I hate to piss on your firework but I have better things to do with my life than boycott a specific company just because some iPhone-using doofus got busted outside...
...have him walk walk around his local town for 7 days wearing an "I love Steve Ballmer" T-shirt and insist he has to make at least 5 mobile phone calls every hour on one of those really old mobile phones where you carry the phone in one hand and the "portable" battery pack in the other, with a black curly plastic-covered cable connecting one to the other.
Are you trying to say XP was so good that it didn't need more than 3 SP updates in the last 8 years? Because that's a ridiculous thing to say.
Please indicate where I said that because I will happily retract it if I did. Read my comment properly.
It also sounds like you're tying to spin SPs as a collection of fixes that come down the pipe at regular intervals.
No, I stated that the purpose of an SP is to provide a new base benchmark load that incorporates all fixes up to a particular point in time. Again, please read my comment properly.
Sure, Apple issues regular security patch updates outside of its minor updates; these are also rolled up into its minor releases, which serve as a the "benchmark minimum specification" for new Macs being sold. So I'm at a loss to see your point.
My point was to define the purpose of a service pack - I don't see how I could restate that any clearer for you.
As as far as attacking my constructive arguemnt on the grounds that I've "already decided that Apple is better than Microsoft" in this regard, well yes, I've know this over the last eight years of experiencing the facts as both a Windows admin and a Mac user. But no, I didn't construct this argument out of "thin air" to support my bias, they're both based on my experiences.
But then this lack of bias is not clear in your argument. Yes, the MS track record for updates has not been good sometimes but then neither has Apple's - particularly in fixing the well-published security holes in Safari. The point I am making here is that the very criticisms you level at Microsoft can be levelled equally at Apple.
See, some people construct opinions based on observable facts and research and then relate them with the supporting facts to bolster their assertions.
This is precisely what I have done. I have stated from the outset my lack of knowledge with OSX but my postings here began with a response to the OP who made some wrong assumptions about Microsoft updates. And please be aware that I am mostly a Linux user so I am not arguing this from the point of being an MS fan particularly.
Apple certainly can improve, but if you want to talk about "glaring holes in Safari," perhaps you should take off your advocacy/imagination hat and look at the actual facts. Safari isn't the browser related to 99% of the world's spyware and adware infestations. That would be Internet Explorer.
Agreed. But the reason behind that is not because Safari is more secure than IE, it is because a malware author can gain a lot more personal satisfaction that if he/she writes a bad app for IE, it will affect a lot more people than if he/she writes it for Safari.
And correct me if I'm wrong but a common statement made by Apple users here is that they chose Mac and OSX because it is easier to use and maintain than Windows (or indeed Linux). Therefore, by implication, Apple users do not need to be the technically adept to use Macs and would therefore be just as prone to malware as is the average Windows users by virtue of their lack of knowledge - the reason they don't suffer from malware is because very little of it has been created for the Mac yet.
Apple certainly can improve, but if you want to talk about "glaring holes in Safari," perhaps you should take off your advocacy/imagination hat and look at the actual facts. Safari isn't the browser related to 99% of the world's spyware and adware infestations. That would be Internet Explorer.
Safari was first released as beta in 2003. Mosaic (which became Netscape Navigator) was released ten years earlier and touted as standards compliant even then. Please research your facts.
I don't dislike Microsoft for its success, I have contempt for the company for using its success to spread failure.
Again, I speak as primarily a Linux user but even I could not contemplate calling having your products on 95% of the world's desktops a failure.
I'm going to use the same response that I give to people who state on Slashdot that musicians get a raw deal from record companies - namely that I could care less what an author's royalties are.
Yes, maybe if someone tells me that a nine year old kid in a Third World country got paid a pittance for working 16 hour days in a sweatshop to make a pair of trainers, then I probably won't buy those particular sport shoes - otherwise, I'm just a selfish but informed consumer in a capitalist society that likes nothing more than feeling I got great value for money when I handed over my hard-earned cash for a new CD or book.
And come the Day Of The Revolution, you will see me eagerly working near the front lining up marketing people ready to be shot because of the vast sums of money they've amassed by telling lies to the rest of us - but the fact is that whatever you buy, somewhere along the line an advertisement has lead you to a particular product, even if it lead a friend to that product first who then recommended it to you. Plus, if you're a careful, informed consumer like me who does a lot of research before he buys, then you are all too eager to hand over your money for "nice shiny new things" because just about everything you have bought in the past was worth the money.
So the problem with your Utopian world where there is a distinct lack of marketing middle-men is this - when there are hundreds of thousands of authors all self-publicising their own works, what's going to help you find that particular book that you feel like reading at that moment in time?
Incidentally, your statement about CDs and DVDs being a nuisance is pure personal opinion - surely people who buy CDs *don't* consider them a nuisance by virtue of parting with their money for them in the first place. I personally will never buy a digital music download - I listen to albums, not tracks, and have never found any digital downloads that were cheaper than I could source the actual CD from somewhere. Plus I consider it a "nuisance" that an MP3 sounds lossy on a good hifi and it's less of a "nuisance" just giving my friend a CD to borrow rather than going to all the trouble of copying the tracks onto a disk or memory stick for him (assuming, of course, that the DRM on the track doesn't stop me doing that in the first place!) So please stop with the untrue generalisations, okay?
...and because you signed an employment contract that you have broken because of your free speech, then they have the right to dismiss you.
Unfortunately, these stupid rules on social networking get enforced because some people are severely lacking in any common sense. Some 30 years ago whilst I was at school, a teacher whom I admired greatly said one of the most important things that has ever been said to me:
"You are free to do anything you like in life but you must face up to the consequences of what you do."
And that sums up one of the major problems with society today. Here in the UK we have rampant youth knife crime because one kid will bad mouth another kid without thinking first that he might get stabbed if he says it, for example...
As for the Internet, it has made that situation worse - these same unthinking people get far too openly opinionated when they think that they're hidden behind a wall of anonymity, plus they're actively *encouraged* to voice opinions about every trivial thing that goes on when, in reality, very few people give a toss about their opinion.
So yes, you have the right to say what you want - but it's no bad thing to stop and take a deep breath to think about what you are saying first...
If you want to discuss semantics then I could use the classic argument that is used for Linux in that it is just the *kernel* that is considered to be the operating system since that is the central piece of software that allows control of the hardware in that computer - everything else in Windows, Linux, OSX, etc. is just an application that has some communication with that kernel.
Therefore, if a particular OS update significantly changes that kernel then it could be considered to be a new OS - a case in point being the Windows 9x kernels that had much poorer memory management than in Windows 2000/XP.
I don't know or use Vista but I suspect that is, yet again, a different kernel to XP - so, again, you could not consider changing from XP to Vista as being an update (cue the jokes!) but the installation of a completely new OS.
As for the desktop GUI side of things, that's just an application that, if it's coded and compiled properly, can run on any kernel - that's why, for example, you can run a KDE desktop on a 2.4 or 2.6 Linux kernel or even run it on Windows if you want.
I don't know OSX at all but I would be very surprised if there wasn't a major kernel change between the various OSX releases - in which case it could be argued that you are installing a new OS, rather than just an update.
It could be argued that if an OS ships with more updates then maybe it was a bit lacking when it was first released - just an observation but, by your argument, that automatically makes Fallout 3 a great game because there have been 5 or 6 update patches in the year since it was released. (It is actually a great game, BTW.)
Also, your analogy to Service Packs is wrong. The main purpose of an MS Service Pack is to give base benchmark minimum specification from a particular point onwards - that's why you won't ever be able to buy a new XP machine with anything less than XP SP 2 now, possibly even SP 3. But the fact is that an SP contains all the fixes up to that point as well as some additional features that may well become part of the next Windows iteration.
Otherwise, MS releases updates on a regular basis - sure, not always in a timely fashion but then Apple can hardly be called "speed demons" when it comes to fixing some glaring security holes in Safari.
I'm afraid that your understanding of what a constructive argument is is wrong - you have decided that Apple *IS* better than Microsoft already and are just picking the justifications you want to support that result out of thin air.
I'm betting we'll see a Microsoft acquisition of a telecoms company, probably the currently, very injured Nortel.
I'm in the telecoms space myself (I won't name which company on here so please don't ask me) and we've seen a lot of push by Microsoft with Office Communicator - which also happens to have been designed with proprietary VoIP codecs that allow Nortel connectivity but lock every other VoIP system provider out.
Cisco is obviously very big in the telecoms space now but from a technology and feature perspective, they are still very much behind some of the "traditional" telecoms companies - so there are a number of potential buyers for Nortel who have a huge amount of experience in the telecoms space.
Microsoft is very much the "new kid on the block" when it comes to telephony so acquiring Nortel would give them a big push in that field.
Dude, when you're in a hole, stop digging. The parent was talking about
Please stop with the "California Surf Speak" - it lessens the intelligence in your argument....upgrades, not updates. Win2k to WinXP is an "upgrade". WinXP to Vista is an "upgrade". WinXP to Service Pack 1/2/3 is an update.
Then, by the same argument, the OP was talking about two completely unrelated issues ("incremental updates" then "MS upgrade cycle") - in which case his argument is also nullified since he is not comparing like for like.
But not anything about OS X, obviously. So why are you qualified to comment in Apple stories or on alleged fanboys, exactly?
I am qualified to make observations based on what I see in day-to-day life. I am not qualified to discuss technical issues about OSX because I don't use it. You, of course, have every right to comment on my opinions.
Who's getting emotional? Is this some sort of attempt to deflect from the fact that you got called on your ignorant, incorrect snobbery?
I would argue that since having proven the OP's original comparison was invalid, that he did not make that comparison on technical grounds but with the usual snobbery one comes to expect from many of the elitist Apple fanbois on Slashdot.
You do "some" Windows security professionally and "know plenty about" Windows but don't know when Microsoft releases their patches? Hmmm.
I based that comment merely on the fact that as I run XP (and Linux) at home, the MS updates usually happen on a Thursday. Otherwise, knowing when an update came out is not particularly relevant to being a good OS security person - one merely needs to know *if* an update exists and to install it as appropriate. If you yourself were more well-versed in security, you would actually understand that OS updates generally happen because an organisation like CERT has reported the vulnerability which is subsequently fixed by the appropriate OS or application vendor.
Also, please realise that running a home desktop system is far different to running a corporate server - a home desktop might well use automatic updates but updates to a major server need to be tested and approved before being installed - so, once again, when in an update is released is less important than determining what the update fixes and what impacts it has once it is installed.
Question: do you use a cannon or artillery for your projection? Inquiring minds want to know...
Neither, I'd rather nuke the lot of them from orbit.
I was making a statement that choosing Apple is an easy way to make a political anti-Microsoft statement without the need to read manuals and bone up on other alternatives - like, say, Linux or BSD.
Exposure to violent games does not automatically turn kids to violence - in the same way that looking at pornographic magazines & movies as me & countless other teenage boys used to do did not turn us into rapists.
Yes, there's a need for censorship & ratings such that these are used as a guide by parents before exposing kids to them. But the downside of that is that if the kids see something is closed to them, that will make them want it more, especially when marketing people use reverse psychology to deliberately rate products as "adult" so that they will potentially sell more.
I think you are missing one important fact. Because you personally control what games your kids play, that means you more than likely take an interest in everything else your kids do - that means they get good parenting from you which allows them to separate what they see in video games to what they see in real life. Therefore, they, like most kids today, can separate fact from fiction and grow into entirely balanced adults.
There possibly needs to be legislation and control over badly behaved kids, but I suggest its better applied to stopping irresponsible people from having kids in the first place, rather than just a rating system on everything.
That Windows XP installation you've been running is Windows NT 5.1, and the updates you've been downloading for it are free...just as Apple's updates for Leopard are free, just as Tiger before it, and Panther before that, and so on.
I can't comment, I don't use Apple. Read my original post, I was correcting the incorrect comments about rolling updates for XP.
That's so funny, since you have no idea what you're talking about.
I work on OS security on mostly Linux and UNIX, and some Windows. I also use both at home, computing is my main hobby. I know plenty about all of them.
I know nothing about OSX. That is why I did not comment on it. Again, read my original post rather than falling prey to your emotions.
Then don't frikkin buy one. No skin off either of your noses.
My point exactly. Thank you for reinforcing it.
Look at the timeline for Windows releases. You're comparing major releases (10.X) to point releases (5.1.x)...Apples to oranges.
I believe security updates are released for XP just about every Thursday - or something like that. I cannot make a comparison to Apple since I don't use OSX. Read my post again, you will find no comparison, just a correction of the other poster's comments about Windows.
As opposed to users of Apple's products, eh?
My impression of most Apple users is that they want not to use Microsoft products and do hide inside an elitist little club where there is no need for most of them to be concerned about technical issues. That's fine if that is what they want but those same people should not try to argue with people who do know what they are talking about when it comes to OSes - at least, in my case, when it comes to UNIX, Linux or Windows.
You have a far too simplistic view of things, I'm afraid.
I listen to classic/hard/progressive rock & blues music, hardly any of which is particularly mainstream which means it doesn't get airplay - but it does get advertised on the Internet or in the specialist music magazines like Classic Rock that I buy. No, I don't automatically buy everything that's advertised at me but it does pique my interest and get me to check out that album before I buy it - and if I like it, then I buy it.
The fact is that it is record company marketing money that pays for that advertising, something that an impoverished artist is not going to be able to afford to do. And if millions of artists are all out there trying to get you to buy their self-distributed music, what's going to lead you to any specific artist?
The record companies are almost definitely evil but as a music fan and buyer, I really don't give a toss. 99% of the music they sell is utter trash, but even in that 1% that's left there's more good music than I can ever hope to listen to in my lifetime.
And because I preview any album I buy (yes, "illegally" on BitTorrent) and search for the best prices for a CD, I never buy a bad CD and consider them great value for money - so nothing needs changing.
I doubt there are many musicians out there caring how much I get paid as a telecoms consultant, so why should I give a toss about how much they're being ripped off by record companies?
If I'm prepared to wait or search around a bit, I can buy any CD cheaper than the digital downloads, plus I get something tangible that is nice & shiny, not lossy & therefore sounds nice in my reasonably good hi-fi
I do use P2P & Usenet to preview albums that sound like they might be interesting - if they're good, I buy them & if they're crap, I delete the downloads.
I buy 3 or 4 CDs a month, occasionally more, knowing that each one is worth the money I've paid for it because I've already heard it. That means that CDs are, to me, great value & are things I am more than happy to continue to buy. Oh, and I also lend them to friends sometimes who then also go out & buy the albums.
Therefore the record companies do well out of me and I'm happy that they're releasing enough new music that interests me - everyone wins.
The only downside is that my legal purchases subsidise those people who never buy any music & just download it freely. Those people need to stop & think about what would happen to music if everyone grabbed it for free.
Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. I've never found a reason to use or buy anything made by Apple in 30-odd years of using computers at home and work so I don't know, and care even less.
But read the original posting - the OP was implying that MS doesn't do rolling updates, where in fact it does.
You can't deny that the move from XP to Vista is a big one.
I can't deny that they're different OSes as well. Besides which, upgrades between XP and Vista affect very few people.
Home users don't buy boxed MS OSes, they use what their new PC comes with. Therefore it's more a case of them copying files and configuration between their old and new machines, not upgrading their existing one.
And corporate users just do what their IT people tell them to do.
So "upgrades" from XP to Vista are a moot point, I'm afraid - apart from very rare occasions.
Considering that I run XP, Ubuntu, and Apple stuff I think you might be barking up the wrong tree.
My experiences of upgrading Ubuntu machines is that it works okay between releases. However, I use mainly Gentoo Linux which has a completely different rolling upgrade process, rather than wiping the old distro and installing the new.
I suspect you don't know as much about Apple's stuff as you think you do, especially if you think that the changes from 10.0 to 10.5 are anything like the changes that happened in XP during the same period.
As I said earlier, I know nothing about OSX as I've never had a need to use it. But read my original comment again because I made no statements about OSX - instead, I corrected the OP's comments about Windows.
Ubuntu has a very aggressive update schedule, but the upgrades have not been as seamless for me as the Apple updates.
Nobody should upgrade just because an update becomes available - sure, security updates are a must but Microsoft, Ubuntu, Red Hat and (I assume) Apple supply those for their OSes for some years after they're released.
Most people (even myself sometimes) upgrade just for the sake of it without really asking themselves whether or not the upgrade is necessary or not.
The discussion was about rolling updates, Gentoo is a distro that utilizes rolling updates, that's why I mentioned it.
If you don't like it, don't use it, it's absolutely no skin off my nose. For me, it does what I need an OS to do except for the bits that XP needs to do.
So please don't assume everybody who uses Linux, or Gentoo, to be an evangelist.
Maybe you like the MS upgrade cycle, but look at all the bad press they get for it... you can hardly blame Apple for wishing to avoid that.
Erm, so what is this Windows XP installation that I have been using since XP Service Pack 1 that I have *incrementally upgraded* through to Service Pack 3 with all the additional Microsoft updates then?
I'm no MS fanboi by any means, I use mostly (incrementally upgradeable) Gentoo Linux - but I wish you Apple fanbois would occasionally go read a technical book or something so that you can at least have some degree of intelligent conversation with those of us who do.
...to be able to put their preferred browser back to the default browser because IE8 has forced itself in its place are probably too stupid to keep their virus checkers and anti-spyware software updated as well. Therefore the fact that IE8 is possibly less secure than Firefox, Opera, etc. is a moot point.
I suggest those same people focus on getting a little less stupid and learning a bit more about their computers - by default Firefox will tell you if it's no longer the default browser (I don't use Opera or any other browser so can't comment on those) so if IE8 makes itself the default, then just start Firefox up and answer the "Do you want Firefox to be your default browser?" question with a "Yes".
Wake up people - big companies want you to buy and use their stuff! So get some common sense...
Not that I didn't enjoed Fallout 3, simply Im getting bored of those RPG games in which the main plot is about 10-20 hours long, and the subplots about 200. Im tired of little missions as "give this letter to X" or "bring me a piece of Y and I get you a powerfull gun" without any connection with the real mission.
To me that's one of the main reasons that MAKES it an interesting game. I'm still playing it, I guess about 3/4 through the main plot, but I'm taking my time and exploring the game world as well. It makes a change from standard linear FPS games, although I'm a big fan of most FPS games anyway.
Just before starting Fallout 3 I finished Stalker which was a similar game structure (less RPG elements though) and thoroughly enjoyed that. I also used to be a fan of GTA: Vice City and GTA: San Andreas until I played Fallout 3 and Stalker, at which point the GTA games now seem puerile and shallow. (Before reigning death on me, I'm a gamer in his mid-40s so I accept the GTA games probably aren't aimed at my age group).
But I am disappointed that they're announcing a sequel so quickly. I thought the idea was to buy DLC for Fallout 3 to expand it's play time a bit and I know two DLCs have been released already - but 2010 isn't that far off and I get the feeling that it's "business as usual" for Bethesda as a games company; namely, rush out a sequel to make money and stop patching and expanding the original game.
I've not actually downloaded any of the Fallout 3 DLC stuff yet, but I do wonder if it is a bit like the editing of a movie - namely that a lot of the crap gets edited out of the movie for the cinema release but then gets thrown back in as extras on the DVD release.
In other words, DLC is just the stuff that wasn't good enough to go on the main game DVD in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
Do they have a Paypal link on their page? I think they deserve a few quid as a donation for giving me a hearty pre-bedtime chuckle!
I hate to piss on your firework but I have better things to do with my life than boycott a specific company just because some iPhone-using doofus got busted outside...
...have him walk walk around his local town for 7 days wearing an "I love Steve Ballmer" T-shirt and insist he has to make at least 5 mobile phone calls every hour on one of those really old mobile phones where you carry the phone in one hand and the "portable" battery pack in the other, with a black curly plastic-covered cable connecting one to the other.
Are you trying to say XP was so good that it didn't need more than 3 SP updates in the last 8 years? Because that's a ridiculous thing to say.
Please indicate where I said that because I will happily retract it if I did. Read my comment properly.
It also sounds like you're tying to spin SPs as a collection of fixes that come down the pipe at regular intervals.
No, I stated that the purpose of an SP is to provide a new base benchmark load that incorporates all fixes up to a particular point in time. Again, please read my comment properly.
Sure, Apple issues regular security patch updates outside of its minor updates; these are also rolled up into its minor releases, which serve as a the "benchmark minimum specification" for new Macs being sold. So I'm at a loss to see your point.
My point was to define the purpose of a service pack - I don't see how I could restate that any clearer for you.
As as far as attacking my constructive arguemnt on the grounds that I've "already decided that Apple is better than Microsoft" in this regard, well yes, I've know this over the last eight years of experiencing the facts as both a Windows admin and a Mac user. But no, I didn't construct this argument out of "thin air" to support my bias, they're both based on my experiences.
But then this lack of bias is not clear in your argument. Yes, the MS track record for updates has not been good sometimes but then neither has Apple's - particularly in fixing the well-published security holes in Safari. The point I am making here is that the very criticisms you level at Microsoft can be levelled equally at Apple.
See, some people construct opinions based on observable facts and research and then relate them with the supporting facts to bolster their assertions.
This is precisely what I have done. I have stated from the outset my lack of knowledge with OSX but my postings here began with a response to the OP who made some wrong assumptions about Microsoft updates. And please be aware that I am mostly a Linux user so I am not arguing this from the point of being an MS fan particularly.
Apple certainly can improve, but if you want to talk about "glaring holes in Safari," perhaps you should take off your advocacy/imagination hat and look at the actual facts. Safari isn't the browser related to 99% of the world's spyware and adware infestations. That would be Internet Explorer.
Agreed. But the reason behind that is not because Safari is more secure than IE, it is because a malware author can gain a lot more personal satisfaction that if he/she writes a bad app for IE, it will affect a lot more people than if he/she writes it for Safari.
And correct me if I'm wrong but a common statement made by Apple users here is that they chose Mac and OSX because it is easier to use and maintain than Windows (or indeed Linux). Therefore, by implication, Apple users do not need to be the technically adept to use Macs and would therefore be just as prone to malware as is the average Windows users by virtue of their lack of knowledge - the reason they don't suffer from malware is because very little of it has been created for the Mac yet.
Apple certainly can improve, but if you want to talk about "glaring holes in Safari," perhaps you should take off your advocacy/imagination hat and look at the actual facts. Safari isn't the browser related to 99% of the world's spyware and adware infestations. That would be Internet Explorer.
Safari was first released as beta in 2003. Mosaic (which became Netscape Navigator) was released ten years earlier and touted as standards compliant even then. Please research your facts.
I don't dislike Microsoft for its success, I have contempt for the company for using its success to spread failure.
Again, I speak as primarily a Linux user but even I could not contemplate calling having your products on 95% of the world's desktops a failure.
It was UNIX that first incorporated TCP/IP
...if you think it's a tree but it gets up and walks away, then it probably Ent.
I'm going to use the same response that I give to people who state on Slashdot that musicians get a raw deal from record companies - namely that I could care less what an author's royalties are.
Yes, maybe if someone tells me that a nine year old kid in a Third World country got paid a pittance for working 16 hour days in a sweatshop to make a pair of trainers, then I probably won't buy those particular sport shoes - otherwise, I'm just a selfish but informed consumer in a capitalist society that likes nothing more than feeling I got great value for money when I handed over my hard-earned cash for a new CD or book.
And come the Day Of The Revolution, you will see me eagerly working near the front lining up marketing people ready to be shot because of the vast sums of money they've amassed by telling lies to the rest of us - but the fact is that whatever you buy, somewhere along the line an advertisement has lead you to a particular product, even if it lead a friend to that product first who then recommended it to you. Plus, if you're a careful, informed consumer like me who does a lot of research before he buys, then you are all too eager to hand over your money for "nice shiny new things" because just about everything you have bought in the past was worth the money.
So the problem with your Utopian world where there is a distinct lack of marketing middle-men is this - when there are hundreds of thousands of authors all self-publicising their own works, what's going to help you find that particular book that you feel like reading at that moment in time?
Incidentally, your statement about CDs and DVDs being a nuisance is pure personal opinion - surely people who buy CDs *don't* consider them a nuisance by virtue of parting with their money for them in the first place. I personally will never buy a digital music download - I listen to albums, not tracks, and have never found any digital downloads that were cheaper than I could source the actual CD from somewhere. Plus I consider it a "nuisance" that an MP3 sounds lossy on a good hifi and it's less of a "nuisance" just giving my friend a CD to borrow rather than going to all the trouble of copying the tracks onto a disk or memory stick for him (assuming, of course, that the DRM on the track doesn't stop me doing that in the first place!) So please stop with the untrue generalisations, okay?
...and because you signed an employment contract that you have broken because of your free speech, then they have the right to dismiss you.
Unfortunately, these stupid rules on social networking get enforced because some people are severely lacking in any common sense. Some 30 years ago whilst I was at school, a teacher whom I admired greatly said one of the most important things that has ever been said to me:
"You are free to do anything you like in life but you must face up to the consequences of what you do."
And that sums up one of the major problems with society today. Here in the UK we have rampant youth knife crime because one kid will bad mouth another kid without thinking first that he might get stabbed if he says it, for example...
As for the Internet, it has made that situation worse - these same unthinking people get far too openly opinionated when they think that they're hidden behind a wall of anonymity, plus they're actively *encouraged* to voice opinions about every trivial thing that goes on when, in reality, very few people give a toss about their opinion.
So yes, you have the right to say what you want - but it's no bad thing to stop and take a deep breath to think about what you are saying first...
I disagree.
If you want to discuss semantics then I could use the classic argument that is used for Linux in that it is just the *kernel* that is considered to be the operating system since that is the central piece of software that allows control of the hardware in that computer - everything else in Windows, Linux, OSX, etc. is just an application that has some communication with that kernel.
Therefore, if a particular OS update significantly changes that kernel then it could be considered to be a new OS - a case in point being the Windows 9x kernels that had much poorer memory management than in Windows 2000/XP.
I don't know or use Vista but I suspect that is, yet again, a different kernel to XP - so, again, you could not consider changing from XP to Vista as being an update (cue the jokes!) but the installation of a completely new OS.
As for the desktop GUI side of things, that's just an application that, if it's coded and compiled properly, can run on any kernel - that's why, for example, you can run a KDE desktop on a 2.4 or 2.6 Linux kernel or even run it on Windows if you want.
I don't know OSX at all but I would be very surprised if there wasn't a major kernel change between the various OSX releases - in which case it could be argued that you are installing a new OS, rather than just an update.
It could be argued that if an OS ships with more updates then maybe it was a bit lacking when it was first released - just an observation but, by your argument, that automatically makes Fallout 3 a great game because there have been 5 or 6 update patches in the year since it was released. (It is actually a great game, BTW.)
Also, your analogy to Service Packs is wrong. The main purpose of an MS Service Pack is to give base benchmark minimum specification from a particular point onwards - that's why you won't ever be able to buy a new XP machine with anything less than XP SP 2 now, possibly even SP 3. But the fact is that an SP contains all the fixes up to that point as well as some additional features that may well become part of the next Windows iteration.
Otherwise, MS releases updates on a regular basis - sure, not always in a timely fashion but then Apple can hardly be called "speed demons" when it comes to fixing some glaring security holes in Safari.
I'm afraid that your understanding of what a constructive argument is is wrong - you have decided that Apple *IS* better than Microsoft already and are just picking the justifications you want to support that result out of thin air.
...don't buy this Bond - I wasted 10 quid on the DVD and it's rubbish!
Should that not be "Get the Broussard collectors ready"?
Wow! So you mean good old Sir Clive is making a new computer with built in WLAN capabilities?
Networked Jet Set Willy, here I come!
I'm betting we'll see a Microsoft acquisition of a telecoms company, probably the currently, very injured Nortel.
I'm in the telecoms space myself (I won't name which company on here so please don't ask me) and we've seen a lot of push by Microsoft with Office Communicator - which also happens to have been designed with proprietary VoIP codecs that allow Nortel connectivity but lock every other VoIP system provider out.
Cisco is obviously very big in the telecoms space now but from a technology and feature perspective, they are still very much behind some of the "traditional" telecoms companies - so there are a number of potential buyers for Nortel who have a huge amount of experience in the telecoms space.
Microsoft is very much the "new kid on the block" when it comes to telephony so acquiring Nortel would give them a big push in that field.
Dude, when you're in a hole, stop digging. The parent was talking about
Please stop with the "California Surf Speak" - it lessens the intelligence in your argument. ...upgrades, not updates. Win2k to WinXP is an "upgrade". WinXP to Vista is an "upgrade". WinXP to Service Pack 1/2/3 is an update.
Then, by the same argument, the OP was talking about two completely unrelated issues ("incremental updates" then "MS upgrade cycle") - in which case his argument is also nullified since he is not comparing like for like.
But not anything about OS X, obviously. So why are you qualified to comment in Apple stories or on alleged fanboys, exactly?
I am qualified to make observations based on what I see in day-to-day life. I am not qualified to discuss technical issues about OSX because I don't use it. You, of course, have every right to comment on my opinions.
Who's getting emotional? Is this some sort of attempt to deflect from the fact that you got called on your ignorant, incorrect snobbery?
I would argue that since having proven the OP's original comparison was invalid, that he did not make that comparison on technical grounds but with the usual snobbery one comes to expect from many of the elitist Apple fanbois on Slashdot.
You do "some" Windows security professionally and "know plenty about" Windows but don't know when Microsoft releases their patches? Hmmm.
I based that comment merely on the fact that as I run XP (and Linux) at home, the MS updates usually happen on a Thursday. Otherwise, knowing when an update came out is not particularly relevant to being a good OS security person - one merely needs to know *if* an update exists and to install it as appropriate. If you yourself were more well-versed in security, you would actually understand that OS updates generally happen because an organisation like CERT has reported the vulnerability which is subsequently fixed by the appropriate OS or application vendor.
Also, please realise that running a home desktop system is far different to running a corporate server - a home desktop might well use automatic updates but updates to a major server need to be tested and approved before being installed - so, once again, when in an update is released is less important than determining what the update fixes and what impacts it has once it is installed.
Question: do you use a cannon or artillery for your projection? Inquiring minds want to know...
Neither, I'd rather nuke the lot of them from orbit.
I was not criticizing your right to choose.
I was making a statement that choosing Apple is an easy way to make a political anti-Microsoft statement without the need to read manuals and bone up on other alternatives - like, say, Linux or BSD.
Exposure to violent games does not automatically turn kids to violence - in the same way that looking at pornographic magazines & movies as me & countless other teenage boys used to do did not turn us into rapists.
Yes, there's a need for censorship & ratings such that these are used as a guide by parents before exposing kids to them. But the downside of that is that if the kids see something is closed to them, that will make them want it more, especially when marketing people use reverse psychology to deliberately rate products as "adult" so that they will potentially sell more.
I think you are missing one important fact. Because you personally control what games your kids play, that means you more than likely take an interest in everything else your kids do - that means they get good parenting from you which allows them to separate what they see in video games to what they see in real life. Therefore, they, like most kids today, can separate fact from fiction and grow into entirely balanced adults.
There possibly needs to be legislation and control over badly behaved kids, but I suggest its better applied to stopping irresponsible people from having kids in the first place, rather than just a rating system on everything.
That Windows XP installation you've been running is Windows NT 5.1, and the updates you've been downloading for it are free...just as Apple's updates for Leopard are free, just as Tiger before it, and Panther before that, and so on.
I can't comment, I don't use Apple. Read my original post, I was correcting the incorrect comments about rolling updates for XP.
That's so funny, since you have no idea what you're talking about.
I work on OS security on mostly Linux and UNIX, and some Windows. I also use both at home, computing is my main hobby. I know plenty about all of them.
I know nothing about OSX. That is why I did not comment on it. Again, read my original post rather than falling prey to your emotions.
Then don't frikkin buy one. No skin off either of your noses.
My point exactly. Thank you for reinforcing it.
Look at the timeline for Windows releases. You're comparing major releases (10.X) to point releases (5.1.x)...Apples to oranges.
I believe security updates are released for XP just about every Thursday - or something like that. I cannot make a comparison to Apple since I don't use OSX. Read my post again, you will find no comparison, just a correction of the other poster's comments about Windows.
As opposed to users of Apple's products, eh?
My impression of most Apple users is that they want not to use Microsoft products and do hide inside an elitist little club where there is no need for most of them to be concerned about technical issues. That's fine if that is what they want but those same people should not try to argue with people who do know what they are talking about when it comes to OSes - at least, in my case, when it comes to UNIX, Linux or Windows.
You have a far too simplistic view of things, I'm afraid.
I listen to classic/hard/progressive rock & blues music, hardly any of which is particularly mainstream which means it doesn't get airplay - but it does get advertised on the Internet or in the specialist music magazines like Classic Rock that I buy. No, I don't automatically buy everything that's advertised at me but it does pique my interest and get me to check out that album before I buy it - and if I like it, then I buy it.
The fact is that it is record company marketing money that pays for that advertising, something that an impoverished artist is not going to be able to afford to do. And if millions of artists are all out there trying to get you to buy their self-distributed music, what's going to lead you to any specific artist?
The record companies are almost definitely evil but as a music fan and buyer, I really don't give a toss. 99% of the music they sell is utter trash, but even in that 1% that's left there's more good music than I can ever hope to listen to in my lifetime.
And because I preview any album I buy (yes, "illegally" on BitTorrent) and search for the best prices for a CD, I never buy a bad CD and consider them great value for money - so nothing needs changing.
I doubt there are many musicians out there caring how much I get paid as a telecoms consultant, so why should I give a toss about how much they're being ripped off by record companies?
I will never pay for digital downloads.
If I'm prepared to wait or search around a bit, I can buy any CD cheaper than the digital downloads, plus I get something tangible that is nice & shiny, not lossy & therefore sounds nice in my reasonably good hi-fi
I do use P2P & Usenet to preview albums that sound like they might be interesting - if they're good, I buy them & if they're crap, I delete the downloads.
I buy 3 or 4 CDs a month, occasionally more, knowing that each one is worth the money I've paid for it because I've already heard it. That means that CDs are, to me, great value & are things I am more than happy to continue to buy. Oh, and I also lend them to friends sometimes who then also go out & buy the albums.
Therefore the record companies do well out of me and I'm happy that they're releasing enough new music that interests me - everyone wins.
The only downside is that my legal purchases subsidise those people who never buy any music & just download it freely. Those people need to stop & think about what would happen to music if everyone grabbed it for free.
Apple does "updates" as well.
Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. I've never found a reason to use or buy anything made by Apple in 30-odd years of using computers at home and work so I don't know, and care even less.
But read the original posting - the OP was implying that MS doesn't do rolling updates, where in fact it does.
You can't deny that the move from XP to Vista is a big one.
I can't deny that they're different OSes as well. Besides which, upgrades between XP and Vista affect very few people.
Home users don't buy boxed MS OSes, they use what their new PC comes with. Therefore it's more a case of them copying files and configuration between their old and new machines, not upgrading their existing one.
And corporate users just do what their IT people tell them to do.
So "upgrades" from XP to Vista are a moot point, I'm afraid - apart from very rare occasions.
Considering that I run XP, Ubuntu, and Apple stuff I think you might be barking up the wrong tree.
My experiences of upgrading Ubuntu machines is that it works okay between releases. However, I use mainly Gentoo Linux which has a completely different rolling upgrade process, rather than wiping the old distro and installing the new.
I suspect you don't know as much about Apple's stuff as you think you do, especially if you think that the changes from 10.0 to 10.5 are anything like the changes that happened in XP during the same period.
As I said earlier, I know nothing about OSX as I've never had a need to use it. But read my original comment again because I made no statements about OSX - instead, I corrected the OP's comments about Windows.
Ubuntu has a very aggressive update schedule, but the upgrades have not been as seamless for me as the Apple updates.
Nobody should upgrade just because an update becomes available - sure, security updates are a must but Microsoft, Ubuntu, Red Hat and (I assume) Apple supply those for their OSes for some years after they're released.
Most people (even myself sometimes) upgrade just for the sake of it without really asking themselves whether or not the upgrade is necessary or not.
The discussion was about rolling updates, Gentoo is a distro that utilizes rolling updates, that's why I mentioned it.
If you don't like it, don't use it, it's absolutely no skin off my nose. For me, it does what I need an OS to do except for the bits that XP needs to do.
So please don't assume everybody who uses Linux, or Gentoo, to be an evangelist.
Maybe you like the MS upgrade cycle, but look at all the bad press they get for it... you can hardly blame Apple for wishing to avoid that.
Erm, so what is this Windows XP installation that I have been using since XP Service Pack 1 that I have *incrementally upgraded* through to Service Pack 3 with all the additional Microsoft updates then?
I'm no MS fanboi by any means, I use mostly (incrementally upgradeable) Gentoo Linux - but I wish you Apple fanbois would occasionally go read a technical book or something so that you can at least have some degree of intelligent conversation with those of us who do.
...to be able to put their preferred browser back to the default browser because IE8 has forced itself in its place are probably too stupid to keep their virus checkers and anti-spyware software updated as well. Therefore the fact that IE8 is possibly less secure than Firefox, Opera, etc. is a moot point.
I suggest those same people focus on getting a little less stupid and learning a bit more about their computers - by default Firefox will tell you if it's no longer the default browser (I don't use Opera or any other browser so can't comment on those) so if IE8 makes itself the default, then just start Firefox up and answer the "Do you want Firefox to be your default browser?" question with a "Yes".
Wake up people - big companies want you to buy and use their stuff! So get some common sense...
Not that I didn't enjoed Fallout 3, simply Im getting bored of those RPG games in which the main plot is about 10-20 hours long, and the subplots about 200. Im tired of little missions as "give this letter to X" or "bring me a piece of Y and I get you a powerfull gun" without any connection with the real mission.
To me that's one of the main reasons that MAKES it an interesting game. I'm still playing it, I guess about 3/4 through the main plot, but I'm taking my time and exploring the game world as well. It makes a change from standard linear FPS games, although I'm a big fan of most FPS games anyway.
Just before starting Fallout 3 I finished Stalker which was a similar game structure (less RPG elements though) and thoroughly enjoyed that. I also used to be a fan of GTA: Vice City and GTA: San Andreas until I played Fallout 3 and Stalker, at which point the GTA games now seem puerile and shallow. (Before reigning death on me, I'm a gamer in his mid-40s so I accept the GTA games probably aren't aimed at my age group).
But I am disappointed that they're announcing a sequel so quickly. I thought the idea was to buy DLC for Fallout 3 to expand it's play time a bit and I know two DLCs have been released already - but 2010 isn't that far off and I get the feeling that it's "business as usual" for Bethesda as a games company; namely, rush out a sequel to make money and stop patching and expanding the original game.
Where have I heard THAT ONE before???
I've not actually downloaded any of the Fallout 3 DLC stuff yet, but I do wonder if it is a bit like the editing of a movie - namely that a lot of the crap gets edited out of the movie for the cinema release but then gets thrown back in as extras on the DVD release.
In other words, DLC is just the stuff that wasn't good enough to go on the main game DVD in the first place.