Only of you by "Classic" means the WinXP GUI. The Windows 2000 interface will be long gone.
As we all know: in the Microsoft-world the UI is the OS and not something loaded on top of the OS itself. And Bill be damned if we are to customize it into non-conformity:)
Seriously though. Yes, I've seen a few improvements from Windows 2000 in Windows XP, but apart from the need to add yet another (marketing assured) slick GUI, I see nothing constituting calling it a new OS. A new revision perhaps. Maybe even a -.3 version change, but that's it.
For Longhorn, all it seems to be is a new UI, metadata search, insane hardware requirements and.... well, that's it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure Windows 95 had no such thing. This came when you installed MS Office. For what version of Office (97 or 2000) or what version it became part of the OS, I'm not entirely sure of, but I'm pretty darn sure Windows 95 had no such thing.
You wish. According to the rumours Microsoft's new and innovative filesystem WinFS (NTFS, metadata and SQL iirc) which may not even make it to Longhorn doesn't even support this.
Add to this that it seems like Microsoft is planning for users to solely use metadata to organize their stuff, and I think it's pretty evident that symlinks in Windows is something we won't be seeing anytime soon.
There might be NTFS hacks to create equivalents (by cloning directory-reference entry's in the FS), but I really wouldn't want to use those.
For this you need to go commandline. try runas/user:[user] allthestuffyouwanthere.
Doesn't work well for spawning a administrator cmd-shell though, as Windows absolutely refuses to launch to similar processes from different users at the same time, and the runas runs in a cmd-shell launched with your current credentials.
I realize this is proabbly is very much depending on your point of view, but still.
1. HTML is easy. That was my point. As long as you don't want to make fancy stuff like CSS Zengarden, HTML is pretty darn easy.
2. I would prefer a different analogy, but in the end it doesn't really matter, because an analogy is only just that, an analogy. Anyway, mine goes more like this: People should know the basics of how a car works to be allowed to use it. Like for instance knowing what the dials on the dashboard means. IMO the "Automatic versus manual" diversion is rather irellevant, as what kind of transmission you use doesn't really affect the car being a car.
3. My point was that if you want to publish stuff on the net, knowing how the net works might be a good idea. I, myself, when I make a website always write my own db-backed system from scratch, and even make a nice front-end for adding content, but that's beside the point. Again, what I meant was that "1. HTML is darn easy". People incapable of learning it, are people I will assume are too stupid to be worthwhile my attention.
Now that's me being arrogant, presumptious and probably a tad elitist, but given the amount of junk out there, I don't see the problem in doing some rough filtering. Now 'Blogs' have definitely increased the SNR of the net for the worse, and that's why I'd like them dead, buried, gone and away with.
To be honest, internet has always been full of blogs, technically speaking. The only actual difference now is that entirely clueless people are now also able to "contribute" to the internet. Not that I don't get your point or disagree with it, though.
Newsflash (specificly adressed to the media): Posting stuff on the internet is nothing new! It is what it was made for. Now please end this stupid mediahype immidiatly. You look like utter morons.
But people too stupid to handle or lazy to learn the minimum HTML required to create a simple webpage really isn't the kind of people I take my advice from.
Think of it as trashing the web like the easy to use IRC-clients have caused a similar "evolution" of IRC. It really doesn't bring much more useful content out there, just more.
The idea I keep hearing from Berman is that it will be another prequel (post Enterprise but pre TOS, if I recall correctly), and we all know how well the prequel concept has worked out in the Trek universe.
Well. I actually to some extenct enjoyed Enterprise. It was definitely no TOS, but at times still pretty good. I realize that's not the general concensus, but wth.
If you are to illustrate how "well" prequels work, I'd rather see people mention Star Wars. Ok. Episode 3 wasn't a bad movie itself, but the horrible, horrible acting ruined what may or may not have turned out to be a good movie.
To me, the Star Wars prequels, not the Star Trek prequel, why people should be tarred and feathered for ideas like this.
No, no, no! Not only that! I got mine via FTP, so FTP is responsible as well! And I found the FTP-link by the web, so I guess that makes HTTP responsible as well.
Oh.. and they all use IP. Which would make IP the one mainly responsible for the IP-theft! Yup. Sounds like double-A logic to me.
If you upload at 5k/s, you download at 5k/s,but if you can do 30k/s you usualy get 30k/s.
My lousy DSL cant sustain much more than 8kb/s upstream before all my other net-apps die. There is no upstream left for sending requests.
So I have Azureus capped at 5kb/s upstream to make the net usuable. Guess what? At occation I still get download speeds which maxes my downstream at 80kb/s. And that's when there are still other peers in the swarm.
You may be correct on the rest, but at this point you are wrong. Sure you're not mixing BitTorrent with ED2K?
Nothing at all, except now people too stupid to learn HTML can also contribute to the crapflooding of the web. Add to this that media is always slow to pick up tech-related stuff (I'm not saying this is tech), and you have your new, hot and empty media-hype.
Personally I'd rather visit those crummy websites with anim-gifs at Geocities at a regular basis than ever hearing the word blog again.
Nothing to see. Well, actually there's a lot to see, you just don't want to. Ofcourse the so called "bloggers" will have a different opinion on this.
I never took a stance at the morals of downloading copyrighted works. If you read my post again I'm fairly certain you will find me saying that it is indeed a question of it's own.
What I did say, was that there is a difference between tangeable and non-tanegable things and that denying that was stupidity or pedantry.
Well, can you eat ice scream before paying about it and said - well, it sucked, i won't pay?
You can't have it that way.
That's becuase the icecream is a tangeable, used object witch can't be returned in its proper state. The icecream-salesman will actually have lost something. As opposed to someone downloading a copy.
How come people (or pedants) have such a hard time grasping that there are differences between tangeable and non-tangeable things?
Now, if you find that this difference makes this copying morally acceptable or not is one thing.
But if you fail to acknowledge the difference that either makes you dumb, for not seeing it or makes you dumb for not realizing that the difference does indeed make a difference. Either way it makes you a dumb, annoying moron pedent troll.
But with ctrl-tab to get the same functionality, you have to press ctrl-shit-tab to go back.
That would happen to be a application specific implementation. In FireFox this is default behavior. There's extensions to correct this error.
Opera has it the way you want it by default. And so did every Office version prior to 2000. This is an application specific mis-implementation at best, and that is besides the point if tabbed browsing is good or not.
I forgot that for once we are actually to some extent talking about Microsoft software and tabbed browsing simultaneously. Please disregard that last line in the parent post.
The point that I was trying to make is that tabbed browsing creates a metaphor that is independent of any other window manager, including those used by Windows and Mac OS X
So unlike me, you didn't switch between documents in all versions of MS Office prior to Office 2000? To me this is a old, tried, tested and good way to do things. Alt-tab for applications, ctrl-tab for documents. Always has been, always will be my way.
Sorry if that doesnt work for you, but claiming that it is some sort of new metaphor (whatever the hell you mean by that) is plain silly.
Anyway, if you don't like tabs, no-one is forcing you to use them, you can use multiple windows instead. Nobody is forcing you: After all, this isn't Microsoft software.
Slashdot Mirror
It makes my content secure. Didn't you read the propaganda?
ATI has been selling all-in-wonder cards since the mid 90's (IIRC) and they 'honor' macrovision
Iirc this is a driver-issue, not a hardware issue. You should be able to disable Macrovision using TV-Tool (no I will not google it for you).
Only of you by "Classic" means the WinXP GUI. The Windows 2000 interface will be long gone.
As we all know: in the Microsoft-world the UI is the OS and not something loaded on top of the OS itself. And Bill be damned if we are to customize it into non-conformity :)
Seriously though. Yes, I've seen a few improvements from Windows 2000 in Windows XP, but apart from the need to add yet another (marketing assured) slick GUI, I see nothing constituting calling it a new OS. A new revision perhaps. Maybe even a -.3 version change, but that's it.
For Longhorn, all it seems to be is a new UI, metadata search, insane hardware requirements and.... well, that's it.
Windows 95 introduced the My Documents folder.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure Windows 95 had no such thing. This came when you installed MS Office. For what version of Office (97 or 2000) or what version it became part of the OS, I'm not entirely sure of, but I'm pretty darn sure Windows 95 had no such thing.
You wish. According to the rumours Microsoft's new and innovative filesystem WinFS (NTFS, metadata and SQL iirc) which may not even make it to Longhorn doesn't even support this.
Add to this that it seems like Microsoft is planning for users to solely use metadata to organize their stuff, and I think it's pretty evident that symlinks in Windows is something we won't be seeing anytime soon.
There might be NTFS hacks to create equivalents (by cloning directory-reference entry's in the FS), but I really wouldn't want to use those.
For this you need to go commandline. try runas /user:[user] allthestuffyouwanthere.
Doesn't work well for spawning a administrator cmd-shell though, as Windows absolutely refuses to launch to similar processes from different users at the same time, and the runas runs in a cmd-shell launched with your current credentials.
I realize this is proabbly is very much depending on your point of view, but still.
1. HTML is easy. That was my point. As long as you don't want to make fancy stuff like CSS Zengarden, HTML is pretty darn easy.
2. I would prefer a different analogy, but in the end it doesn't really matter, because an analogy is only just that, an analogy. Anyway, mine goes more like this: People should know the basics of how a car works to be allowed to use it. Like for instance knowing what the dials on the dashboard means. IMO the "Automatic versus manual" diversion is rather irellevant, as what kind of transmission you use doesn't really affect the car being a car.
3. My point was that if you want to publish stuff on the net, knowing how the net works might be a good idea. I, myself, when I make a website always write my own db-backed system from scratch, and even make a nice front-end for adding content, but that's beside the point. Again, what I meant was that "1. HTML is darn easy". People incapable of learning it, are people I will assume are too stupid to be worthwhile my attention.
Now that's me being arrogant, presumptious and probably a tad elitist, but given the amount of junk out there, I don't see the problem in doing some rough filtering. Now 'Blogs' have definitely increased the SNR of the net for the worse, and that's why I'd like them dead, buried, gone and away with.
(4. This is definitely getting mod'ed offtopic.)
I liked the internet without blogs just fine.
To be honest, internet has always been full of blogs, technically speaking. The only actual difference now is that entirely clueless people are now also able to "contribute" to the internet. Not that I don't get your point or disagree with it, though.
Newsflash (specificly adressed to the media):
Posting stuff on the internet is nothing new! It is what it was made for. Now please end this stupid mediahype immidiatly. You look like utter morons.
But people too stupid to handle or lazy to learn the minimum HTML required to create a simple webpage really isn't the kind of people I take my advice from.
Think of it as trashing the web like the easy to use IRC-clients have caused a similar "evolution" of IRC. It really doesn't bring much more useful content out there, just more.
You mean you didn't notice that Hoshi/Linda Park was the hottest Trek-babe ever until the last four episodes? The shame, the shame...
Or maybe that's just me and my unhealthy obsession with asian women :)
The idea I keep hearing from Berman is that it will be another prequel (post Enterprise but pre TOS, if I recall correctly), and we all know how well the prequel concept has worked out in the Trek universe.
Well. I actually to some extenct enjoyed Enterprise. It was definitely no TOS, but at times still pretty good. I realize that's not the general concensus, but wth.
If you are to illustrate how "well" prequels work, I'd rather see people mention Star Wars. Ok. Episode 3 wasn't a bad movie itself, but the horrible, horrible acting ruined what may or may not have turned out to be a good movie.
To me, the Star Wars prequels, not the Star Trek prequel, why people should be tarred and feathered for ideas like this.
"They also don't know how to spell fuck."
WTF do you mean ?!?!
You never watched Deep Space Nine, did you? You lucky bastard!
Of course, BitTorrent is responsible.
No, no, no! Not only that! I got mine via FTP, so FTP is responsible as well! And I found the FTP-link by the web, so I guess that makes HTTP responsible as well.
Oh.. and they all use IP. Which would make IP the one mainly responsible for the IP-theft! Yup. Sounds like double-A logic to me.
If you upload at 5k/s, you download at 5k/s,but if you can do 30k/s you usualy get 30k/s.
My lousy DSL cant sustain much more than 8kb/s upstream before all my other net-apps die. There is no upstream left for sending requests.
So I have Azureus capped at 5kb/s upstream to make the net usuable. Guess what? At occation I still get download speeds which maxes my downstream at 80kb/s. And that's when there are still other peers in the swarm.
You may be correct on the rest, but at this point you are wrong. Sure you're not mixing BitTorrent with ED2K?
As for Azureus, I don't see the problem with restarting. It may be a bit slow at first, but it quickly picks up.
As for Fireofx... Thats where the Session Saver extension comes in handy! My new favorite extension.
Blogging is close to the original vision For the World Wide Web.
This is a blogger. I so hope that you are wrong.
Nothing at all, except now people too stupid to learn HTML can also contribute to the crapflooding of the web. Add to this that media is always slow to pick up tech-related stuff (I'm not saying this is tech), and you have your new, hot and empty media-hype.
Personally I'd rather visit those crummy websites with anim-gifs at Geocities at a regular basis than ever hearing the word blog again.
Nothing to see. Well, actually there's a lot to see, you just don't want to. Ofcourse the so called "bloggers" will have a different opinion on this.
I never took a stance at the morals of downloading copyrighted works. If you read my post again I'm fairly certain you will find me saying that it is indeed a question of it's own.
What I did say, was that there is a difference between tangeable and non-tanegable things and that denying that was stupidity or pedantry.
But I guess you were too busy trolling to notice.
Well, can you eat ice scream before paying about it and said - well, it sucked, i won't pay? You can't have it that way.
That's becuase the icecream is a tangeable, used object witch can't be returned in its proper state. The icecream-salesman will actually have lost something. As opposed to someone downloading a copy.
How come people (or pedants) have such a hard time grasping that there are differences between tangeable and non-tangeable things?
Now, if you find that this difference makes this copying morally acceptable or not is one thing.
But if you fail to acknowledge the difference that either makes you dumb, for not seeing it or makes you dumb for not realizing that the difference does indeed make a difference. Either way it makes you a dumb, annoying moron pedent troll.
How much of an effort did you put into deliberately misunderstanding the GP-post, just so you could spew your totally off-topic crap in here?
You suck.
But with ctrl-tab to get the same functionality, you have to press ctrl-shit-tab to go back.
That would happen to be a application specific implementation. In FireFox this is default behavior. There's extensions to correct this error.
Opera has it the way you want it by default. And so did every Office version prior to 2000. This is an application specific mis-implementation at best, and that is besides the point if tabbed browsing is good or not.
I forgot that for once we are actually to some extent talking about Microsoft software and tabbed browsing simultaneously. Please disregard that last line in the parent post.
The point that I was trying to make is that tabbed browsing creates a metaphor that is independent of any other window manager, including those used by Windows and Mac OS X
So unlike me, you didn't switch between documents in all versions of MS Office prior to Office 2000? To me this is a old, tried, tested and good way to do things. Alt-tab for applications, ctrl-tab for documents. Always has been, always will be my way.
Sorry if that doesnt work for you, but claiming that it is some sort of new metaphor (whatever the hell you mean by that) is plain silly.
Anyway, if you don't like tabs, no-one is forcing you to use them, you can use multiple windows instead. Nobody is forcing you: After all, this isn't Microsoft software.
In reality all Opera had originally was a switcher between MDI windows.
And exactly how isn't this tabs? Because if the shape or position of the GUI element? You gotta be trolling!