Oddly, enough, that's exactly what the engine did. The poster having no flipping clue about a highly regarded nature photographer and then proceeded to bitch about how it was cluttering up his results not withstanding...
Could be. Office2k3 doesn't pre-cache itself, though it is possible that XP decided to do so (XP will prefetch binaries for commonly used applications if the ram isn't needed for anything else).
However, the startup performce I observed immediately after installing it was just as impressively quick; the splash screen appeared and disappeared in the blink of an eye. In fact, that was one of the things I was so happy about after upgrading from my old K7/500... (I believe my exact reaction was "holy shit!").
Outlook no longer starts as fast as it used to (apparently startup time degrades as the pst grows; it takes about 3 seconds now), but the other apps in the suite take no time to load whatsoever.
I was reading an article awhile ago which described (at a high level) some crazy process they use to make the app load so fast, but I can't find it anymore. Essentially they go through and re-order the compiled application so that the bits that are needed are in optimal relative locations in order to increase the effectiveness of reads and minimize the amount of seeking required during the startup process, with non-essential items delay-loaded after the core application has started.
You make it sound like opendoc encapsulates every possible piece of data and information you'd ever want to store in a document in order to re-create it.
Hell, why do we need opendoc when we've got HTML? It's the same thing right?
Of course not, that'd be silly. In much the same way as stating that 640k ought to be enough for anyone, stating that opendoc is the end-all be all solution for storing documents is equally rediculous.
You want Office to save in a niche format used by less than 1% of the market? Write a plugin. And stop whining about how Microsoft isn't going out of it's way to do the competition's job for them.
I can't speak for your computer, but on mine Word 2k3 starts up in far less than a second... (and this "test" was done on machine in the process of transcoding a dvd)
There are lots of legitimate reasons to hate Word, but startup speed isn't one of them.
Right, so the article (both of them) about "Origami", backed by an obtuse flash website with no real content or information, wasn't posted and there were no trolls complaining about the Microsoft hype machine...
Fact of that matter is that Microsoft could announce just the name of a product and I guarantee you the following 3 things will happen: 1) it will be posted on slashdot multiple times 2) contain people complaining about the Microsoft hype machine 3) anyone pointing out that there has been really no information released by Microsoft and all the speculation/hype was done in the media gets modded down as a troll or "overrated" (which is what a troll with modpoints does to slip by the meta-mod system).
It wasn't even a screenshot; someone made a screencap of something that was present for 0.5 seconds of a 4 minute video clip and came to the conclusion "portable xbox! w00t!".
Only they opt for more parenting instead of forcing users to learn the first bit about security
How are they going to force users to learn anything? Short of requiring the user to take some sort of certification and enter a unique use-once only code, there isn't any way (and I'd *love* to see the reaction from the world should they try that).
The only thing they can do is run everything with the least amount of privleges as possible and make the user aware of the cases where they're running with more.
I will still be bugged with "Do you really want to blow your nose now?" messages.
For know-it-alls like you, the behavior is configurable. You can turn off LUA all together. Or you can have it auto-elevate. Or you can force the user to enter user credentials. Or you can prevent elevation of unsigned binaries. Etc.
With the Beta bits as they are right now, the implementation requires a lot of work to be "user friendly" with the consent behavior turned on, but with the development time they have remaining hopefully they'll make some major strides in that department.
Actually, I'm smoking crack... I'll I'm seeing is "possibility" of a lawsuit; I don't think one has actually been filed yet. Don't mind me, I'll let myself out the back door...;)
Since when did game copy protection crap get labeled as DRM?
Re:How are schools supposed to manage this?
on
Why Vista Won't Suck
·
· Score: 1
What the hell is the deal with this "hibernation" mode they're talking about? The DEFAULT option is to NOT shut the computer off? In this day and age with our up-and-coming energy crisis, and MS are going to make all these new 500W+ PCs NOT shut down? Who was on the crack that day at Redmond when they decided to make that the default option.
Pst... when the only thing on is the hardware needed to refresh the ram, you aren't drawing 500 watts from the PSU.
This is designed more for laptops, where you want to be able to close/open the lid without having to wait for everything to spin up.
And "noobs" who do know just a little better will give themselves administrator accounts so that they can install software whenever they want without changing roles, completely mooting any "default user level access" security changes being made.
Even when login in as Administrator, applications you launch run with least-privliges. If an applicatin or operation requires administrator rights to invoke, a "consent" dialog will appear asking the user if it is ok to launch that application or invoke whatever privleged operation was requested.
For applications, heap management is in a library, not the kernel
The kernel decides how real memory maps to applications. Applications don't get to decide which chunks of memory in the system they get -- the kernel does. The system heap can get just as fragmented as an application's heap.
The only thing I enjoyed on the N64 was the race portion of Super Mario Kart (the battle mode blew) and multiplayer goldeneye (and even that wasn't spectacular).
Now, it's fine and dandy that you and some game reviewer that I've never heard of liked it -- but for me, I thought it stunk, and I don't know anyone who bought an N64 for the specific purpose of playing it.
For me, the Mario franchise peaked with Super Mario World.
Go down to Claim 1. I don't see where this claim says that the information is specifically transmitted without receiving a request from the wireless device.
Start reading claim 20 (which is a subclaim of claim 4, which is a subclaim of claim 1) and go from there.
This is basically the same thing that any system with a mail server on it with a wireless connection running to that server would do.
That would be the intelligent way of doing it. But it isn't often the way it is done (and is one of the reasons why blackberry's are so popular IMO).
It's a pretty safe bet that running it over a wireless connection was both not that groundbreaking of an idea and actually done by people (particularly UUCP).
Which is probably why the USPTO is in the process of invalidating the patent as we speak...
I can easily see them costing $200, given the technology/precision required to manufacture them. Do some research on that laser -- you'll be very surprised at how bleeding edge that thing is. The ideas used in blu-ray are over 10 years old, but the technology required to produce the parts outside of a lab didn't exist until very recently.
You're joking right? Just another DVD/CD player?!?
We're talking about a fancy pants multiple focus combined blue/red laser with a numerical aperature of 0.85; the technology required to even manufacture this thing didn't even exist 2 years ago!
To put those numbers into a bit of perspective, DVD lasers have an NA of 0.6, while HD-DVD's lasers have an NA of 0.65.
In technological terms, the tolerances required to manufacture this thing are in the same league as manufacturing a piece of bleeding edge medical equipment.
Also, since they hold the patents for all the blu-ray standards, they don't have to pay any royalties
This is completely incorrect; Sony acts as the entity gathering liscensing all of that patents, but they do not own all of them. For example, Philips owns several of the patents used by blu-ray.
since Sony is simply trying to get the Blu-Ray standard out into the world quickly, its to their advantage to set the price pretty low
Just because they can afford to take a loss doesn't mean that it is cheap to manufacture.
And yet you brought it up as relevant to Microsoft's compliance. You can't have it both ways. But I agree (as does the person you are responding to). The source code is not the documentation.
Actually, I didn't. I've just referred to documentation. One of the GPs might have referred to source code, but that wasn't me.
My understanding is that the 500 hours of support goes with the access to the source code. Thus it, too, is irrelevant to the discussion.
My understanding is that it goes with access to the documentation, as is stated in the response document.
Rejection based on accessability, detail, quality, or useability would not require very long at all, especially if the flaws made themselves readily apparent. Creating a successful project in 48 hours based on the documentation (what you seem to be implying) is not necessary.
This was the standard the EU used (or so Microsoft claims anyway) to determine that the documentation was insufficient. They attempted to implement the "Add User" functionality in a domain server. They only examined documentation pertaining to this functionality and concluded that the documentation was insufficient because they were unable to implement that functionality from scratch in 48 hours.
You see some documents from Microsoft, and assume they tell the whole story? That seems out of character with the rest of your comments.
Given the lack of contrasting information from the other side, what else am I to do? My natural tendencies are to trust large powerful governing bodies less than I trust Microsoft. Of course, sometimes it can be fun playing devil's advocate to explore all sides of an arguement as well.
I fear, though, that you will have to get used to disappointment.
Too true, given that this particular body doesn't have to answer to many people...
I didn't hear Microsoft complaining when unelected bureaucrats were trying to force software patents on EU citizens against their will! Quite the opposite, MSFT lobbied aggressively in support of software patents.
This is exactly what I'm referring to. Microsoft was quite open in it's support of software patents -- you knew they were trying to screw you. All of the beaurocrats were making deals behind closed doors -- you didn't know if or how they were trying to screw you.
Slashdot Mirror
Oddly, enough, that's exactly what the engine did. The poster having no flipping clue about a highly regarded nature photographer and then proceeded to bitch about how it was cluttering up his results not withstanding ...
Could be. Office2k3 doesn't pre-cache itself, though it is possible that XP decided to do so (XP will prefetch binaries for commonly used applications if the ram isn't needed for anything else).
... (I believe my exact reaction was "holy shit!").
However, the startup performce I observed immediately after installing it was just as impressively quick; the splash screen appeared and disappeared in the blink of an eye. In fact, that was one of the things I was so happy about after upgrading from my old K7/500
Outlook no longer starts as fast as it used to (apparently startup time degrades as the pst grows; it takes about 3 seconds now), but the other apps in the suite take no time to load whatsoever.
I was reading an article awhile ago which described (at a high level) some crazy process they use to make the app load so fast, but I can't find it anymore. Essentially they go through and re-order the compiled application so that the bits that are needed are in optimal relative locations in order to increase the effectiveness of reads and minimize the amount of seeking required during the startup process, with non-essential items delay-loaded after the core application has started.
Nothing special; a 2.8ghz P4 with 1gb of ram.
You make it sound like opendoc encapsulates every possible piece of data and information you'd ever want to store in a document in order to re-create it.
Hell, why do we need opendoc when we've got HTML? It's the same thing right?
Of course not, that'd be silly. In much the same way as stating that 640k ought to be enough for anyone, stating that opendoc is the end-all be all solution for storing documents is equally rediculous.
You want Office to save in a niche format used by less than 1% of the market? Write a plugin. And stop whining about how Microsoft isn't going out of it's way to do the competition's job for them.
I can't speak for your computer, but on mine Word 2k3 starts up in far less than a second ... (and this "test" was done on machine in the process of transcoding a dvd)
There are lots of legitimate reasons to hate Word, but startup speed isn't one of them.
Right, so the article (both of them) about "Origami", backed by an obtuse flash website with no real content or information, wasn't posted and there were no trolls complaining about the Microsoft hype machine...
Fact of that matter is that Microsoft could announce just the name of a product and I guarantee you the following 3 things will happen:
1) it will be posted on slashdot multiple times
2) contain people complaining about the Microsoft hype machine
3) anyone pointing out that there has been really no information released by Microsoft and all the speculation/hype was done in the media gets modded down as a troll or "overrated" (which is what a troll with modpoints does to slip by the meta-mod system).
Microsoft doesn't get off that easy, why should Apple?
It wasn't even a screenshot; someone made a screencap of something that was present for 0.5 seconds of a 4 minute video clip and came to the conclusion "portable xbox! w00t!".
Only they opt for more parenting instead of forcing users to learn the first bit about security
How are they going to force users to learn anything? Short of requiring the user to take some sort of certification and enter a unique use-once only code, there isn't any way (and I'd *love* to see the reaction from the world should they try that).
The only thing they can do is run everything with the least amount of privleges as possible and make the user aware of the cases where they're running with more.
I will still be bugged with "Do you really want to blow your nose now?" messages.
For know-it-alls like you, the behavior is configurable. You can turn off LUA all together. Or you can have it auto-elevate. Or you can force the user to enter user credentials. Or you can prevent elevation of unsigned binaries. Etc.
With the Beta bits as they are right now, the implementation requires a lot of work to be "user friendly" with the consent behavior turned on, but with the development time they have remaining hopefully they'll make some major strides in that department.
Actually, I'm smoking crack ... I'll I'm seeing is "possibility" of a lawsuit; I don't think one has actually been filed yet. Don't mind me, I'll let myself out the back door ... ;)
Not quite. Real figured out a way to get their DRM'd content onto an iPod and Apple sued them. Quick link: http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/4334 5/43345.html?Ad=1
Since when did game copy protection crap get labeled as DRM?
What the hell is the deal with this "hibernation" mode they're talking about? The DEFAULT option is to NOT shut the computer off? In this day and age with our up-and-coming energy crisis, and MS are going to make all these new 500W+ PCs NOT shut down? Who was on the crack that day at Redmond when they decided to make that the default option.
... when the only thing on is the hardware needed to refresh the ram, you aren't drawing 500 watts from the PSU.
Pst
This is designed more for laptops, where you want to be able to close/open the lid without having to wait for everything to spin up.
What Linux driver's of consequence DON'T run in kernel space, praytell?
And "noobs" who do know just a little better will give themselves administrator accounts so that they can install software whenever they want without changing roles, completely mooting any "default user level access" security changes being made.
Even when login in as Administrator, applications you launch run with least-privliges. If an applicatin or operation requires administrator rights to invoke, a "consent" dialog will appear asking the user if it is ok to launch that application or invoke whatever privleged operation was requested.
Take a look at the kernel apis documented here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url= /library/en-us/memory/base/memory_management_funct ions.asp
This ought to give you a better idea of the kind of calls they're probably making improvements to.
For applications, heap management is in a library, not the kernel
The kernel decides how real memory maps to applications. Applications don't get to decide which chunks of memory in the system they get -- the kernel does. The system heap can get just as fragmented as an application's heap.
Then we'll just have to respectfully disagree.
The only thing I enjoyed on the N64 was the race portion of Super Mario Kart (the battle mode blew) and multiplayer goldeneye (and even that wasn't spectacular).
Now, it's fine and dandy that you and some game reviewer that I've never heard of liked it -- but for me, I thought it stunk, and I don't know anyone who bought an N64 for the specific purpose of playing it.
For me, the Mario franchise peaked with Super Mario World.
Super Mario 64 wasn't a killer app for the N64. Frankly, I don't remember there being much to like about the N64 at all ...
Go down to Claim 1. I don't see where this claim says that the information is specifically transmitted without receiving a request from the wireless device.
...
Start reading claim 20 (which is a subclaim of claim 4, which is a subclaim of claim 1) and go from there.
This is basically the same thing that any system with a mail server on it with a wireless connection running to that server would do.
That would be the intelligent way of doing it. But it isn't often the way it is done (and is one of the reasons why blackberry's are so popular IMO).
It's a pretty safe bet that running it over a wireless connection was both not that groundbreaking of an idea and actually done by people (particularly UUCP).
Which is probably why the USPTO is in the process of invalidating the patent as we speak
I can easily see them costing $200, given the technology/precision required to manufacture them. Do some research on that laser -- you'll be very surprised at how bleeding edge that thing is. The ideas used in blu-ray are over 10 years old, but the technology required to produce the parts outside of a lab didn't exist until very recently.
You're joking right? Just another DVD/CD player?!?
We're talking about a fancy pants multiple focus combined blue/red laser with a numerical aperature of 0.85; the technology required to even manufacture this thing didn't even exist 2 years ago!
To put those numbers into a bit of perspective, DVD lasers have an NA of 0.6, while HD-DVD's lasers have an NA of 0.65.
In technological terms, the tolerances required to manufacture this thing are in the same league as manufacturing a piece of bleeding edge medical equipment.
Also, since they hold the patents for all the blu-ray standards, they don't have to pay any royalties
This is completely incorrect; Sony acts as the entity gathering liscensing all of that patents, but they do not own all of them. For example, Philips owns several of the patents used by blu-ray.
since Sony is simply trying to get the Blu-Ray standard out into the world quickly, its to their advantage to set the price pretty low
Just because they can afford to take a loss doesn't mean that it is cheap to manufacture.
And yet you brought it up as relevant to Microsoft's compliance. You can't have it both ways. But I agree (as does the person you are responding to). The source code is not the documentation.
...
Actually, I didn't. I've just referred to documentation. One of the GPs might have referred to source code, but that wasn't me.
My understanding is that the 500 hours of support goes with the access to the source code. Thus it, too, is irrelevant to the discussion.
My understanding is that it goes with access to the documentation, as is stated in the response document.
Rejection based on accessability, detail, quality, or useability would not require very long at all, especially if the flaws made themselves readily apparent. Creating a successful project in 48 hours based on the documentation (what you seem to be implying) is not necessary.
This was the standard the EU used (or so Microsoft claims anyway) to determine that the documentation was insufficient. They attempted to implement the "Add User" functionality in a domain server. They only examined documentation pertaining to this functionality and concluded that the documentation was insufficient because they were unable to implement that functionality from scratch in 48 hours.
You see some documents from Microsoft, and assume they tell the whole story? That seems out of character with the rest of your comments.
Given the lack of contrasting information from the other side, what else am I to do? My natural tendencies are to trust large powerful governing bodies less than I trust Microsoft. Of course, sometimes it can be fun playing devil's advocate to explore all sides of an arguement as well.
I fear, though, that you will have to get used to disappointment.
Too true, given that this particular body doesn't have to answer to many people
I didn't hear Microsoft complaining when unelected bureaucrats were trying to force software patents on EU citizens against their will! Quite the opposite, MSFT lobbied aggressively in support of software patents.
This is exactly what I'm referring to. Microsoft was quite open in it's support of software patents -- you knew they were trying to screw you. All of the beaurocrats were making deals behind closed doors -- you didn't know if or how they were trying to screw you.