"I didnt read the article, but you could insert the first tone of a telecom's disconnected line signal on your answering machine, and automated systems will delist you."
I did that once, thinking it was funny. Not only did I get delisted from telemarketers, I got delisted by my friends too. They had trouble understanding how I pulled off that trick with my answering machine.
I have kind of the same feeling. An unscrupulous telemarketer won't care about DNC lists.
Why not create a telephone with callerID, and apply rules to the ID?
I want a telephone that recognizes an anonymous caller ID and automatically plays back a message saying "Sorry, not accepting anonymous calls. Call back with the * feature to disable anonymous calls." And when a CallerID is blacklisted (like a telemarketer), it could go to voicemail saying "Sorry, a human will never answer the phone when you call. Take me off your list."
Ultimately, I want a 'phone firewall' to specifically allow or deny people to call, responding with a custom voice message for each rule. If/when that happens, suddenly we'll have a really useful tool to secure our phones from spam.
"Why is it always assumed that security must come at the expense of usability."
Why? Because the greater number of features, the greater the likelihood of mischief. Remember Melissa? I'll use a non computery example: Universal remotes. Now you can buy a remote that'll operate nearly any TV. Result? I'm wearing a watch right now with a built in universal remote. I've been quite obnoxious at places like Applebee's because their TV's don't have an authentication system with regard to their remote control. If they were to implement one, then their TV's would only work with the permitted remotes, which would become a rather huge hassle if the remote needed to be replaced.
Not the strongest example, but hopefully you get my idea. Buffer overruns can be predictably fixed, unexpected mischevious results from added features cannot.
"As for the comment that MS excels at things it thinks it can make money from WinME anyone???"?
My mistake. As your 1 (one) example clearly shows (I'll just have to take your word for it that MS didn't make money on it, heh.), I am 100% completely wrong. Microsoft has never ever made money on anything it has ever been intersted in. I'll have to agree with you there!
I like how when people don't like the info I've provided, they question factors that I haven't delved into boring detail about. Never mind that even if I answer those questions in the most embarrasing way, it doesn't make Linux look any better.
Point one: Why is there no Linux-Knowledgable sysadmin? Counterpoint: Why need one if it's easy to handle Windows?
Point two: Why can you afford 20 Windows Licenses but not a sysadmin? Counterpoint: Windows 2000 costs $300. 20 x $300 = $6,000. I don't know many sysadmins that'll work for $6k a year. It'd be stupid to pay a guy $40k to $60k a year just to keep Linux machines going.
Point three: Why do your engineers need to muck with the card? Counterpoint: Because we only had one person who was intimate enough to Linux just to get the machines on the network?
With all that said, nothing was resolved. The only point I was making was that there are hidden costs to Linux, like it or not. Microsoft has done some things right, like it or not. And, of all things, running Windows in an office isn't near the nightmare it is thought to be, like it or not. You can argue with me on each point if you like, but you cannot shake the little detail that the transition was painful for my company. I have no doubt in my mind that it is painful for others as well. You may gain a lot with Linux, but not without losing a lot first.
I'd be rolling my eyes if I knew the emoticon for it.
"Sorry Mr. Troll, but the T in TCO stands for Total..."
That's your whole rebuttal? My company's lost time and productivity, and your rebuttal is over word definitions? We may in the long run save money, I have no doubt about that. But it was painful to move to it.
As for the 'Mr. Troll' comment, grow up. Just because I didn't sing the praises of Linux doesn't mean I'm trolling. Besides, I think my post was too long and had too few typos to be considered trolling.
"...but I would prefer operating system vendors to treat security as part of the core functionality of their products, if only because effective security has to be designed into the operating system from the start."
I find this comment a little short sighted: The problem is that security has an inverse relationship to features/usability. The reason that a virus can do damage on a Windows system isn't a flaw in the OS (though I suppose the OS could be patched to fix it), but rather because a program like Outlook Express has a feature that somebody learned to exploit. That feature was put in for other reasons, mainly to make OE more usable, but it also provided an outlet for mischief.
Frankly, I'd rather a company make money by being more secure. It gives them a good solid reason to not only add features, but test them against potential exploits. Money is a much better motivator than a good mission statement. When MS thinks it can make money at something, it usually excels at it. If MS thinks people will pay more for 'security', then let them have a go at it
The worst that can happen is that MS actually loses money for failing to meet that promise. Yeah, I'm sure the Slashdot floor would be wet with tears of that happened. But the best that could happen is that MS combines a good user experience with security, a product we could all benefit from.
"I read that and thought it was very interesting myself, but they don't give any reasoning for it."
I can only speak for my company, but Linux support here has been a disaster. It's not so much because Linux is deficient (although some would argue it is, it does a wonderful job of hiding the stuff you need), but because everybody in my office has Windows machines at home to use as well. A large factor of it is familiarity.
A year ago I was the sysadmin. (well, acting-sysadmin. Our sysadmin left and we didn't have resources to hire another one.) Everybody was running Windows 2000. 20 Win2K machines, all different configurations, all with different uses. Despite popular belief, I did not spend huge amounts of time maintaining machines. As a matter of fact, I spent virtually no time maintaining machines. (I found way too much time to play around on Slashdot, heh...)
Why was this? Is it because Win2k is a good OS? Yep, that's part of it. The other part of it is that the machines here are no different than the machines people have at home. When they see a choice, the pick the logical one instead of shouting "I'm way over my head!!!" and calling me about it. No BSOD's. No crashes. The only reinstall I've had to do involved a physical hard disk failure.
Everything was great until the engineers started using Linux. Now let's pause here for a moment: I'm not saying Linux is bad, I'm saying that for us it was a problem. We have one Linux guru in this office, and everybody else was being forced to climb the learning curve. (Frankly, Linux failed on several levels make make that easier.) Over time (and much to the guru's frustration) everybody's machines are working now, more or less like they should.
If somebody were to ask me "What would have made the transition easier?" my answer would be:
1.) Better driver support. 2.) Expose more of the functionality of the system in the UI, whether it's Gnome or KDE. 3.) Organize the UI better, don't start every app with 'K', and make it easier to do stuff like find out if the network card is working.
It cost my company 4 engineers * 2-3 weeks to get their machines to a productive state. On the other hand, I can have a machine ready to go running Win2k within 3 hours. Linux did not save us (in particular) money, at least not yet.
I think it's pretty obvious from my tone that I'm not a huge Linux fan, but I will say this: It looks a lot more interesting since Redhat 8 came out. It looks like some of my issues were addressed. So who knows? Maybe Linux is nearly ready to meet that '40%' claim. But I don't buy it. I think if somebody's in an office who knows their way around Linux that can deploy it efficiently, then yes you can make that %. But if you're not Linux saavy at all, you are in big trouble.
Like it or not, there was some truth to the claims MS made that Linux costs more. I don't agree it costs more in the long-run, but I do believe that it's not free either.
I don't think it's as easy as that. The only place in the laptop to conceal a bomb would be in the battery compartment. Even then, you could only hide the charges, the detonating mechanismm would be a lot harder to hide from screeners looking at it through an X-ray.
I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying that it's considerably harder than you're making it out to be.
I remember a dicussion once about using Bluetooth to create zones that enable macros to happen. For example, a movie theater would create a bluetooth access point that says "This is a theater, act accordingly" and a BT enabled Cell Phone would read that and automatically go into silent mode.
If the airplane can handle a predictable bluetooth beacon like that (seems feasible), then somebody who's laptop conformed to an airline specification would know to listen to that signal and shut down all dangerous output.
On a side note: This is a better solution than trying to jam cell phones. For one thing, you could turn the beacon it off if the need arises.
"I'd have to say his argument is valid, and trying to reject it cutely doesn't absolve you of the need to prove it. Either back your statement up or retract it."
His argument is invalid because it's 'apples to oranges'. (as stated in my previous post)
Frankly, I don't intend to waste my time arguing with somebody who's going to oversimplify the situation and use obtuse metaphors to prove me wrong. He's just going to disregard any comment I make back because "MS is always wrong".
I will not retract my statement. It should be rather obvious what the difference between selling razor blades and selling video games is. I'll give you a hint: copyright. The problem is that if I go deeper into it, it'll turn into a debate about how the law is wrong and blah blah blah. Then, people will automatically assume that I support the law being wrong (like the DMCA, for example), even though I haven't stated what I personally think.
No, I will not waste my time. His argument is not within the ballpark of relevance, I'm not convinced that he'd have an open enough mind to listen to what I have to say (Note: Listen != Agree), and if I open that door I'm just going to get my ass jumped again.
"Yeah, I don't buy it eaither. If got almost 3 years for that, I'd be a bitter, raging maniac. This guy seems unusually well-composed for a person of his type in the position he is in."
He may very well be relieved. His description of where he's going doesn't sound that bad. He already knows he's going, he knows how long he'll be there, and he's already made plans to make the most of it.
I've never been in a situation like his before, but I think I can understand. I did something stupid as a kid and got grounded for a month. (That's a looong time when you're a kid.) Before the punishment was handed down, I was thinking "My dad's gonna kill me! He's gonna kill me!". Once my dad came down with the 1-month punishment, I was strangely relieved.
Yeah, it sucked. It was boring. But at least the worst was over and I could quietly get through my grounding. I can honestly say that the anticipation of what my dad was going to do far outweighed the feelings I felt during the grounding.
Okay, grounding's nothing like jail, but his description offers some glimmers that it won't be so bad while he's there. Heck, he might even make parole.
The only point I'm making is that maybe because it's all been determined now, there's no more anxiety about what's going to happen to him. He may be in a good mood over that. At least he can talk about what he's done now, and feel like he's in the clear. He's not doing anything now he can get caught for!
"I dont believe - not for a second - that all three are taking a loss on their consoles. Not for a goddamn second."
I don't believe it.. I won't believe it.. you can't make me believe it! NOOOOO!!!!!
Yes, the Playstation 2 was sold at a loss, so was the original Playstation. It's actually very common. The game company tries to squeeze just a little more interesting crap into a system, but they eat the cost of it. Eventually they make up for it with the sale of games.
Nintendo's strategy is a little different "Make the design as effecient as possible". They don't go for frills.
"but should the LAW come in and close down other businesses which might conflict with someone's razor blade business? "
The razor blade business is nothing like the game industry, mainly because of the way copyright is involved. The government has upheld that a console maker can tightly control who publishes for what system. Go look up the lawsuit between Tengen and Nintendo back in the late 80's. Tengen made it's own 'Nintendo Compatible' cartridge and published a game with it. Nintendo sued and won. Ever since, you have to be licensed with the console manufacturer to produce games.
The mod chips make it possible to copy games (violating DMCA, sadly) and to play non-licensed software. Like it or hate it, MS is doing exactly what the law says it can do. You can thank Nintendo, Sony, and Sega for putting that into place. Ever notice that all Playstation CD's are black? It's because only Sony produces them. Think about it.
So no, despite your 'oh so proud' moderation on the topic, you are wrong. Too bad you so anti-MS that you can't see that. I bet you won't even try to understand my point.
"Look at this current action by Microsoft. The XBox is the test system for a secure PC that only runs Microsoft code."
The XBOX is a game machine. Let me say it again, XBOX is a game machine. It is a machine that plays games. It does nothing but play games, and optionally playback movies. (Just like a Playstation 2...)
It cannot:
1.) Browse the web 2.) Word Processing 3.) Get email 4.) Post on Slashdot... etc.
Could it? Maybe. Is anybody going to use it for that? Well it's funny you should mention that, those mod-chips allow Linux to be installed. Suddenly all these things can happen!
You idiots are trying to turn it into a PC! MS is trying to keep it a game machine. Seems to fly right in the face of your non-existent point, doesn't it?
"Care to explain your reasoning? I mean, that *is* what a forum like this one is for, isn't it?"
No I don't care to. You're not going to listen to me. No matter what I say, you're going to disregard it with a metaphor that may sound like it fits, but ultimately has no relevance at all.
Prove to me that you'll actually try to understand my point (Note: understand != agree) and I'll give you the response you want. Otherwise, FUCK OFF.
"That's the fault of microsoft, though. If I sell a toothpick holder becuase I expect people to buy my gold plated toothpicks to put in it, I don't get to complain when they use it to hold thier paper clips."
Windows 2000 became noticably more responsive when installed on a Dual Processor machine. I went from a Pentium 3 550 to a dual Pentium 3 500, and Windows/Explorer/IE etc were very enthusiastic and responsive about opening up and staying alert.
Windows seems to be multi-threaded pretty well, at least from a UI point of view. I cannot help but feel that hyperthreading will likely have a similar result. If it does, it means Windows will behave better for the end user.
Users often weigh performance on how fast a window pops up, not so much on how many calculations can be performed in a second.
Slashdot Mirror
"I didnt read the article, but you could insert the first tone of a telecom's disconnected line signal on your answering machine, and automated systems will delist you."
I did that once, thinking it was funny. Not only did I get delisted from telemarketers, I got delisted by my friends too. They had trouble understanding how I pulled off that trick with my answering machine.
I have kind of the same feeling. An unscrupulous telemarketer won't care about DNC lists.
Why not create a telephone with callerID, and apply rules to the ID?
I want a telephone that recognizes an anonymous caller ID and automatically plays back a message saying "Sorry, not accepting anonymous calls. Call back with the * feature to disable anonymous calls." And when a CallerID is blacklisted (like a telemarketer), it could go to voicemail saying "Sorry, a human will never answer the phone when you call. Take me off your list."
Ultimately, I want a 'phone firewall' to specifically allow or deny people to call, responding with a custom voice message for each rule. If/when that happens, suddenly we'll have a really useful tool to secure our phones from spam.
He's my friend. He sits a couple of cubes down from me. We trade amusing/interesting posts back and forth.
Lol!!
I see you ran across my post here!
Heh nice Red Dwarf quote.
"Why is it always assumed that security must come at the expense of usability."
Why? Because the greater number of features, the greater the likelihood of mischief. Remember Melissa? I'll use a non computery example: Universal remotes. Now you can buy a remote that'll operate nearly any TV. Result? I'm wearing a watch right now with a built in universal remote. I've been quite obnoxious at places like Applebee's because their TV's don't have an authentication system with regard to their remote control. If they were to implement one, then their TV's would only work with the permitted remotes, which would become a rather huge hassle if the remote needed to be replaced.
Not the strongest example, but hopefully you get my idea. Buffer overruns can be predictably fixed, unexpected mischevious results from added features cannot.
"As for the comment that MS excels at things it thinks it can make money from WinME anyone???"?
My mistake. As your 1 (one) example clearly shows (I'll just have to take your word for it that MS didn't make money on it, heh.), I am 100% completely wrong. Microsoft has never ever made money on anything it has ever been intersted in. I'll have to agree with you there!
I like how when people don't like the info I've provided, they question factors that I haven't delved into boring detail about. Never mind that even if I answer those questions in the most embarrasing way, it doesn't make Linux look any better.
Point one: Why is there no Linux-Knowledgable sysadmin? Counterpoint: Why need one if it's easy to handle Windows?
Point two: Why can you afford 20 Windows Licenses but not a sysadmin? Counterpoint: Windows 2000 costs $300. 20 x $300 = $6,000. I don't know many sysadmins that'll work for $6k a year. It'd be stupid to pay a guy $40k to $60k a year just to keep Linux machines going.
Point three: Why do your engineers need to muck with the card? Counterpoint: Because we only had one person who was intimate enough to Linux just to get the machines on the network?
With all that said, nothing was resolved. The only point I was making was that there are hidden costs to Linux, like it or not. Microsoft has done some things right, like it or not. And, of all things, running Windows in an office isn't near the nightmare it is thought to be, like it or not. You can argue with me on each point if you like, but you cannot shake the little detail that the transition was painful for my company. I have no doubt in my mind that it is painful for others as well. You may gain a lot with Linux, but not without losing a lot first.
"I think you're talking about Windows here."
I'd be rolling my eyes if I knew the emoticon for it.
"Sorry Mr. Troll, but the T in TCO stands for Total..."
That's your whole rebuttal? My company's lost time and productivity, and your rebuttal is over word definitions? We may in the long run save money, I have no doubt about that. But it was painful to move to it.
As for the 'Mr. Troll' comment, grow up. Just because I didn't sing the praises of Linux doesn't mean I'm trolling. Besides, I think my post was too long and had too few typos to be considered trolling.
"...but I would prefer operating system vendors to treat security as part of the core functionality of their products, if only because effective security has to be designed into the operating system from the start."
I find this comment a little short sighted: The problem is that security has an inverse relationship to features/usability. The reason that a virus can do damage on a Windows system isn't a flaw in the OS (though I suppose the OS could be patched to fix it), but rather because a program like Outlook Express has a feature that somebody learned to exploit. That feature was put in for other reasons, mainly to make OE more usable, but it also provided an outlet for mischief.
Frankly, I'd rather a company make money by being more secure. It gives them a good solid reason to not only add features, but test them against potential exploits. Money is a much better motivator than a good mission statement. When MS thinks it can make money at something, it usually excels at it. If MS thinks people will pay more for 'security', then let them have a go at it
The worst that can happen is that MS actually loses money for failing to meet that promise. Yeah, I'm sure the Slashdot floor would be wet with tears of that happened. But the best that could happen is that MS combines a good user experience with security, a product we could all benefit from.
"Slashdot is widly seen around the web as a realable source for information."
/. presentation of a story should be moderate-able.
:)
Reliable... as long as you actually read the article. Sometimes I think the
"A user has moderated your story -1, Troll to your article titled "Microsoft Claims Linux is Slow""
Heh.
"I read that and thought it was very interesting myself, but they don't give any reasoning for it."
I can only speak for my company, but Linux support here has been a disaster. It's not so much because Linux is deficient (although some would argue it is, it does a wonderful job of hiding the stuff you need), but because everybody in my office has Windows machines at home to use as well. A large factor of it is familiarity.
A year ago I was the sysadmin. (well, acting-sysadmin. Our sysadmin left and we didn't have resources to hire another one.) Everybody was running Windows 2000. 20 Win2K machines, all different configurations, all with different uses. Despite popular belief, I did not spend huge amounts of time maintaining machines. As a matter of fact, I spent virtually no time maintaining machines. (I found way too much time to play around on Slashdot, heh...)
Why was this? Is it because Win2k is a good OS? Yep, that's part of it. The other part of it is that the machines here are no different than the machines people have at home. When they see a choice, the pick the logical one instead of shouting "I'm way over my head!!!" and calling me about it. No BSOD's. No crashes. The only reinstall I've had to do involved a physical hard disk failure.
Everything was great until the engineers started using Linux. Now let's pause here for a moment: I'm not saying Linux is bad, I'm saying that for us it was a problem. We have one Linux guru in this office, and everybody else was being forced to climb the learning curve. (Frankly, Linux failed on several levels make make that easier.) Over time (and much to the guru's frustration) everybody's machines are working now, more or less like they should.
If somebody were to ask me "What would have made the transition easier?" my answer would be:
1.) Better driver support.
2.) Expose more of the functionality of the system in the UI, whether it's Gnome or KDE.
3.) Organize the UI better, don't start every app with 'K', and make it easier to do stuff like find out if the network card is working.
It cost my company 4 engineers * 2-3 weeks to get their machines to a productive state. On the other hand, I can have a machine ready to go running Win2k within 3 hours. Linux did not save us (in particular) money, at least not yet.
I think it's pretty obvious from my tone that I'm not a huge Linux fan, but I will say this: It looks a lot more interesting since Redhat 8 came out. It looks like some of my issues were addressed. So who knows? Maybe Linux is nearly ready to meet that '40%' claim. But I don't buy it. I think if somebody's in an office who knows their way around Linux that can deploy it efficiently, then yes you can make that %. But if you're not Linux saavy at all, you are in big trouble.
Like it or not, there was some truth to the claims MS made that Linux costs more. I don't agree it costs more in the long-run, but I do believe that it's not free either.
I don't think it's as easy as that. The only place in the laptop to conceal a bomb would be in the battery compartment. Even then, you could only hide the charges, the detonating mechanismm would be a lot harder to hide from screeners looking at it through an X-ray.
I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying that it's considerably harder than you're making it out to be.
I remember a dicussion once about using Bluetooth to create zones that enable macros to happen. For example, a movie theater would create a bluetooth access point that says "This is a theater, act accordingly" and a BT enabled Cell Phone would read that and automatically go into silent mode.
If the airplane can handle a predictable bluetooth beacon like that (seems feasible), then somebody who's laptop conformed to an airline specification would know to listen to that signal and shut down all dangerous output.
On a side note: This is a better solution than trying to jam cell phones. For one thing, you could turn the beacon it off if the need arises.
"Seriously, if CNN.com would have originally linked to DeCSS do you think it would have gotten sued?"
No. Wired has done it too.
Heh Actually, my post was meant as a joke too. :)
"The moon belongs to the United States..."
(It's a Simpsons reference, so don't mod me down.)
Heh see, I was right. You're arguing with me over a point I hadn't made.
"I'd have to say his argument is valid, and trying to reject it cutely doesn't absolve you of the need to prove it. Either back your statement up or retract it."
His argument is invalid because it's 'apples to oranges'. (as stated in my previous post)
Frankly, I don't intend to waste my time arguing with somebody who's going to oversimplify the situation and use obtuse metaphors to prove me wrong. He's just going to disregard any comment I make back because "MS is always wrong".
I will not retract my statement. It should be rather obvious what the difference between selling razor blades and selling video games is. I'll give you a hint: copyright. The problem is that if I go deeper into it, it'll turn into a debate about how the law is wrong and blah blah blah. Then, people will automatically assume that I support the law being wrong (like the DMCA, for example), even though I haven't stated what I personally think.
No, I will not waste my time. His argument is not within the ballpark of relevance, I'm not convinced that he'd have an open enough mind to listen to what I have to say (Note: Listen != Agree), and if I open that door I'm just going to get my ass jumped again.
"Yeah, I don't buy it eaither. If got almost 3 years for that, I'd be a bitter, raging maniac. This guy seems unusually well-composed for a person of his type in the position he is in."
He may very well be relieved. His description of where he's going doesn't sound that bad. He already knows he's going, he knows how long he'll be there, and he's already made plans to make the most of it.
I've never been in a situation like his before, but I think I can understand. I did something stupid as a kid and got grounded for a month. (That's a looong time when you're a kid.) Before the punishment was handed down, I was thinking "My dad's gonna kill me! He's gonna kill me!". Once my dad came down with the 1-month punishment, I was strangely relieved.
Yeah, it sucked. It was boring. But at least the worst was over and I could quietly get through my grounding. I can honestly say that the anticipation of what my dad was going to do far outweighed the feelings I felt during the grounding.
Okay, grounding's nothing like jail, but his description offers some glimmers that it won't be so bad while he's there. Heck, he might even make parole.
The only point I'm making is that maybe because it's all been determined now, there's no more anxiety about what's going to happen to him. He may be in a good mood over that. At least he can talk about what he's done now, and feel like he's in the clear. He's not doing anything now he can get caught for!
...they overclocked it!
You know what this means, right? Every couple of years, the cars can go twice as fast. Imagine how much the internal storage will grow!
Damn digital's cool.
"I dont believe - not for a second - that all three are taking a loss on their consoles. Not for a goddamn second."
I don't believe it.. I won't believe it.. you can't make me believe it! NOOOOO!!!!!
Yes, the Playstation 2 was sold at a loss, so was the original Playstation. It's actually very common. The game company tries to squeeze just a little more interesting crap into a system, but they eat the cost of it. Eventually they make up for it with the sale of games.
Nintendo's strategy is a little different "Make the design as effecient as possible". They don't go for frills.
"but should the LAW come in and close down other businesses which might conflict with someone's razor blade business? "
The razor blade business is nothing like the game industry, mainly because of the way copyright is involved. The government has upheld that a console maker can tightly control who publishes for what system. Go look up the lawsuit between Tengen and Nintendo back in the late 80's. Tengen made it's own 'Nintendo Compatible' cartridge and published a game with it. Nintendo sued and won. Ever since, you have to be licensed with the console manufacturer to produce games.
The mod chips make it possible to copy games (violating DMCA, sadly) and to play non-licensed software. Like it or hate it, MS is doing exactly what the law says it can do. You can thank Nintendo, Sony, and Sega for putting that into place. Ever notice that all Playstation CD's are black? It's because only Sony produces them. Think about it.
So no, despite your 'oh so proud' moderation on the topic, you are wrong. Too bad you so anti-MS that you can't see that. I bet you won't even try to understand my point.
"Look at this current action by Microsoft. The XBox is the test system for a secure PC that only runs Microsoft code."
... etc.
The XBOX is a game machine. Let me say it again, XBOX is a game machine. It is a machine that plays games. It does nothing but play games, and optionally playback movies. (Just like a Playstation 2...)
It cannot:
1.) Browse the web
2.) Word Processing
3.) Get email
4.) Post on Slashdot
Could it? Maybe. Is anybody going to use it for that? Well it's funny you should mention that, those mod-chips allow Linux to be installed. Suddenly all these things can happen!
You idiots are trying to turn it into a PC! MS is trying to keep it a game machine. Seems to fly right in the face of your non-existent point, doesn't it?
"Care to explain your reasoning? I mean, that *is* what a forum like this one is for, isn't it?"
No I don't care to. You're not going to listen to me. No matter what I say, you're going to disregard it with a metaphor that may sound like it fits, but ultimately has no relevance at all.
Prove to me that you'll actually try to understand my point (Note: understand != agree) and I'll give you the response you want. Otherwise, FUCK OFF.
"That's the fault of microsoft, though. If I sell a toothpick holder becuase I expect people to buy my gold plated toothpicks to put in it, I don't get to complain when they use it to hold thier paper clips."
Error 44: Argument rejected, $Apples != $Oranges.
Windows 2000 became noticably more responsive when installed on a Dual Processor machine. I went from a Pentium 3 550 to a dual Pentium 3 500, and Windows/Explorer/IE etc were very enthusiastic and responsive about opening up and staying alert.
Windows seems to be multi-threaded pretty well, at least from a UI point of view. I cannot help but feel that hyperthreading will likely have a similar result. If it does, it means Windows will behave better for the end user.
Users often weigh performance on how fast a window pops up, not so much on how many calculations can be performed in a second.