One of the reasons that I like the Xbox, is because it makes it easy for the developer to eliminate load times by streaming data from the hard drive into memory. Since the hard drive can swap data from memory much faster than a CD or DVD drive, it becomes much easier to do this. However, there are still very few games that I can thing of that (noticeably) apply this trick. I know that it is certainly very possible, as I have seen it done on a PS2 without access to a hard drive. I think that for some games, especially RPGs or anything that tries to present a seamless world, it should be a requirement. I love Knights of the Old Republic for Xbox, but on some levels the load times are almost unbearable. I can understand loading between planets, but I think that once you are on a planet they should have eliminated loading as much as possible. I think that this feature should definetly be considered for all games.
" The noisest part of all my computers i the hard drive, not the CPU fan."
I have one of the new design Alienware towers, and by far the most noise comes from the case fans. I have 2 seagate hard drives, and I can hear them somewhat, but the case fans are much louder. Although the fans themselves don't make that much noise, but the amount of air that they throw around does. If it is quite in the room, the whoosing sound can be quite loud.
I doubt that SCO actually has a legit claim on this, but what if they do? Who can say for sure at this point? If they do, then the lawyers aren't really evil, they are just doing their job. Chances are, irregardless of how the trial turns out, the lawyers will make the same salary, so you really can't say they are doing is evil.
While linux may be great with in a server or backend environment, it still is not ready for the desktop in my opinion. I just recently installed Mandrake 9.2 on a laptop of mine. I actually managed to get my PCMCIA wireless card to work, but not without some hassles at first. The first thing I decided to do after getting on the net was to update my system. This turned out to be a mistake, as my KDE desktop got all screwed up. Most of the links didn't work and the "start" menu was completely useless. I really don't know what happened, and I had no idea how to fix it, so I decided to install again and just not apply that patch. Now, if this had happened to a system that I had been using for some time, I would have been utterly annoyed by losing a large part of the functionality of my desktop. I also installed XMMS. I got this to work after I had to fight some driver settings, but the RPM I used never even added it to the start menu. I think that if you use a RPM that comes off of the install disk, this should definetly be an included feature. Maybe it was just the distro I was using, but it doesn't seem like it was feature common to other distros that I have tried either.
In short, it felt like I was fighting with the system the entire time just to get some trivial things to work. Linux may be a great, stable, and free kernel, but the rest of the things built on top of it, the things that really matter to the user, still seem to fall short in areas. Right now, I rather just install Windows and know that everything will work. I rather deal with security patches and keeping my antivirus up-to-date than deal with config files in an operating system that I don't know too well.
It makes me sad that the laptop that I type this on has the exact crazy combination of processor and videocard. While the proc is good for its age, Trident sure does suck.
Well, aside from command line computing, I feel that XP is not sluggish. Surely if you are good at the command line you might be more efficient on *nix or maybe even Mac OS X, but as far as using the GUI to do all of my work I prefer Windows.
I find it sad that so many people hold MS so incompetent as to not be able to write a simple anti-virus program without creating security holes. I think that MS will be more than capable of doing so. Like it or not, some really bright people work at MS and I think that Windows XP is a good operating system. Sure, it has some holes in it, but so does just about every other system. I think the real problem is that users aren't as security minded as they should be.
This is really a tough one. Windows currently has a firewall included, which is not technically core to the operating system, but of enough importance, in my opinion, to be included with all operating systems. I think you can argue that anti-virus is along the same lines. If you think about this in terms of another product, say a car, it might be clearer. When cars were first invented they didn't have seat belts. Suppose there was a company that decided to sell after-market seat belts for the cars. Now today, every car has to have seat belts as required by law. When the change occurred do you think that the seat belt company should have sued the car makers? It is true that the belt is not required by the car to operate, but it is a safety feature that everyone should use. The same can be said about anti-virus. It is not necessary to the operating system, but seriously bad things could happen from not using an anti-virus system. I think that anti-virus is so core to the security of Windows that it should be included. Also, you have to note the fact that many users don't know enough or care enough to buy anti-virus or keep their system updated. I think that the world might be a better place if the users were taken out of the equation when it comes to anti-virus.
Still, even if Microsoft manages to plug all their holes in the recent SP, there will still be a need for virus protection. Just think of all the viruses that spread very quickly even though they are the type that the user has to intentionally run. I'm sorry, but if you run a file that happens to be a virus you have no one to blame except for yourself. It doesn't really matter what operating system you use, if you run an untrusted execuitable you could be in trouble. It just so happens that a vast majority of the uneducated users end up on Windows, so that is where you see email viruses spreading. I think that by including a virus scanner and moving very quickly on updates, MS may be able to prevent a large amount of viruses that spread in this manner. Of course, there will still be all the users who run earlier versions of Windows and who still don't know enough to not open every file that they get.
While I agree with you that the study leaves many things to be desired, I don't think it should be totally thrown out the window. The fact that this many servers running Linux, which is generally seen as more secure than most other operating systems, are being broken into is disturbing, regardless of the level of the intrusion. If someone breaks into my server and defaces my website, I would be pretty upset, but this would not necessarily have to be a "root" level penetration. However, users would notice and it would be very embarassing. If a user breaks in and totally trashes my server, it would be more work for me but the user probably wouldn't have a clear idea of what was going on and might just assume routine maintence if you are able to get an appology message up fast enough. One break in is not as serious as the other from a software standpoint, but they could both be equally devestating from the user stand point. I run Windows XP Pro on my personal computer and you might think that I would be very worried with every virus that comes out. However, I have a firewall and keep my system and my anti-virus program up-to-date. I have never had a virus on my current system, and when new ones come out I don't really worry about them (although I make the appropriate updates). I think it really does come down to the user. NO matter what operating system someone uses, if they don't know how to keep it secure, then I think they will eventually run into problems. Security should always be a concern, no matter what system you use. No one should ever assume that something is safe to put on the net right out of the box. However, it is often hard for normal users to even care or understand how to keep their system secure. That's why I applaude Apple and any other system that is as closed to the outside world right out of the box. I am very glad that soon Windows will be this way, although I think it will take time for this update to trickle down to every Windows user. Many old versions of Windows are still in use, plus many dial-up users probably won't want to download the large service pack. Maybe Microsoft wouldn't be off base to place free update disks in stores or other areas, much like you see free AOL disks today.
"I clearly need to move to a nicer area. The going rate for a hit round here is less than a tenth of that. And the body would probably dissolve in the river..."
Maybe this should be an Ask/. question or a poll or something but I've been wondering about this for some time. If MS suddenly became open source, allowing users to download source for all of their programs would more people from this crowd support them? I'm not saying that MS necessarily give out their code under the GPL, but just allowing users access to it. I'm not even sure if any company uses a system like, and I suppose the best way to think about it would be like a book. Everyone can read it if they wish, but it is still copy righted and still illegal to reproduce it or to use portions of it.
I can see why you would want a tablet, it is almost impossible to type notes (ie: ones with graphs or equations) quickly. But, if you can stand taking notes on paper, I think a desktop is the way to go. Laptops cost more than desktops, plus they aren't very upgradable. I have a desktop, and haven't really found myself wanting to use a laptop in classes in college. Some people say that you might want one in the library, but most schools have public terminals in the library and give you some kind of public space to store your files. You could work on your files in the library and then save them to your public space for access in other places. The only time I would suggest getting a laptop is if you want to travel from your dorm to home often or something like that. Almost everyone I know with laptops just leaves them on their desks anyway, so I would seriously consider a desktop.
I think there was probably a reason why he specified getting a tablet instead of just a laptop. With a tablet, you can take notes in your own writing. This includes equations, charts, or anything complex. I couldn't imagine what it would be like to take calc or physics notes typing them in a word processor.
Obviously I have. I am using Windows XP right now. I'm not saying that you have to love Microsoft or Windows, but XP is a very stable system from my experience. The only thing that is lacking, in my opinion, is stronger user type security (ie: having distinct super and normal users).
"Actually quite a professional bunch of source files by all accounts."
I find it hard to believe that anyone would be surprised to find that the Windows source was professional. Whether you like MS or not, you have to accept that they are one of the largest software companies on earth and they definetly have some of the best minds in the field working for them. You may not like the business decisions that they make, but you should at least have respect for their coders and how much Windows has improved over the years. I don't agree with every decision Microsoft makes, but I do believe that Windows 2000 XP and later are good operating systems.
I think that any government agency serious about security would probably audit the code and possibly add more security to the code of any distro they want to use before they begin to use the software. The only way I can see someone taking advantage of open source, without getting caught relatively quickly would be to publish something as open source, provide clean source, but compile the actual programs from a different source with malicious security holes. Now, this would only work if the organization using this installed from binaries. Other than that, I think it would take very little time for someone to notice malicious code in the source. Honestly, I would be that governments love open source because they can see exactly what is going on and add or remove what they need to. I can't really see this situation coming up in real life:
Boss: "So, did you install the software on the new security mainframe?"
Employee: "Yup, Red Hat is all ready to go. Oh crap! Forgot to turn the firewall on. I'll be right back!"
I think a change in temperature is more harmful to a processor than keeping at a constant temp, whether that temp is relatively hot or cold. As long as the processors stayed hot all the time, which they should have, I don't really think there would be a problem
"It's amazing that IE still has such a large market share, its major security problems notwithstanding."
Not really. If you think about it from the perspective of an average computer user, and not a geek it is simple. You click on internet and what opens? IE. Do you care or even know about security holes? Probably not. Do you even know that Mozilla exists? Probably not. Really, the normal user has no incentive to go looking for another browser. Sure they may be annoyed by pop-up ads, but chances are they don't know that Mozilla can block these and they may just do a google search resulting in the installation of a 3rd party IE pop-up blocker. It's not really amazing that IE has a large market share, it's common sense.
"I personally think Star Wars sucks now. Partly because of the Special Edition..."
I like the original versions as well, but a couple of changed scenes doesn't create enough hate for me to hate the entire movie. After all, to me SW isn't about the effects or the alien costumes or even the cinematography, but its the story. What other movie can take you half-way around the galaxy, in a universe so large and interesting that people still create books today based off of what Lucas started? Episodes I and II are looked down upon because of the story, otherwise they are much better in the effects and cinematography areas.
I would suggest battlefield 1942. You can hop in to a game quickly, and it uses punkbuster, so there is little to no cheating. BF1942 is not one of those games where people get insanely good and know every little inch of the map. Plus, if WW2 isn't your bag, you can always download destert combat for some modern action. I personaly like DC better than the original, but thats just me.
I think that this might be more of a problem in America than over-seas. As a freshman CS major in an eastern Universtiy, I have noticed that a large group of my fellow CS majors seem to have no love of computers. It seems like they simply picked a lucrative field in what they thought would be an "easy" major. So far, for me (someone who already knows how to code), the course work has been easy. However, I know that it will not stay easy for long. Even with the simple assignments we have been given, many people have failed already. I know that if I didn't love computers I wouldn't be a CS major. I've learned languages on my own and try to read lots of tech news. To some, this might be considered "homework" but I do it out of love.
Slashdot Mirror
Easy, just open the door and sweep it outside!
I think you need to add Insensitive Clod to that.
One of the reasons that I like the Xbox, is because it makes it easy for the developer to eliminate load times by streaming data from the hard drive into memory. Since the hard drive can swap data from memory much faster than a CD or DVD drive, it becomes much easier to do this. However, there are still very few games that I can thing of that (noticeably) apply this trick. I know that it is certainly very possible, as I have seen it done on a PS2 without access to a hard drive. I think that for some games, especially RPGs or anything that tries to present a seamless world, it should be a requirement. I love Knights of the Old Republic for Xbox, but on some levels the load times are almost unbearable. I can understand loading between planets, but I think that once you are on a planet they should have eliminated loading as much as possible. I think that this feature should definetly be considered for all games.
" The noisest part of all my computers i the hard drive, not the CPU fan."
I have one of the new design Alienware towers, and by far the most noise comes from the case fans. I have 2 seagate hard drives, and I can hear them somewhat, but the case fans are much louder. Although the fans themselves don't make that much noise, but the amount of air that they throw around does. If it is quite in the room, the whoosing sound can be quite loud.
I doubt that SCO actually has a legit claim on this, but what if they do? Who can say for sure at this point? If they do, then the lawyers aren't really evil, they are just doing their job. Chances are, irregardless of how the trial turns out, the lawyers will make the same salary, so you really can't say they are doing is evil.
While linux may be great with in a server or backend environment, it still is not ready for the desktop in my opinion. I just recently installed Mandrake 9.2 on a laptop of mine. I actually managed to get my PCMCIA wireless card to work, but not without some hassles at first. The first thing I decided to do after getting on the net was to update my system. This turned out to be a mistake, as my KDE desktop got all screwed up. Most of the links didn't work and the "start" menu was completely useless. I really don't know what happened, and I had no idea how to fix it, so I decided to install again and just not apply that patch. Now, if this had happened to a system that I had been using for some time, I would have been utterly annoyed by losing a large part of the functionality of my desktop. I also installed XMMS. I got this to work after I had to fight some driver settings, but the RPM I used never even added it to the start menu. I think that if you use a RPM that comes off of the install disk, this should definetly be an included feature. Maybe it was just the distro I was using, but it doesn't seem like it was feature common to other distros that I have tried either.
In short, it felt like I was fighting with the system the entire time just to get some trivial things to work. Linux may be a great, stable, and free kernel, but the rest of the things built on top of it, the things that really matter to the user, still seem to fall short in areas. Right now, I rather just install Windows and know that everything will work. I rather deal with security patches and keeping my antivirus up-to-date than deal with config files in an operating system that I don't know too well.
I was looking forward to the xbox edition.
AMD and, uh, Trident?
It makes me sad that the laptop that I type this on has the exact crazy combination of processor and videocard. While the proc is good for its age, Trident sure does suck.
Well, aside from command line computing, I feel that XP is not sluggish. Surely if you are good at the command line you might be more efficient on *nix or maybe even Mac OS X, but as far as using the GUI to do all of my work I prefer Windows.
I find it sad that so many people hold MS so incompetent as to not be able to write a simple anti-virus program without creating security holes. I think that MS will be more than capable of doing so. Like it or not, some really bright people work at MS and I think that Windows XP is a good operating system. Sure, it has some holes in it, but so does just about every other system. I think the real problem is that users aren't as security minded as they should be.
This is really a tough one. Windows currently has a firewall included, which is not technically core to the operating system, but of enough importance, in my opinion, to be included with all operating systems. I think you can argue that anti-virus is along the same lines. If you think about this in terms of another product, say a car, it might be clearer. When cars were first invented they didn't have seat belts. Suppose there was a company that decided to sell after-market seat belts for the cars. Now today, every car has to have seat belts as required by law. When the change occurred do you think that the seat belt company should have sued the car makers? It is true that the belt is not required by the car to operate, but it is a safety feature that everyone should use. The same can be said about anti-virus. It is not necessary to the operating system, but seriously bad things could happen from not using an anti-virus system. I think that anti-virus is so core to the security of Windows that it should be included. Also, you have to note the fact that many users don't know enough or care enough to buy anti-virus or keep their system updated. I think that the world might be a better place if the users were taken out of the equation when it comes to anti-virus.
Still, even if Microsoft manages to plug all their holes in the recent SP, there will still be a need for virus protection. Just think of all the viruses that spread very quickly even though they are the type that the user has to intentionally run. I'm sorry, but if you run a file that happens to be a virus you have no one to blame except for yourself. It doesn't really matter what operating system you use, if you run an untrusted execuitable you could be in trouble. It just so happens that a vast majority of the uneducated users end up on Windows, so that is where you see email viruses spreading. I think that by including a virus scanner and moving very quickly on updates, MS may be able to prevent a large amount of viruses that spread in this manner. Of course, there will still be all the users who run earlier versions of Windows and who still don't know enough to not open every file that they get.
While I agree with you that the study leaves many things to be desired, I don't think it should be totally thrown out the window. The fact that this many servers running Linux, which is generally seen as more secure than most other operating systems, are being broken into is disturbing, regardless of the level of the intrusion. If someone breaks into my server and defaces my website, I would be pretty upset, but this would not necessarily have to be a "root" level penetration. However, users would notice and it would be very embarassing. If a user breaks in and totally trashes my server, it would be more work for me but the user probably wouldn't have a clear idea of what was going on and might just assume routine maintence if you are able to get an appology message up fast enough. One break in is not as serious as the other from a software standpoint, but they could both be equally devestating from the user stand point. I run Windows XP Pro on my personal computer and you might think that I would be very worried with every virus that comes out. However, I have a firewall and keep my system and my anti-virus program up-to-date. I have never had a virus on my current system, and when new ones come out I don't really worry about them (although I make the appropriate updates). I think it really does come down to the user. NO matter what operating system someone uses, if they don't know how to keep it secure, then I think they will eventually run into problems. Security should always be a concern, no matter what system you use. No one should ever assume that something is safe to put on the net right out of the box. However, it is often hard for normal users to even care or understand how to keep their system secure. That's why I applaude Apple and any other system that is as closed to the outside world right out of the box. I am very glad that soon Windows will be this way, although I think it will take time for this update to trickle down to every Windows user. Many old versions of Windows are still in use, plus many dial-up users probably won't want to download the large service pack. Maybe Microsoft wouldn't be off base to place free update disks in stores or other areas, much like you see free AOL disks today.
"I clearly need to move to a nicer area. The going rate for a hit round here is less than a tenth of that. And the body would probably dissolve in the river..."
Wow, you're from Philadelphia too!
Maybe this should be an Ask /. question or a poll or something but I've been wondering about this for some time. If MS suddenly became open source, allowing users to download source for all of their programs would more people from this crowd support them? I'm not saying that MS necessarily give out their code under the GPL, but just allowing users access to it. I'm not even sure if any company uses a system like, and I suppose the best way to think about it would be like a book. Everyone can read it if they wish, but it is still copy righted and still illegal to reproduce it or to use portions of it.
I can see why you would want a tablet, it is almost impossible to type notes (ie: ones with graphs or equations) quickly. But, if you can stand taking notes on paper, I think a desktop is the way to go. Laptops cost more than desktops, plus they aren't very upgradable. I have a desktop, and haven't really found myself wanting to use a laptop in classes in college. Some people say that you might want one in the library, but most schools have public terminals in the library and give you some kind of public space to store your files. You could work on your files in the library and then save them to your public space for access in other places. The only time I would suggest getting a laptop is if you want to travel from your dorm to home often or something like that. Almost everyone I know with laptops just leaves them on their desks anyway, so I would seriously consider a desktop.
I think there was probably a reason why he specified getting a tablet instead of just a laptop. With a tablet, you can take notes in your own writing. This includes equations, charts, or anything complex. I couldn't imagine what it would be like to take calc or physics notes typing them in a word processor.
Obviously I have. I am using Windows XP right now. I'm not saying that you have to love Microsoft or Windows, but XP is a very stable system from my experience. The only thing that is lacking, in my opinion, is stronger user type security (ie: having distinct super and normal users).
"Actually quite a professional bunch of source files by all accounts."
I find it hard to believe that anyone would be surprised to find that the Windows source was professional. Whether you like MS or not, you have to accept that they are one of the largest software companies on earth and they definetly have some of the best minds in the field working for them. You may not like the business decisions that they make, but you should at least have respect for their coders and how much Windows has improved over the years. I don't agree with every decision Microsoft makes, but I do believe that Windows 2000 XP and later are good operating systems.
I think that any government agency serious about security would probably audit the code and possibly add more security to the code of any distro they want to use before they begin to use the software. The only way I can see someone taking advantage of open source, without getting caught relatively quickly would be to publish something as open source, provide clean source, but compile the actual programs from a different source with malicious security holes. Now, this would only work if the organization using this installed from binaries. Other than that, I think it would take very little time for someone to notice malicious code in the source. Honestly, I would be that governments love open source because they can see exactly what is going on and add or remove what they need to. I can't really see this situation coming up in real life:
Boss: "So, did you install the software on the new security mainframe?"
Employee: "Yup, Red Hat is all ready to go. Oh crap! Forgot to turn the firewall on. I'll be right back!"
I think a change in temperature is more harmful to a processor than keeping at a constant temp, whether that temp is relatively hot or cold. As long as the processors stayed hot all the time, which they should have, I don't really think there would be a problem
"It's amazing that IE still has such a large market share, its major security problems notwithstanding."
Not really. If you think about it from the perspective of an average computer user, and not a geek it is simple. You click on internet and what opens? IE. Do you care or even know about security holes? Probably not. Do you even know that Mozilla exists? Probably not. Really, the normal user has no incentive to go looking for another browser. Sure they may be annoyed by pop-up ads, but chances are they don't know that Mozilla can block these and they may just do a google search resulting in the installation of a 3rd party IE pop-up blocker. It's not really amazing that IE has a large market share, it's common sense.
"I personally think Star Wars sucks now. Partly because of the Special Edition..."
I like the original versions as well, but a couple of changed scenes doesn't create enough hate for me to hate the entire movie. After all, to me SW isn't about the effects or the alien costumes or even the cinematography, but its the story. What other movie can take you half-way around the galaxy, in a universe so large and interesting that people still create books today based off of what Lucas started? Episodes I and II are looked down upon because of the story, otherwise they are much better in the effects and cinematography areas.
I would suggest battlefield 1942. You can hop in to a game quickly, and it uses punkbuster, so there is little to no cheating. BF1942 is not one of those games where people get insanely good and know every little inch of the map. Plus, if WW2 isn't your bag, you can always download destert combat for some modern action. I personaly like DC better than the original, but thats just me.
I think that this might be more of a problem in America than over-seas. As a freshman CS major in an eastern Universtiy, I have noticed that a large group of my fellow CS majors seem to have no love of computers. It seems like they simply picked a lucrative field in what they thought would be an "easy" major. So far, for me (someone who already knows how to code), the course work has been easy. However, I know that it will not stay easy for long. Even with the simple assignments we have been given, many people have failed already. I know that if I didn't love computers I wouldn't be a CS major. I've learned languages on my own and try to read lots of tech news. To some, this might be considered "homework" but I do it out of love.