I think the patent system hasn't been a good gauge of innovation in many, many years. Patents are issued for everything from BS "perpetual motion machines" to the grilled cheese sandwich are granted routinely.
Fuck 'em right in the ass. With a red-hot poker. With spikes.
Their business model is obsolete and falling apart, so now they're trying to sleaze their way into more revenue any way they can. Last week they decided that, legal precedent and their own claims notwithstanding, that people don't have the right to backup their CDs after all. Now they're trying to shake down radio stations that have been bringing them a constant flow of revenue for decades.
Screw these bastards. We--meaning musicians, music listeners, and the world in general--don't need 'em. Let's get rid of the recording cartel. In my opinion, we need to have a serious effort at a complete boycott of the RIAA.
Lossless audio is going to involve some large file sizes, and with that, comes increased costs--bandwidth ain't free, and storage/delivery of these files is not going to be cheap or easy. This all translates into fairly expensive downloads.
So for Apple to seriously consider this, they're going to have to figure out if there are enough audiophiles out there willing to pay that kind of money for downloads.
If the "We Don't Torture, but Oppose Anti-Torture Legislation" DOJ thinks a piece of legislation is a little too heavy-handed, Congress should damn well get the message that it's time to reconsider.
The thing is, all of these social networking sites have a certain focus and niche.
Facebook, which started out as something for college students, is still generally focused on that particular market. Moreover, unlike MySpace, it's rather strictly controlled; you can really only search for friends in your particular networks. Plus, the inclusion (and encouragement) of user-created applications gives FaceBook a level of functionality that other networking sites lack.
LinkedIn is specifically targeted for professional, rather than social, networking.
MySpace seems to be aiming itself more at media integration, organization/campaign building, musicians, that sort of thing. (IOW, more "commercial" than the other two, if that makes any sense.)
For it to work, OpenSocial has to find its focus--it needs something to separate it from the other social networking sites beyond merely being a Google project. If it doesn't, it's just going to go the way of Friendster--it'll be out there, but nobody will really be using it.
In October, researchers from Bangor University in Wales were trawling an ocean shelf off the coast of north Iceland when they stumbled on what is believed to be the world's oldest living animal: a 405 year-old clam. Or it was living, until researchers had to kill it to determine the clam's age by studying rings on its shell.
Really, this sounds like something for the "Never Ascribe to Malice What Can be Adequately Explained By Stupidity" department. It just sounds like hotmail has screwed something up and is slow on the ball getting it fixed.
It seems a bit silly for Microsoft to have such a strict policy and then lie about it.
Besides, building a self sustainable base on the moon IS the test. On the moon, supplies can arrive within days.
That's assuming there's another lunar-bound vehicle that's kept in constant readiness to fly. Otherwise, no, it's not going to take a couple of days--it's going to take several months, at a minimum.
Of course, even if it was able to get there within a couple of days, that's not going to be much help if there's a catastrophic failure with the air cycling system.:D
A failure as a colony or a failure as an experiment?
A little from column A, a little from column B. The first mission was an experimental (scientific) failure. The second was a failure in management's inability to get along with each other.:D
I'd say they collected plenty of specific data on what went wrong, and by extension, what's wrong with current designs for closed habitats.
That's a fair point, and if I seemed overly dismissive of the Biosphere project, that wasn't my intention. My intent was to point out that designs are just that--designs. Until an actual working model is developed, I'm going to reserve my applause.
With something like this, you want to do some serious testing. If it turns out that it's not as self-sufficient as they thought, I'm sure the astronauts would rather be outside of Tuscon rather than the north pole of the moon.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it just me, or does this sound like a weaselly way of saying: "Yeah, we really haven't got a friggin' clue why our OS is messed up, so hopefully after this release we'll be able to start looking at the problems people are having."
I think this finally means that we have a definition for the SI unit "fuck-ton."
Well, yeah, it's a different OS. If you know what you're doing, you can run Windows software on Macs, but most people generally don't. The point is to have alternatives available, but still have compatibility where it counts; for example, MS Office isn't available, so you use OpenOffice or StarOffice, which can read MS Office files if necessary.
So the question is not whether you can run Windows/Mac software, but whether there is enough functionality there to allow the user to do the same things they would on a Mac or PC. From what I read in the review, the answer is a somewhat shaky "yes," though there are some serious performance issues.
I think manufacturers have long overestimated the market for simple, cheap computers that are little more than word processors and web-surfing machines. It's true that for a lot of people out there, those are the main functions of their computer--but I don't think that means people want to be limited to that functionality.
Don't get me wrong; I like the idea behind Google Apps, and with some work I think they could be a contender for MS Office and OO. However, they still need a lot of work. The "Word Processor" is nothing more than a basic html editor; its functionality is roughly on par with WordPad. The Presentation and Spreadsheet apps seem a bit farther along, but they still have a ways to go.
What I do like about it:
So it's got potential, IMO, and with some work it very well could be a contender. But it's not there yet. Google needs to stop, look harder at the functionality of the office suites already out there, and focus on enhancements to bring it up to date. Then in a year or two, they'll be in a better spot to compete with OO or MS Office.
Let us take a moment to remember SCO, and all that they did for us. For yea, they did take douchebaggery to new heights, and may their executives never again find work, and their lawyers develop sores. May their stockholders be infested with fleas in places they cannot scratch, and the offices that they occupied cursed for all time. As we prepare to bury this pitiful excuse for a company in the grave of history, may its death continue to be slow and painful.
And let us say:
Bwa ha ha. Ha ha. Ha ha.
Ha.
Microsoft can't be happy about this; they're already pissed off that Windows CE doesn't dominate the cell phone market the way Windows does for desktops.
But Apple is going to be the ones crapping their pants; they've bet the farm on the iPhone, and major competition coming from Google won't be making them happy.
If Apple's smart, they'll make the next generation iPhone fully able to run and support Google Phone applications--that'll really make some folks in Redmond change their underwear.
Wait...China is accusing Yahoo of piracy?
Keep throwing those stones, China; I'm sure it'll do wonders for your glass house.
Nothing you said really contradicted what I said.
If you taxed SUVs into oblivion or had them outlawed*, the most that would happen is that slightly more road space would be opened up--and probably not much, considering that there are also vans, trucks, 18-wheelers, RVs, and various other large vehicles taking up their fare share as well.
Whether you do that or expand existing roads, what happens when you open more road space is that people move farther out; the traffic problem is temporarily alleviated, but long-term you still have the same problem.
(* Thanks, but I like my CR-V. Good power, great handling, and gets better mileage than many sedans.)
As a motorcyclist, the idea of "automated braking systems" scare me almost as much as women who are applying makeup while driving SUVs so large they should have "USS" on the license plate.
Regarding traffic jams, the main cause of traffic jams is very simple, and doesn't require a mathematician to figure out: There are too many people on the fracking road! Whether people are braking perfectly efficiently or not, if enough cars are crammed on the road, there's going to be a traffic jam.
The main problem with solar power technology so far has been cost-efficiency; it's cost more to manufacture them than they produce, both in terms of money and in terms of energy. Last time I checked, the technology for that to change was still a good decade or two off.
If this is for real, it could very well revolutionize how the world is powered. Major props to these guys, and here's hoping the trend continues.
Ah, you're right, my mistake. It seems that so many people were trying to get patents for their swindle machines--excuse me, Perpetual Motion Devices--that the USPTO instituted a rule that they actually have to work. However, this rule applies only to "perpetual motion" gadgets.
My point stands, though--the USPTO grants a lot of BS patents without a second thought.
The article, I notice, is rather light on details about what sort of patents they're talking about. As the OP says, people don't buy patents--they buy products. So concretely, what sort of innovation is Microsoft involved in? The article doesn't really go into that.
Frankly, I think the patent system hasn't been a good gauge of innovation in many, many years. Patents are issued for everything from BS "perpetual motion machines" to the grilled cheese sandwich are granted routinely.
Fuck 'em right in the ass. With a red-hot poker. With spikes.
Their business model is obsolete and falling apart, so now they're trying to sleaze their way into more revenue any way they can. Last week they decided that, legal precedent and their own claims notwithstanding, that people don't have the right to backup their CDs after all. Now they're trying to shake down radio stations that have been bringing them a constant flow of revenue for decades.
Screw these bastards. We--meaning musicians, music listeners, and the world in general--don't need 'em. Let's get rid of the recording cartel. In my opinion, we need to have a serious effort at a complete boycott of the RIAA.
Lossless audio is going to involve some large file sizes, and with that, comes increased costs--bandwidth ain't free, and storage/delivery of these files is not going to be cheap or easy. This all translates into fairly expensive downloads.
So for Apple to seriously consider this, they're going to have to figure out if there are enough audiophiles out there willing to pay that kind of money for downloads.
Personally, I kinda doubt it.
If the "We Don't Torture, but Oppose Anti-Torture Legislation" DOJ thinks a piece of legislation is a little too heavy-handed, Congress should damn well get the message that it's time to reconsider.
The thing is, all of these social networking sites have a certain focus and niche.
Facebook, which started out as something for college students, is still generally focused on that particular market. Moreover, unlike MySpace, it's rather strictly controlled; you can really only search for friends in your particular networks. Plus, the inclusion (and encouragement) of user-created applications gives FaceBook a level of functionality that other networking sites lack.
LinkedIn is specifically targeted for professional, rather than social, networking.
MySpace seems to be aiming itself more at media integration, organization/campaign building, musicians, that sort of thing. (IOW, more "commercial" than the other two, if that makes any sense.)
For it to work, OpenSocial has to find its focus--it needs something to separate it from the other social networking sites beyond merely being a Google project. If it doesn't, it's just going to go the way of Friendster--it'll be out there, but nobody will really be using it.
So that's how the Ice Age movies finally end!
You'd think this was something from Mythbusters.
Leet-speak from 2001 gets named "word of the year" in 2007? How does that work?
Next year I suppose it'll be "pwned."
£4m3.
In October, researchers from Bangor University in Wales were trawling an ocean shelf off the coast of north Iceland when they stumbled on what is believed to be the world's oldest living animal: a 405 year-old clam. Or it was living, until researchers had to kill it to determine the clam's age by studying rings on its shell.
:P
Amazing. Absolutely amazing.
The Poker Player's Alliance is encouraging people to fly to Washington DC for two days later this month to lobby congresscritters for legal online poker.
I dunno if the WTO's statement will help or hurt this effort, to be honest. There might be a backlash.
Really, this sounds like something for the "Never Ascribe to Malice What Can be Adequately Explained By Stupidity" department. It just sounds like hotmail has screwed something up and is slow on the ball getting it fixed.
It seems a bit silly for Microsoft to have such a strict policy and then lie about it.
At least we know that Fox's new business venture isn't going to go very far.
Do you suppose they'll hire someone from Enron to manage programming?
That's assuming there's another lunar-bound vehicle that's kept in constant readiness to fly. Otherwise, no, it's not going to take a couple of days--it's going to take several months, at a minimum.
Of course, even if it was able to get there within a couple of days, that's not going to be much help if there's a catastrophic failure with the air cycling system.
A little from column A, a little from column B. The first mission was an experimental (scientific) failure. The second was a failure in management's inability to get along with each other.
That's a fair point, and if I seemed overly dismissive of the Biosphere project, that wasn't my intention. My intent was to point out that designs are just that--designs. Until an actual working model is developed, I'm going to reserve my applause.
With something like this, you want to do some serious testing. If it turns out that it's not as self-sufficient as they thought, I'm sure the astronauts would rather be outside of Tuscon rather than the north pole of the moon.