My Xbox360 is in a "rack" with the power brick behind the entertainment center-- it's sitting on carpet with no special cooling/fans/etc., and I haven't had a problem.
I've said this in another/. comment, but I think this is a case of a few people with problems trying to make a big deal out of something that isn't. Just call Microsoft, sheesh!
Anyone who runs their equipment in a closed/non-ventilated "rack" configuration is a moron.
Let's run through the typical stuff found in a rack?
- High end audio receiver/amplifier; produces quite a bit of heat. If it's tubes.. wow. - DVD player; cheaper ones don't get as hot as higher end ones (usually).. pretty hot. - Cable/Satellite TV box; go ahead and touch yours. It'll probably burn your hand. And if it's a DVR, add 10 more heat points.
And you're going to run all that without a fan or proper ventilation? And then add an Xbox360 (basically a computer) onto that?!
I've had mine behind an entertainment center, and it's been played nonstop since I got it last Saturday (we had over 5 hours of use on it that next Monday)-- no problems whatsoever.
I think this is another case of a smaller group speaking out like it's a major deal. It isn't. If you have problems with your XBox360 crashing, I'm sure Microsoft tech. support will be able to help you. Get over it.
I know that, but it's new to.NET, and it's implemented in a very "wow that's easy" sort of way. My prior experience with other "web" programming languages with regards to this was not very automatic or easy to use.
I'm not an expert, but I remember their being "common sense" type rules/laws in there.. If the product/company is in an entirely different field of business, it's allowable. that's why we have "Apple" recordings, and "Apple" computers. Therefore, a company offering a "Windows Defender" product that does what you're describing would most likely be safe with their name. The problem is, this "Windows Defender" product _was_ in the same field of business, so Microsoft is correct in claiming an invalid trademark usage.
Out of the image formats you listed, TIFF/PS are the only ones that natively support multiple pages in a single file, but those still don't have all the features of a PDF. Microsoft is going to try and directly compete with PDFs.
You say you're a.NET developer, yet you think ruby on rails is way better than.NET? I'd say 99% of the real.NET developers would disagree with you on that. Do you guys really write n-tier'd code? Classes and everything?.NET 2.0 did bring about some changes to the architecture (duh, that's what different versions of anything tend to do.) But most applications can run with literally no changes in the new version of the framework. There are tools/converters to help with the process if anything more is involved-- but in the experiences I've had, it's been seamless. You also are not forced to upgrade your applications-- you can easily run multiple versions of.NET on a single machine/server, and they will liver happily together.
If you use ASP.Net 2.0, it can now auto-detect cookies, and if they are not present, it will use a "guid" subdirectory automagically to track session related information, ie.
Wait-- I'm confused. SlashDot consistently cries out against monopolies, calling Microsoft "Micro$oft", etc... and praising competition to Microsoft products. A great example of this is FireFox. In the media-format field, you have people hating WMV/WMA, and instead praising OGG, MP3, MP4, DIVX, etc.-- but now that Microsoft wants to compete with the monopoly Adobe has on the portable document market, it's a bad thing?
I don't believe they ever released a patch that outright disables this functionality (that'd be stupid); rather, they fixed the problem with their software:
The blame solely lies on Symantec, who had months and months to prepare/patch their software (they didn't even have to wait for SP2 to come out.) In fact, many other AV vendors had already updated their APIs before SP2 came out.
Huh? I thought Microsoft bought GiantSoftware, and turned their anti-spyware app into Microsoft Antispyware? That CounterSpy looks like a direct rip-off of GiantSoftware's program. Unless that product is made by GiantSoftware's side company, or something? My brain hurts.
Don't feel bad-- I've never seen The Sims (or The Sims 2 for that matter) run fast on any machine/graphics card. I've got a P4-3GHz w/HT, 2 gigs of RAM and an ATI Radeon X800, and at 1024x768 (no antialiasing or anything special) The Sims 2 gets like 20 FPS or less. It's pathetic. No problem with any other games, though..
Why aren't we supporting XHTML when it's served as the "application/xml+xhtml" media type in IE7? I made the decision to not try to support the MIME type in IE7 simply because I personally want XHTML to be successful in the long run. I love XHTML (go look, my name is in the credits for XML 1.0); it's capable of being truly interoperable if done right. With most of our platform resources in IE7 outside of security work being spent on improving our CSS support, if we tried to support real XHTML in IE 7 we would have ended up using our existing HTML parser (which is focused on compatibility) and hacking in XML constructs. It is highly unlikely we could support XHTML well in this way; in particular, we would certainly not detect a few error cases here or there, and we would silently support invalid cases. This would, of course, cause compatibility problems based on parser error handling in the future, which XML is explicitly trying to avoid; we don't want to cause another mess like the one with current HTML error handling (rooted in compatibility with earlier browsers - you can blame me for that personally somewhat, but not IE). I would much rather take the time to implement XHTML properly after IE 7, and have it be truly interoperable - but I did want to unblock deployment of XHTML as best we could, which is why we made sure to address the XML prolog/DOCTYPE issue.
Why should we webdevs have to tell the browser to do things right?
Well, you have to tell it what DOCTYPE we're dealing with; that's a pretty basic piece of information. This determines the box model, DOM model, and parsing logic to use when reading in the page. This isn't a big deal at all, but up until a few years ago, not a lot of sites were specifying DOCTYPE. This lead browsers to use "quirks mode", which is a mishmash of each browser's own specifications, and the actual HTML standards.
It's not _that_ difficult to code style-wise for both IE and "other" browsers (FireFox, Safari.) What gets somewhat difficult is the handling of javascript/DOM, and older browser versions in general. It would be great if everyone in the world was running the latest versions of their browser, but they typically are not.
And yes, you can get IE6 to operate in STRICT mode (box type, etc.) if you supply the correct DOCTYPE. Further complicating things is the fact that Mozilla, Safari and Opera have an "almost standard" mode, which you can read about on the site I just linked.
Slashdot Mirror
My Xbox360 is in a "rack" with the power brick behind the entertainment center-- it's sitting on carpet with no special cooling/fans/etc., and I haven't had a problem.
/. comment, but I think this is a case of a few people with problems trying to make a big deal out of something that isn't. Just call Microsoft, sheesh!
I've said this in another
Anyone who runs their equipment in a closed/non-ventilated "rack" configuration is a moron.
Let's run through the typical stuff found in a rack?
- High end audio receiver/amplifier; produces quite a bit of heat. If it's tubes.. wow.
- DVD player; cheaper ones don't get as hot as higher end ones (usually).. pretty hot.
- Cable/Satellite TV box; go ahead and touch yours. It'll probably burn your hand. And if it's a DVR, add 10 more heat points.
And you're going to run all that without a fan or proper ventilation? And then add an Xbox360 (basically a computer) onto that?!
I've had mine behind an entertainment center, and it's been played nonstop since I got it last Saturday (we had over 5 hours of use on it that next Monday)-- no problems whatsoever.
I think this is another case of a smaller group speaking out like it's a major deal. It isn't. If you have problems with your XBox360 crashing, I'm sure Microsoft tech. support will be able to help you. Get over it.
The "automatic" functionality of it is what's new. In 1.1, you only had the option of "on or off" for session management via cookies.
I know that, but it's new to .NET, and it's implemented in a very "wow that's easy" sort of way. My prior experience with other "web" programming languages with regards to this was not very automatic or easy to use.
I'm not an expert, but I remember their being "common sense" type rules/laws in there.. If the product/company is in an entirely different field of business, it's allowable. that's why we have "Apple" recordings, and "Apple" computers. Therefore, a company offering a "Windows Defender" product that does what you're describing would most likely be safe with their name. The problem is, this "Windows Defender" product _was_ in the same field of business, so Microsoft is correct in claiming an invalid trademark usage.
Out of the image formats you listed, TIFF/PS are the only ones that natively support multiple pages in a single file, but those still don't have all the features of a PDF. Microsoft is going to try and directly compete with PDFs.
Hmm. How about the .NET development tools Microsoft is giving away for free?
You say you're a .NET developer, yet you think ruby on rails is way better than .NET? I'd say 99% of the real .NET developers would disagree with you on that. Do you guys really write n-tier'd code? Classes and everything? .NET 2.0 did bring about some changes to the architecture (duh, that's what different versions of anything tend to do.) But most applications can run with literally no changes in the new version of the framework. There are tools/converters to help with the process if anything more is involved-- but in the experiences I've had, it's been seamless. You also are not forced to upgrade your applications-- you can easily run multiple versions of .NET on a single machine/server, and they will liver happily together.
You should look up Microsoft Atlas. And I'm guessing you're not a web developer?
If you use ASP.Net 2.0, it can now auto-detect cookies, and if they are not present, it will use a "guid" subdirectory automagically to track session related information, ie.
o fiprp))/mypage.aspx
http://www.mywebsite.com/mypage.aspx
would become:
http://www.mywebsite.com/(X(1)5(bjdc50qkgtz2aez0v
This happens for you automatically, and transparent. Pretty sweet.
Wait-- I'm confused. SlashDot consistently cries out against monopolies, calling Microsoft "Micro$oft", etc... and praising competition to Microsoft products. A great example of this is FireFox. In the media-format field, you have people hating WMV/WMA, and instead praising OGG, MP3, MP4, DIVX, etc.-- but now that Microsoft wants to compete with the monopoly Adobe has on the portable document market, it's a bad thing?
Can someone explain this to me?
The moderation around here is flat out insane. What's trollish about my post?
I don't believe they ever released a patch that outright disables this functionality (that'd be stupid); rather, they fixed the problem with their software:
Symantec has released an update which adds compatibility to the Windows Security Center so that it may report the status of your Symantec security software. This update is included in Norton 2005 Security Products and is available by LiveUpdate for Norton 2002/2003/2004 Security Products. The update will install on Windows XP, but will not take effect unless you have the Windows Security Center installed.
The blame solely lies on Symantec, who had months and months to prepare/patch their software (they didn't even have to wait for SP2 to come out.) In fact, many other AV vendors had already updated their APIs before SP2 came out.
In other words, you can legally buy a copy of Windows XP Media Center Edition (or any OEM edition of Windows XP for that matter) from any authorized reseller as long as you buy it with a power cord. Or a mouse. Or a keyboard. OK? That's the legal, official answer. (Note that this is not true of OEM copies of application software, like Office, or server software, like Microsoft Exchange. Those can only be sold with a fully assembled computer system.)
Huh? I thought Microsoft bought GiantSoftware, and turned their anti-spyware app into Microsoft Antispyware? That CounterSpy looks like a direct rip-off of GiantSoftware's program. Unless that product is made by GiantSoftware's side company, or something? My brain hurts.
I'm talking about the real product. MSDE is mostly used for development and testing purposes, and everyone knows that.
And if you've ever really used MSDE, you'd know how these limits aren't a bit deal at all.
If you want some intelligent discussion on the subject of creationism vs. "evolution"/etc., please visit the Institute for Creation Research.
Gee, I dunno.. maybe because real world business applications run on high-end databases, like Microsoft SQL Server, and not something "free" ?
Don't feel bad-- I've never seen The Sims (or The Sims 2 for that matter) run fast on any machine/graphics card. I've got a P4-3GHz w/HT, 2 gigs of RAM and an ATI Radeon X800, and at 1024x768 (no antialiasing or anything special) The Sims 2 gets like 20 FPS or less. It's pathetic. No problem with any other games, though..
Far Cry also has the unique ability to run like dog-crap on my X800, while HL2 does not. Go figure. Is 1024x768 too much to ask for?
IEBlog just got updated TODAY with even more information about CSS/etc. hacks and IE7-- all web site designers should read this entry!
Why should we webdevs have to tell the browser to do things right?
Well, you have to tell it what DOCTYPE we're dealing with; that's a pretty basic piece of information. This determines the box model, DOM model, and parsing logic to use when reading in the page. This isn't a big deal at all, but up until a few years ago, not a lot of sites were specifying DOCTYPE. This lead browsers to use "quirks mode", which is a mishmash of each browser's own specifications, and the actual HTML standards.
It's not _that_ difficult to code style-wise for both IE and "other" browsers (FireFox, Safari.) What gets somewhat difficult is the handling of javascript/DOM, and older browser versions in general. It would be great if everyone in the world was running the latest versions of their browser, but they typically are not.
If you read Microsoft's IEBlog, it's pretty interesting how they're going to handle these hacks in the future version of IE.
IE does understand and parse the XHTML doctype correctly.
You might want to do some research on why XHTML is over-hyped and can lead to future problems, because most web servers don't serve XHTML in the correct MIME type.
HTML4.01 is a standard too, ya know.
And yes, you can get IE6 to operate in STRICT mode (box type, etc.) if you supply the correct DOCTYPE. Further complicating things is the fact that Mozilla, Safari and Opera have an "almost standard" mode, which you can read about on the site I just linked.
For more information, check out QuirkMode's section on doctype and what it changes on the different browsers.