XP is pretty much a set of bugfixes and minor upgrades on the 2K core (which was an extensive rebuild of the NT core) with a new UI subsystem. 2003, I would say, is pretty much just an extension of the existing XP core to reimplement (recoded, perhaps, like the UI?) the server chunks removed from XP that were in 2000 plus the new server features in development since.
Not that I need to preach to the choir, just commenting.
Shortform: XP and 2003 are "minor" revisions atop 2000.
It's important in the distinction of Windows not allowing DLLs to be dumped all over System/System32 anymore-- that was the entire lynchpin of the problem in the first place with applications clobbering each other.
I work at a free email service and we get on average dozens of spam complaints a day. Unfortunately, NONE of these spams originate from our service-- we just happen to be spoofed very frequently by one or more spammers.
That's at least 20 emails a day I have to sit down and respond to, educating users on how to read email headers. Then, on top of this, 99.9% of the spam we RECEIVE is from spoofed addresses--- THAT adds up to the hundreds of megabytes per day category.
This system, even if it adds 400 bytes of overhead to every email transaction, would still cut back overall bandwidth usage by a hundredfold if we could convince even 50% of the ISPs out there to support it.
Yeah, ironic that we got the same link at nearly the same time. I found it going down Google; it was only the fourth or so entry on the list. I'd remembered reading a LOT about the "Anti-DLL Hell" changes right around XP's launch, as it was supposed to be THE big thing.
All in all, it's a big step forward, but we can hope for further steps forward. Security and stability are a never-ending series of steps forward..
I remember Windows 3.1 clearly when I consider the stability of current OSes. Microsoft has improved, but we'll see how they are in another 10 years.
Oh, I fully agree, but at the same time I have to question all these benchmarks we use to compare architectures. Not the numeric kind, but the not-so-easily quantified ones.
For instance, the "Grandmother" test-- the very idea itself is flawed. A computer is a more complex tool than most any other; the sheer range of possibilities make it impossible to design it completely to the point that someone can sit down at one and figure out everything there is to know without a lot of time and effort.
Then, on top of this, you've got the idea that the two most-frequently compared via this already flawed test are BOTH failing it though you'd never hear that from the way the detractors talk.
MacOS, Windows, Linux, BSD-- there IS no panacea for the desktop. The answer for one person will not be the answer for everyone.
Yet, we'll still be battling out this pointless war years from now in a holy war full of fervor reminiscent of those that spilled real blood in past centuries.
Both of the articles this story references are nothing more than a continuation of misfacts and misconceptions that continue to be thrown around.
Advertising is a legitimate business model-- it's an annoying one, but nobody can question their right to do so if they choose. As for going under, it doesn't look like they are NOW.
The CD-ROMs thing.. well, blame LG for producing a drive that CLEARLY violates the specifications and reuses a nondestructive command for a destructive firmware command.
You can point to the earlier stuff all you like-- perhaps only the ONE is still valid though-- but the CD-ROM thing you can't point to Mandrake on.
Surprise, surprise, such a protection scheme DOES exist. They detect whether the CD is in a burner or not by using a media type check command that can tell whether the disc is a burnable one or already burned. If the media check gives ANY result, you're running it from a burner and therefore it fails the protection.
Heh. My roots are so muddied I can't say something of the sort, but I can say that it wouldn't matter to me what they said, so long as it was IN CHARACTER for the group portrayed.
I think it's the authenticism that gives the game its flavor.
Oh yeah, I can hear the IBM lawyers howling for blood-- they've a long and proud history of tearing people limb for limb. Never thought I'd see the day I'd be rooting for them, but who knows? Maybe someday I might just find myself rooting for other monopolists-- hopefully a former one by that point.
I see the TabletPC taking over for the laptop. Most of the better Tablet designs are slightly modified notebook designs. Turn the screen and close the lid and you've got your tablet.
When prices start to fall on the tablets themselves, I hope to see the older notebooks phased out for them-- they really are an incremental upgrade.
Now the Smart LCD-- that's a evolutionary dead end. They support a single protocol-- Microsoft's-- they require a PC to do any work, AND since most people will use it with Windows XP, they'll find that the Smart LCD ties up the computer as well since it's a single-connection (local OR remote) deal.
It was a bad idea to come up with the Smart LCD in the first place-- it's too similar to the Tablet PC and distorts users' views and opinions of the product.
For me, it doesn't matter what the refresh rate is-- white flickers like mad. Period. Of course, this is only on CRTs-- I have to change my color scheme or risk serious eyestrain headaches; I bet I could learn to tell refresh by the flicker pattern at this rate.
However, until LCDs drop in price to be equivelent to CRTs, I don't foresee any real solution to the situation. It'd be nice to be able to get rid of these monitors..
My own experiences with Remote Desktop are identical. Comparing even TightVNC and RealVNC to RDC shows a good jump in responsiveness by using RDC. It just feels a whole lot smoother and more responsive. I've played with the settings, done all sorts of tweaks, and while you can improve VNC, you can't match RDC with it just yet.
However, when cross-platform is needed, I still pull out my VNC client.
Thanks for the wakeup call. I'd kinda fallen asleep at the wheel there-- I really haven't been paying attention as much as I should. They ARE using inflated numbers. I guess that makes the occasional 2/10 (MK Advance, anyone) all the worse.
Your problem is that your motherboards are NOT up to AMD-spec. AMD spec now references that the board now HAS to cut back on CPU speed to handle a fan failure and protect the CPU from burnout.
AMD didn't enforce this, but changed their spec to enforce it after complaints. As far as I understand it, it was ALWAYS a reccomended board feature.
My mileage varies completely. In my case, I've never had a CPU die that wasn't related to a power supply blowing out and taking the motherboard and CPU with it. AMD processors have lasted just as long as Intel ones-- and that's on stock heatsink/gunk combinations.
If your experiences vary, it's likely where you're buying your parts from. All mine have come with the heatsink seperate packaging, meaning the reseller has some discretion on what heatsink and fan is sent.
Like they say, different chips for different needs. I have to say, though, that getting an improved case-cooling system would have probably worked just about as well. What kind of apps are you running on it, though?
I'm looking into some of the low-end tablet PCs for a project and I'm hesitating over the CPU included (particularly the very bad floating point performance) but I'm curious nontheless.
Yeah. Tall buildings, hills, and mountains really screw with coverage by scattering the radio signal too much. I used to live in the Phoenix, AZ area, and the edges of the valley screw with wireless reception quite a bit.
There's no real solution-- switching providers won't help, obviously-- so if you find yourself in an area like that, you're just screwed.
Of course, the apartment I'm living at NOW.. just happens to be in the shadow area for wireless coverage in this complex. If I go within 10' of my front door, coverage dies. Step right outside and it's there if somewhat flaky at times. Leave the complex and it's perfect.
Vice versa, a lot of the store reps piss off the customer service reps by promising things that the company cannot and will not honor, leaving them with the bag as it were.
There was a lot of confusion in the ranks as to what each division of the phone company I was with could do-- bundled billing, wireless, the stores-- it got pretty messy at times.
Learn which things the reps can do better than the store reps and vice versa. The system CAN be taken advantage of, if you put the effort in.
Considering what I've seen of the AT&T phone systems, it's no surprise. It's all pure disaster area. Long distance is run off what looks like a unix variant of some sort, wireless runs off NT, internet has its own subsystem that I really don't remember so well-- none of them interact well at all. Even dealing inter-company, AT&T reps end up referring a lot of bundled accounts to a specialized repair team because none of the individual segments nor any of the customer service agents have deep enough access to fix the links.
With things how I remember them, I hardly would expect them to get portability working.. in fact, the pit of my stomach churns just thinking about the hell the reps are dealing with on the lines. Oy vey-- glad I left.
I'm hardly surprised. AT&T is years behind on all aspects of the way they've computerized things-- their cellphone customer service system runs off NT4, for example. Wouldn't be surprised if the backend was NT as well.
Nah, they're MORE evil than AT&T. I've seen the insides of AT&T, and even AT&T reps don't like dealing with Qwest. Even in their former local provider days of US West, they were the most evil provider around with extremely bad lines and service with high rates. Having the long distance provider that was nailed dozens of times for slamming buy them out was just allowing them to become worse.
I attempted to google up something in regards to the "magic wand" or "coin whip" but was unable to find anything relevant. Can you provide some details? I'm curious as to these.
The default Mac mouse is a single button, but the OS definitely supports two. It may support three, I'm not sure-- in any case, all you have to do is obtain a standard USB mouse and hook it up.
Slashdot Mirror
5.1.2600 to be precise.
XP is pretty much a set of bugfixes and minor upgrades on the 2K core (which was an extensive rebuild of the NT core) with a new UI subsystem. 2003, I would say, is pretty much just an extension of the existing XP core to reimplement (recoded, perhaps, like the UI?) the server chunks removed from XP that were in 2000 plus the new server features in development since.
Not that I need to preach to the choir, just commenting.
Shortform: XP and 2003 are "minor" revisions atop 2000.
Yeah, and the response to that in return as well.
It's important in the distinction of Windows not allowing DLLs to be dumped all over System/System32 anymore-- that was the entire lynchpin of the problem in the first place with applications clobbering each other.
I work at a free email service and we get on average dozens of spam complaints a day. Unfortunately, NONE of these spams originate from our service-- we just happen to be spoofed very frequently by one or more spammers.
That's at least 20 emails a day I have to sit down and respond to, educating users on how to read email headers. Then, on top of this, 99.9% of the spam we RECEIVE is from spoofed addresses--- THAT adds up to the hundreds of megabytes per day category.
This system, even if it adds 400 bytes of overhead to every email transaction, would still cut back overall bandwidth usage by a hundredfold if we could convince even 50% of the ISPs out there to support it.
We signed up a month ago.
Yeah, ironic that we got the same link at nearly the same time. I found it going down Google; it was only the fourth or so entry on the list. I'd remembered reading a LOT about the "Anti-DLL Hell" changes right around XP's launch, as it was supposed to be THE big thing.
All in all, it's a big step forward, but we can hope for further steps forward. Security and stability are a never-ending series of steps forward..
I remember Windows 3.1 clearly when I consider the stability of current OSes. Microsoft has improved, but we'll see how they are in another 10 years.
Oh, I fully agree, but at the same time I have to question all these benchmarks we use to compare architectures. Not the numeric kind, but the not-so-easily quantified ones.
For instance, the "Grandmother" test-- the very idea itself is flawed. A computer is a more complex tool than most any other; the sheer range of possibilities make it impossible to design it completely to the point that someone can sit down at one and figure out everything there is to know without a lot of time and effort.
Then, on top of this, you've got the idea that the two most-frequently compared via this already flawed test are BOTH failing it though you'd never hear that from the way the detractors talk.
MacOS, Windows, Linux, BSD-- there IS no panacea for the desktop. The answer for one person will not be the answer for everyone.
Yet, we'll still be battling out this pointless war years from now in a holy war full of fervor reminiscent of those that spilled real blood in past centuries.
Both of the articles this story references are nothing more than a continuation of misfacts and misconceptions that continue to be thrown around.
I believe the information you seek can be found right here
Advertising is a legitimate business model-- it's an annoying one, but nobody can question their right to do so if they choose. As for going under, it doesn't look like they are NOW.
The CD-ROMs thing.. well, blame LG for producing a drive that CLEARLY violates the specifications and reuses a nondestructive command for a destructive firmware command.
You can point to the earlier stuff all you like-- perhaps only the ONE is still valid though-- but the CD-ROM thing you can't point to Mandrake on.
Surprise, surprise, such a protection scheme DOES exist. They detect whether the CD is in a burner or not by using a media type check command that can tell whether the disc is a burnable one or already burned. If the media check gives ANY result, you're running it from a burner and therefore it fails the protection.
Heh. My roots are so muddied I can't say something of the sort, but I can say that it wouldn't matter to me what they said, so long as it was IN CHARACTER for the group portrayed.
I think it's the authenticism that gives the game its flavor.
Oh yeah, I can hear the IBM lawyers howling for blood-- they've a long and proud history of tearing people limb for limb. Never thought I'd see the day I'd be rooting for them, but who knows? Maybe someday I might just find myself rooting for other monopolists-- hopefully a former one by that point.
I see the TabletPC taking over for the laptop. Most of the better Tablet designs are slightly modified notebook designs. Turn the screen and close the lid and you've got your tablet.
When prices start to fall on the tablets themselves, I hope to see the older notebooks phased out for them-- they really are an incremental upgrade.
Now the Smart LCD-- that's a evolutionary dead end. They support a single protocol-- Microsoft's-- they require a PC to do any work, AND since most people will use it with Windows XP, they'll find that the Smart LCD ties up the computer as well since it's a single-connection (local OR remote) deal.
It was a bad idea to come up with the Smart LCD in the first place-- it's too similar to the Tablet PC and distorts users' views and opinions of the product.
For me, it doesn't matter what the refresh rate is-- white flickers like mad. Period. Of course, this is only on CRTs-- I have to change my color scheme or risk serious eyestrain headaches; I bet I could learn to tell refresh by the flicker pattern at this rate.
However, until LCDs drop in price to be equivelent to CRTs, I don't foresee any real solution to the situation. It'd be nice to be able to get rid of these monitors..
My own experiences with Remote Desktop are identical. Comparing even TightVNC and RealVNC to RDC shows a good jump in responsiveness by using RDC. It just feels a whole lot smoother and more responsive. I've played with the settings, done all sorts of tweaks, and while you can improve VNC, you can't match RDC with it just yet.
However, when cross-platform is needed, I still pull out my VNC client.
I wonder how many RDC exploits exist these days.
Thanks for the wakeup call. I'd kinda fallen asleep at the wheel there-- I really haven't been paying attention as much as I should. They ARE using inflated numbers. I guess that makes the occasional 2/10 (MK Advance, anyone) all the worse.
Your problem is that your motherboards are NOT up to AMD-spec. AMD spec now references that the board now HAS to cut back on CPU speed to handle a fan failure and protect the CPU from burnout.
AMD didn't enforce this, but changed their spec to enforce it after complaints. As far as I understand it, it was ALWAYS a reccomended board feature.
My mileage varies completely. In my case, I've never had a CPU die that wasn't related to a power supply blowing out and taking the motherboard and CPU with it. AMD processors have lasted just as long as Intel ones-- and that's on stock heatsink/gunk combinations.
If your experiences vary, it's likely where you're buying your parts from. All mine have come with the heatsink seperate packaging, meaning the reseller has some discretion on what heatsink and fan is sent.
When it comes to AMD, the rule I use is to avoid VIA chipsets-- ALL problems I've EVER had with AMD-based systems can be traced back to a VIA chipset.
Other than that, can't your reasoning be applied to ANY 3rd party chipset/motherboard manufacturer?
Like they say, different chips for different needs. I have to say, though, that getting an improved case-cooling system would have probably worked just about as well. What kind of apps are you running on it, though?
I'm looking into some of the low-end tablet PCs for a project and I'm hesitating over the CPU included (particularly the very bad floating point performance) but I'm curious nontheless.
Yeah. Tall buildings, hills, and mountains really screw with coverage by scattering the radio signal too much. I used to live in the Phoenix, AZ area, and the edges of the valley screw with wireless reception quite a bit.
There's no real solution-- switching providers won't help, obviously-- so if you find yourself in an area like that, you're just screwed.
Of course, the apartment I'm living at NOW.. just happens to be in the shadow area for wireless coverage in this complex. If I go within 10' of my front door, coverage dies. Step right outside and it's there if somewhat flaky at times. Leave the complex and it's perfect.
No solution. Oh well, that's how it goes!
Vice versa, a lot of the store reps piss off the customer service reps by promising things that the company cannot and will not honor, leaving them with the bag as it were.
There was a lot of confusion in the ranks as to what each division of the phone company I was with could do-- bundled billing, wireless, the stores-- it got pretty messy at times.
Learn which things the reps can do better than the store reps and vice versa. The system CAN be taken advantage of, if you put the effort in.
Considering what I've seen of the AT&T phone systems, it's no surprise. It's all pure disaster area. Long distance is run off what looks like a unix variant of some sort, wireless runs off NT, internet has its own subsystem that I really don't remember so well-- none of them interact well at all. Even dealing inter-company, AT&T reps end up referring a lot of bundled accounts to a specialized repair team because none of the individual segments nor any of the customer service agents have deep enough access to fix the links.
With things how I remember them, I hardly would expect them to get portability working.. in fact, the pit of my stomach churns just thinking about the hell the reps are dealing with on the lines. Oy vey-- glad I left.
I'm hardly surprised. AT&T is years behind on all aspects of the way they've computerized things-- their cellphone customer service system runs off NT4, for example. Wouldn't be surprised if the backend was NT as well.
Nah, they're MORE evil than AT&T. I've seen the insides of AT&T, and even AT&T reps don't like dealing with Qwest. Even in their former local provider days of US West, they were the most evil provider around with extremely bad lines and service with high rates. Having the long distance provider that was nailed dozens of times for slamming buy them out was just allowing them to become worse.
I attempted to google up something in regards to the "magic wand" or "coin whip" but was unable to find anything relevant. Can you provide some details? I'm curious as to these.
The default Mac mouse is a single button, but the OS definitely supports two. It may support three, I'm not sure-- in any case, all you have to do is obtain a standard USB mouse and hook it up.