Many 2.1 systems will accept 5.1 input, automatically downmixing it, merging the channels together. Similarily, many 5.1 systems can operate in 4.1 or stereo mode for when you can't use all of your speakers for some reason.
If all else fails, I believe there are also headphones that take 5.1 input.
Massive censorship of games to make them more "kiddie-friendly". Absurdly high licensing fees. Reusing the same goddamn "Mario Bros" character set, visuals and music over and over again since the early nineties. Need I go on?
"Impossible" queries like this should be optimized to return nothing very quickly by the database's query optimizer. Especially a trivial example like trying to select NULL rows on a NOT NULL column. Stupid query yes, but PostgreSQL should have handled it on its own without you having to put an extra index in.
Of course XP has a load of unnecessary crap in it. That's how people want their OS. However, you shouldn't assume that just because an OS is based on the modern Windows codebase, it won't run on old hardware. My point is that if you shave away the "crap" in XP that won't be of any use in a school environment, offload all heavy tasks to a central server when possible, then remove all the eyecandy and trim what's left down a bit, you will have a Windows NT/2k/XP/2k3-codebase system that runs quite well on an old Pentium or something like it. At least so long as all you're using is Office and IE (or OOo and Firefox...). I tried this myself by slimming down Windows 2000 Pro to the point where it would run beautifully on a Pentium 133. It's quite doable, and would be great for all those systems still stuck on 95/98/Me.
You need a heavy-duty laser printer for this if you want it printed in a reasonable time. You could ask permission to print it at work (or ask a local business), they'll probably let you do it for virtually nothing more than the cost of the paper itself, possibly toner. At the university I go to they'd let me print it for free, no questions asked. It's fairly common for us students to need to print out large documents such as technical manuals from PDF.
Printing would still just get you loose sheets, however, and you specified hardback. I would suggest using pre-punched paper, or punching it yourself (takes a while but might be cheaper) and then putting everything in a file. Looks very neat and the cover will last forever (if you use a proper file - I prefer all-metal ones), plus it's easy to pick out single sheets for copying or when you don't need the entire manual at once.
It seems to be working quite well, actually - it's just a plain HTML page with two small images. It might actually stand the Slashdot effect... but here is the Coral cache copy if anyone needs it.
Sorry, but I wouldn't consider "mom and dad and granny" to be "followers" of Microsoft. They're simply consumers, they pick whatever's included with the Dell or HP or whatnot. Which OS they choose to use says nothing about that OS. If you only look at the people who actively choose what OS they want to use, you will no doubt find that most choose Windows. Those are the real followers, they've actively chosen to support Microsoft despite all the alternatives.
If your original point was to say that most Windows users don't use Windows because they actively chose it but because it was the only thing available, you're right. However, I think it's far more relevant to look at the people who actively choose Windows even though they're aware of the alternatives and respective advantages/disadvantages thereof.
It's not the removing of the partition they need help with, it's reinstalling the system (most people want XP, the systems come preloaded with 2k). Now, ordinarily this too would be a simple matter, but they can't do this on their own because we in tech support have exclusive access to the (university licensed) Windows CD's. It's also a free service, by turning the computer over to us for a repartition and reinstall they can spend two hours doing something more interesting, while I reinstall their box earning about $20/hour for a job that lets me surf the web 95% of the time. It's quite nice.:)
This is just FUD. I work in tech support at a technical university where all students are offered to buy laptops at a highly discounted price (and many do). These come pre-loaded with fully set up and working Windows and Linux installations. Linux use is encouraged by many of our teachers and those of us on Windows frequently have to use Cygwin to complete an assignment. Still, Linux users are in the minority by a long shot, and a common request I get when working in support is to remove the Linux partition from someone's system. So your statement is untruthful, lots of people - technically-minded people who are NOT ignorant about these things - ACTIVELY CHOOSE Windows when given a choice. Microsoft has certainly earned its following.
People hate alien dolls, they're expensive and look fake. CG like Gollum look considerably better, but is too expensive for a TV show.
Actually, there is a race of aliens on Star Trek: Voyager - a TV show - created entirely from CG. Looks pretty good, too. Look up Species 8472 in Wikipedia for more info. Apparently, they have five different sexes as well as being quite nonhumanoid.
Earlier today, I had no trouble getting through via regular GSM to my friends, who are vacationing in Thailand (just northeast of Phuket) right now. Maybe you should give that a try.
Do reread my post. You seem to have skipped over most of it. I stated that clueless users will have problems regardless of OS. Nothing about "average users". Nor anything related to Linux's suitability for the "average user's" desktop.
On a sidenote: After years of being a Windows stalwart, my wife informed me today that she is now ready for me to install Linux on her computer. She says she's tired of fighting with her computer all of the time while seeing that mine "just works".
Your mrs is in for a big letdown. Linux is not a magic bullet that suddenly makes a system fast, beautiful and simple to use. Though it certainly can, it depends on the user. A clueless user on Linux is just as clueless as a clueless user on Windows; only the specific problems she must face are different. Your wife will be reliant on you administering her box for her. What she should do is decide on an OS and spend some serious time learning it. Both Windows and Linux can be perfectly pleasant OS's if you learn how to properly use them. Both have quirks that need to be accepted, fixed or worked around.
I run Windows XP on my work system and I also have the "no crashes, no viruses, no spyware" utopia you describe. As for bullshit, I get that only when reading/.:)
Though I've never felt the need to visit Bush's re-election website, it seems to be quite available through Coral even for us europeans. Dog slow, though.
No reimages here in more than two years, all works well. The workstations only run IE, Office and AV/FW software though. Some boxes have more exotic stuff on them but haven't needed reimaging either. The worst we've had was a secretaries' son who came in and installed Kazaa - easily dealt with. I only check each workstation twice per month, Ad-aware only finds tracking cookies... maybe your users need a bit of education on what websites they're best off not visiting?:)
(Btw: We don't use any kind of Internet filter. All users have admin rights on their own machines. The users are all lawyers and their secretaries, which means they're not techies, but they are smart people who do understand information security.)
I haven't felt the need to insist on my previous point because you haven't made any convincing arguments against it.:)
The "unsecure default install" argument is weak because it was only true up until Windows XP SP2, and even before only true assuming no kind of exterior protection (even a weak one such as NAT), and even otherwise not a Windows-specific vulnerability; it's quite easy to find a Linux-based OS which isn't secure by default by today's standards, if you go back far enough in time.
You're correct in that Windows boxes can't be patched while they're sitting in the crates at Walmart. Fine. But Microsoft are handing out free SP2 CD's (which can be installed w/o a net connection) and so any responsible store should be handing those out with new PC's that haven't been previously patched. Also, the fact that you can't patch a box that's sitting in a crate is not a Windows-specific problem. That's true for any operating system. That Linux-based OS don't come preinstalled on many computers isn't (only) Microsoft's fault.
In summary, Windows has the specific issue that up until the last SP, it didn't automatically download patches and didn't erect a firewall by default. This, I won't argue - Windows has been insecure by default. To be fair however, we should judge each OS by its merits of today.
The "recent study posted on/." must have used an old version of Windows. Install the current version (XP w. SP2) and not only is it pretty secure by default, it's also firewalled by default, and will alert the user to new security updates by default.
Your argument is valid for a completely unpatched Windows box, without any sort of protection from the horrors of the 'net. However, it's not quite as bad as some make it sound. Even minimal "protection" like a NAT box (home broadband router) is enough to keep a completely "raw" Windows box safe for long enough to install all applicable updates, anti-virus+firewall software, and a decent browser/mail suite.
If even a "well protected" Windows system degenerates into "complete hell" due to inherent design flaws, then you may explain why all Windows boxes I administer, both those used by myself and by the people I work for, are working flawlessly after years of daily use.
Obviously your theory of doom fails to account for the fact that in the end, regardless of OS, it depends on the user if the computer works or not. I won't disagree with you if you claim that Windows has a low treshold for "breakage". I will however continue to smack down on the ignorant people who claim that it's "impossible" to maintain a Windows system in working condition for YEARS without a reinstall, even if the system is used heavily and for many different tasks.
This was true even for older versions of Windows, though to a lesser extent; I had a three month uptime on Windows 95 at work, mostly because I only ran MS Office and IE on it. Anything more exotic and it'd probably have crashed.:)
Sorry, but whenever I see someone switching to a Linux-based distro from Windows because of security, I just wonder where the logic is in that. Linux-based OS are harder to configure and maintain than Windows (that's subjective, but anything requiring console hacking is "harder" to Joe User). Someone who can't keep a Windows box secure will have a harder time keeping a Linux box secure. Someone who can do neither will need qualified assistance running his system no matter what OS he chooses.
...is that it still uses IR, which means it needs line of sight. Of course, there's no way around that, since very few TV sets uses something other than IR for communicating with their remotes. The problem is that you have to point it at the TV set to use it.
Still pretty darn nifty though. I might get one when the site becomes accessible again.
On a sidenote, someone should combine this with a cellphone jammer, an electric stun gun, and a reusable light EMP grenade, and we'd have the ultimate peace-and-quiet device.
How is the 4000+ rating "not justified"? "4000+" does not mean "faster than a Pentium IV at 4 GHz" like some blockheads want to believe. It's just a name and it neither could nor should be used as an indicator of performance, other than relative to other AMD CPU's.
Let's do an analogy. We have BMW and Mercedes-Benz, both high-profile german car makers. BMW has a car called 320i, Mercedes has one called C320. They're pretty similar in size and price, but the Merc is significantly faster. Now think of Mercedes as AMD...
And is there any reason besides the usual Slashdot groupthink anti-Microsoft paranoia to believe that it will ever be anything but an "optional software component"? I could see it rising to "recommended update" for EU users, but suggesting anything resembling "big red blinking letters" is simply stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
Many 2.1 systems will accept 5.1 input, automatically downmixing it, merging the channels together. Similarily, many 5.1 systems can operate in 4.1 or stereo mode for when you can't use all of your speakers for some reason.
If all else fails, I believe there are also headphones that take 5.1 input.
Massive censorship of games to make them more "kiddie-friendly". Absurdly high licensing fees. Reusing the same goddamn "Mario Bros" character set, visuals and music over and over again since the early nineties. Need I go on?
I thought it strange that his health didn't drop, but then I noticed, he's playing with IDDQD and IDFA. Cheater!
Btw, anyone who can remember the difference between IDFA and IDKFA gets a cookie.
"Impossible" queries like this should be optimized to return nothing very quickly by the database's query optimizer. Especially a trivial example like trying to select NULL rows on a NOT NULL column. Stupid query yes, but PostgreSQL should have handled it on its own without you having to put an extra index in.
Of course XP has a load of unnecessary crap in it. That's how people want their OS. However, you shouldn't assume that just because an OS is based on the modern Windows codebase, it won't run on old hardware. My point is that if you shave away the "crap" in XP that won't be of any use in a school environment, offload all heavy tasks to a central server when possible, then remove all the eyecandy and trim what's left down a bit, you will have a Windows NT/2k/XP/2k3-codebase system that runs quite well on an old Pentium or something like it. At least so long as all you're using is Office and IE (or OOo and Firefox...). I tried this myself by slimming down Windows 2000 Pro to the point where it would run beautifully on a Pentium 133. It's quite doable, and would be great for all those systems still stuck on 95/98/Me.
You need a heavy-duty laser printer for this if you want it printed in a reasonable time. You could ask permission to print it at work (or ask a local business), they'll probably let you do it for virtually nothing more than the cost of the paper itself, possibly toner. At the university I go to they'd let me print it for free, no questions asked. It's fairly common for us students to need to print out large documents such as technical manuals from PDF.
Printing would still just get you loose sheets, however, and you specified hardback. I would suggest using pre-punched paper, or punching it yourself (takes a while but might be cheaper) and then putting everything in a file. Looks very neat and the cover will last forever (if you use a proper file - I prefer all-metal ones), plus it's easy to pick out single sheets for copying or when you don't need the entire manual at once.
It seems to be working quite well, actually - it's just a plain HTML page with two small images. It might actually stand the Slashdot effect... but here is the Coral cache copy if anyone needs it.
Sorry, but I wouldn't consider "mom and dad and granny" to be "followers" of Microsoft. They're simply consumers, they pick whatever's included with the Dell or HP or whatnot. Which OS they choose to use says nothing about that OS. If you only look at the people who actively choose what OS they want to use, you will no doubt find that most choose Windows. Those are the real followers, they've actively chosen to support Microsoft despite all the alternatives.
If your original point was to say that most Windows users don't use Windows because they actively chose it but because it was the only thing available, you're right. However, I think it's far more relevant to look at the people who actively choose Windows even though they're aware of the alternatives and respective advantages/disadvantages thereof.
Please read my response to Torham (it's here). I covered this already. It's not the repartitioning itself that's the problem.
It's not the removing of the partition they need help with, it's reinstalling the system (most people want XP, the systems come preloaded with 2k). Now, ordinarily this too would be a simple matter, but they can't do this on their own because we in tech support have exclusive access to the (university licensed) Windows CD's. It's also a free service, by turning the computer over to us for a repartition and reinstall they can spend two hours doing something more interesting, while I reinstall their box earning about $20/hour for a job that lets me surf the web 95% of the time. It's quite nice. :)
This is just FUD. I work in tech support at a technical university where all students are offered to buy laptops at a highly discounted price (and many do). These come pre-loaded with fully set up and working Windows and Linux installations. Linux use is encouraged by many of our teachers and those of us on Windows frequently have to use Cygwin to complete an assignment. Still, Linux users are in the minority by a long shot, and a common request I get when working in support is to remove the Linux partition from someone's system. So your statement is untruthful, lots of people - technically-minded people who are NOT ignorant about these things - ACTIVELY CHOOSE Windows when given a choice. Microsoft has certainly earned its following.
People hate alien dolls, they're expensive and look fake. CG like Gollum look considerably better, but is too expensive for a TV show.
Actually, there is a race of aliens on Star Trek: Voyager - a TV show - created entirely from CG. Looks pretty good, too. Look up Species 8472 in Wikipedia for more info. Apparently, they have five different sexes as well as being quite nonhumanoid.
Earlier today, I had no trouble getting through via regular GSM to my friends, who are vacationing in Thailand (just northeast of Phuket) right now. Maybe you should give that a try.
Because that's what Windows almost did not too long ago. Especially true if you look only at the desktop OS market.
Do reread my post. You seem to have skipped over most of it. I stated that clueless users will have problems regardless of OS. Nothing about "average users". Nor anything related to Linux's suitability for the "average user's" desktop.
On a sidenote: After years of being a Windows stalwart, my wife informed me today that she is now ready for me to install Linux on her computer. She says she's tired of fighting with her computer all of the time while seeing that mine "just works".
/. :)
Your mrs is in for a big letdown. Linux is not a magic bullet that suddenly makes a system fast, beautiful and simple to use. Though it certainly can, it depends on the user. A clueless user on Linux is just as clueless as a clueless user on Windows; only the specific problems she must face are different. Your wife will be reliant on you administering her box for her. What she should do is decide on an OS and spend some serious time learning it. Both Windows and Linux can be perfectly pleasant OS's if you learn how to properly use them. Both have quirks that need to be accepted, fixed or worked around.
I run Windows XP on my work system and I also have the "no crashes, no viruses, no spyware" utopia you describe. As for bullshit, I get that only when reading
Though I've never felt the need to visit Bush's re-election website, it seems to be quite available through Coral even for us europeans. Dog slow, though.
No reimages here in more than two years, all works well. The workstations only run IE, Office and AV/FW software though. Some boxes have more exotic stuff on them but haven't needed reimaging either. The worst we've had was a secretaries' son who came in and installed Kazaa - easily dealt with. I only check each workstation twice per month, Ad-aware only finds tracking cookies... maybe your users need a bit of education on what websites they're best off not visiting? :)
(Btw: We don't use any kind of Internet filter. All users have admin rights on their own machines. The users are all lawyers and their secretaries, which means they're not techies, but they are smart people who do understand information security.)
I haven't felt the need to insist on my previous point because you haven't made any convincing arguments against it. :)
The "unsecure default install" argument is weak because it was only true up until Windows XP SP2, and even before only true assuming no kind of exterior protection (even a weak one such as NAT), and even otherwise not a Windows-specific vulnerability; it's quite easy to find a Linux-based OS which isn't secure by default by today's standards, if you go back far enough in time.
You're correct in that Windows boxes can't be patched while they're sitting in the crates at Walmart. Fine. But Microsoft are handing out free SP2 CD's (which can be installed w/o a net connection) and so any responsible store should be handing those out with new PC's that haven't been previously patched. Also, the fact that you can't patch a box that's sitting in a crate is not a Windows-specific problem. That's true for any operating system. That Linux-based OS don't come preinstalled on many computers isn't (only) Microsoft's fault.
In summary, Windows has the specific issue that up until the last SP, it didn't automatically download patches and didn't erect a firewall by default. This, I won't argue - Windows has been insecure by default. To be fair however, we should judge each OS by its merits of today.
The "recent study posted on /." must have used an old version of Windows. Install the current version (XP w. SP2) and not only is it pretty secure by default, it's also firewalled by default, and will alert the user to new security updates by default.
Your argument is valid for a completely unpatched Windows box, without any sort of protection from the horrors of the 'net. However, it's not quite as bad as some make it sound. Even minimal "protection" like a NAT box (home broadband router) is enough to keep a completely "raw" Windows box safe for long enough to install all applicable updates, anti-virus+firewall software, and a decent browser/mail suite.
If even a "well protected" Windows system degenerates into "complete hell" due to inherent design flaws, then you may explain why all Windows boxes I administer, both those used by myself and by the people I work for, are working flawlessly after years of daily use.
:)
Obviously your theory of doom fails to account for the fact that in the end, regardless of OS, it depends on the user if the computer works or not. I won't disagree with you if you claim that Windows has a low treshold for "breakage". I will however continue to smack down on the ignorant people who claim that it's "impossible" to maintain a Windows system in working condition for YEARS without a reinstall, even if the system is used heavily and for many different tasks.
This was true even for older versions of Windows, though to a lesser extent; I had a three month uptime on Windows 95 at work, mostly because I only ran MS Office and IE on it. Anything more exotic and it'd probably have crashed.
Sorry, but whenever I see someone switching to a Linux-based distro from Windows because of security, I just wonder where the logic is in that. Linux-based OS are harder to configure and maintain than Windows (that's subjective, but anything requiring console hacking is "harder" to Joe User). Someone who can't keep a Windows box secure will have a harder time keeping a Linux box secure. Someone who can do neither will need qualified assistance running his system no matter what OS he chooses.
...is that it still uses IR, which means it needs line of sight. Of course, there's no way around that, since very few TV sets uses something other than IR for communicating with their remotes. The problem is that you have to point it at the TV set to use it.
Still pretty darn nifty though. I might get one when the site becomes accessible again.
On a sidenote, someone should combine this with a cellphone jammer, an electric stun gun, and a reusable light EMP grenade, and we'd have the ultimate peace-and-quiet device.
How is the 4000+ rating "not justified"? "4000+" does not mean "faster than a Pentium IV at 4 GHz" like some blockheads want to believe. It's just a name and it neither could nor should be used as an indicator of performance, other than relative to other AMD CPU's.
Let's do an analogy. We have BMW and Mercedes-Benz, both high-profile german car makers. BMW has a car called 320i, Mercedes has one called C320. They're pretty similar in size and price, but the Merc is significantly faster. Now think of Mercedes as AMD...
And is there any reason besides the usual Slashdot groupthink anti-Microsoft paranoia to believe that it will ever be anything but an "optional software component"? I could see it rising to "recommended update" for EU users, but suggesting anything resembling "big red blinking letters" is simply stupid.