I do like that each release is better than the last... except after upgrading I also find a bunch of things that have been broken. Like for example, Jaunty doesn't like my camera (Kodak C330 I think) - why? - dunno, but for obvious reasons, it's a bit inconvenient to say the least!
One thing I've never really understood is why closing tags in XML have the tag name? Surely the angle brackets with slash inside would be enough since (assuming the markup is valid) it is obvious to the parser which tag is being closed: e.g. (I've used underscores to indent... I can't make the slash-code use spaces!!)
<html>
__<head>
____<title>Example</>
__</>
__<body>
____<h1>Example</>
____<p><em>This <strong>is</> an</> example.</>
__</>
</>
I know this makes it hard for a human to see opening/closing tags, but if XML parsers (including those in browsers) were able to accept markup with short close tags or the normal named close tags, then we could: 1. benefit where the markup is machine generated and, 2. easily pre-process manually created markup.... it's easy enough to convert back and forth.
But maybe there's a good reason for not doing this that I'm missing... but it's always bothered me!:D
You can fit two 1's in the space of a zero. Plus, you can line them up vertically for even better compression!
All this is pretty obvious though... but experts in the field such as myself know that for the best compression, you need to use a san-serif font. All the serifs on the ends can otherwise take up extra space so you can fit less in a packet.
The other curious thing about this is that by using 1's instead of 0's, you get better compression by using more bits. But if you find you actually need to use 0's for a legitimate purpose (I use them as eye's in my more elaborate ascii-art for example), then the best thing to do is XOR your data before transmission to flip the bits. This brings the additional benefit of securely encrypting all of your data too.
I'm seeing it too, running Ubuntu 9.04 / Firefox 3.0.11. I do run adBlock+ but disabling it doesn't help. I don't run NoScript so that isn't the problem.
Quite frankly, I'm astonished given the high quality markup we've come to expect from/. over the years!;)
On the upside, they've fixed the post headings which were white on a white background for a few days.
However, doesn't Microsoft make OEMs agree NOT to install alternative browsers? Seems to me that's what this would really be about. If Compaq or Toshiba wanted to ship a browser that sucks less than IE, they should be able to, and a version of Windows without IE is one half of that solution.
No, because if MS ship Windows-E but OEMs are allowed to install IE then that's what they'll do. OEMs don't care and since they know IE works and they know some customers will complain if they don't ship IE, then adding IE is a no-brainer for them.
Forcing MS to ship other browsers is certainly a bit weird, but Windows-E would wind up being about as useful as Windows-N.... which is not at all!
Having said that, I think Microsoft's solution of not distributing IE with the OS was a good one.
The only downside was that OEMs would almost certainly have then preinstalled IE.... thus no real change. Which is a bit like Windows-N.... which is why the EU is still looking at what the solution should be.
Not saying this is a good plan.... but it would be interesting if people did have to pick their OS and were able to compare the *real* cost side-by-side.
As I understand it, the issue isn't the browser being bundled with the OS, but the issue is Microsoft leveraging their monopoly position via IE. So whilst I understand that it does seem a bit weird to force them to ship with competitors products, it is valid is the context of Microsoft's crime.
If we turned it around, we could look at it that MS ship IE as a "free" browser (both with Windows and as a download), and their "competitors" also ship their browsers as "free" downloads. So where's the competition? The answer is kind of reveals the actual intent, which is that it prevents MS from leveraging the browser**
Also...
by offering so-called "genuine consumer choice"?
Is that like Genuine Advantage?!;)
**Although I suspect that MS will simply shift focus to shipping with the Silverlight pluging by default and enabling it by default regardless of browser... unless the EU are sharp enough to spot that one.
Apple? OSX + Safari. How is it any different? Remember, the complaint isn't IE's integration with Windows any more. It's all about the very fact it's included at the expense of other browsers.
No... it's about MS abusing their monopoly position.
I think you missed a few steps there, like MS really really dragging their feet through the process and only _now_ (well yesterday) saying this (not shipping with IE) was their plan. The EU in searching for a suitable resolution are considering the impact (or lack there-of) of the Windows Media player case and Windows-N. As I'm sure you know, that didn't really work out very well because no OEM is going to ship a less-functional version of Windows given the choice, and equally, allowing MS to ship Windows without IE but then allow OEMs to install IE is kind of likely to not achieve anything.... no witch hunt! Just looking for a solution that deals with the core problem which is MS leveraging their monopoly position.
[snip] I don't want a new computer cluttered up with multiple browsers. There are some browsers I may not want installed (do I really trust Google's browser?). Some browsers may come with terms and conditions I don't like and quite frankly it's just clutter to me and confusion to others. [snip]
As I understand it, no decision has been made yet, but the " currently preferred" _seems_ to be to have a screen where users select which browser to install. That being the case, you can select IE and everything remains as you like it.
I understand the sentiment of your post though.... this does smell of "bad decision", but equally, Microsofts behaviour has been shown to be anti-competitive and as such, something needs to be done.
There have even been attempts to integrate the browser even more fully into the OS. Microsoft was exploring this (albeit initial efforts were ugly), but I guess the EU action put a crimper on it and the possibility we might see something more radical and better developed.
Maybe... who knows... but the worst out come is that Microsoft will be prevented from "innovating" in this area in the near term. That wouldn't prevent anyone else innovating though, and in reality, MS probably wouldn't be first anyway. Plus, it might give them some time to think about getting WinFS working!;)
Actually, in all seriousness, it would force them to try to innovate in other areas, so arguably this could foster greater innovation.... but again, this *is* Microsoft we're talking about.
As noted elsewhere, that's OpenReaches problem. But even if it was BT Broadbands problem, surely the answer would be to charge an appropriate price per MB/GB/whatever? I mean, really, it's fairly simple business issue -- you need to make enough money to cover your costs!
Dodgy analogy: If Tesco were selling soooo many packets of Corn Flakes that they were running out of space in their warehouses, then using the BT-School-of-Business route, they'd want to charge the customer the same for the Corn Flakes and *also* charge Kelogs for the privileged of Tesco selling them! Whereas obviously, they need to make enough money by selling products to invest in building the infrastructure to deliver it all.
Actually... I don't normally resort to expletives, but what sort of a fucking prick is John Petter? I mean seriously, either he's a clown with no business nouse at all (has he though of a career in banking?), or he *does* know exactly what he's doing and he's trying to take the public for a ride.
I'm sick an tired of these cunts -- we need to have a cull!!:D
If the EU is so anti-American, then surely they would also be going after Apple?
You guys just want European PC makers that are selling Windows to bundle them with European browsers. It's just protectionism to benefit Opera.
That's just crap. Opera probably contributes zero-point-nothing to the EU economy; I'm not knocking their success in what they do, but they're a tiny tiny company on any kind of global scale, so there would be no point in this EU action purely to benefit Opera. Plus if that was the case, then, as mentioned above, surely Apple would be in the frame also? Plus, the outcome [what ever it is... it's not been determined yet] should benefit *all* alternative browsers, so that could include Safari and Chrome which whilst both largely open-source, are products built to benefit the companies that produce them -- both of which (Apple & Google) are of course American!
This action [whatever it is....] is being taken because of Microsoft's position in the market and their actions. It has nothing to do with them being a non-EU based company.
Doesn't IE6 get end-of-lifed around June 2010? I can't believe any corporate would consider running IE6 after that... they could reasonably be sued by their own customers if say they lost data due to a hack.
The natural degradation designed into the HTML specifications still allows them to access the content in a limited fashion. That is all that they want. If they wanted to see more, they wouldn't use IE6.
One of the bigger problems I have with IE6 is that when you wrap major content blocks in DIVs and float your content to position it, IE6 will sometimes throw weird bugs where only half the DIV will show... but when you refresh, a little more of it will appear... or sometimes less. Mostly these bugs seem to be "peek-a-boo" problems, and work-arounds are often fairly straight forward but can on occasion take hours to fix!
Other IE6 crimes include doubling margin sizes; this one isn't too hard to workaround, but since the impact of incorrect margins can mean floated DIV blocks incorrectly placed on the page (not just a few pixels out, but completely screwed up!). Since the work around is to have IE6 specific CSS rules, this increases maintenance costs since when I make a change to the "common" CSS rules, I also have to make the same changes to the IE6 version.
Otherwise I fully agree with you though!:D
I'm no longer too concerned with things looking perfect in IE6; they merely need to look acceptable. But whilst IE6 maintains a significant market share (20 - 30% for me in the UK), it still adds to development costs.
I am still not that crazy about the taskbar in 7 but Homegroups are really nice and the other UI changes like desktop peek are great.
Win 7 Starter Ed. does not include the Aero interface... although to be fair, this might work out better on a netbook sized screen anyway. I dunno what Homegroups are, but if they're not part of Aero then they might still be included.
I _believe_ that the W7 Starter ed. *will* be available globally as an OEM product... but obviously, anything could happen between now and Octob..^H^H^H^H^H 2010!
The reasoning is that MS cannot have cheap low-end hardware shipping with Linux since that might start the erosion of their market share. To prevent this happening they need a very cheap version of Windows, but to prevent it upsetting their margins, they need to make sure this version is sufficiently crippled that people still need a "full" version of Windows for more intensive computing!
Slashdot Mirror
So.... you're saying that maybe, just maybe, Elvis *IS* on the moon [tapes]?!
I do like that each release is better than the last... except after upgrading I also find a bunch of things that have been broken. Like for example, Jaunty doesn't like my camera (Kodak C330 I think) - why? - dunno, but for obvious reasons, it's a bit inconvenient to say the least!
1.
:D
I think it'll be out in beta quite soon but will be out of beta by the time it gets pre-installed. Pure speculation of course.... but I'm right!
I wondered that too, considering Dell were rumored to be working on an Android-based netbook.
I guess maybe they've renegotiated their Windows 7 pricing with MS and no longer need that rumor! Or maybe I'm being cynical?
One thing I've never really understood is why closing tags in XML have the tag name? Surely the angle brackets with slash inside would be enough since (assuming the markup is valid) it is obvious to the parser which tag is being closed: e.g. (I've used underscores to indent... I can't make the slash-code use spaces!!)
:D
<html>
__<head>
____<title>Example</>
__</>
__<body>
____<h1>Example</>
____<p><em>This <strong>is</> an</> example.</>
__</>
</>
I know this makes it hard for a human to see opening/closing tags, but if XML parsers (including those in browsers) were able to accept markup with short close tags or the normal named close tags, then we could: 1. benefit where the markup is machine generated and, 2. easily pre-process manually created markup.... it's easy enough to convert back and forth.
But maybe there's a good reason for not doing this that I'm missing... but it's always bothered me!
You can fit two 1's in the space of a zero. Plus, you can line them up vertically for even better compression!
All this is pretty obvious though... but experts in the field such as myself know that for the best compression, you need to use a san-serif font. All the serifs on the ends can otherwise take up extra space so you can fit less in a packet.
The other curious thing about this is that by using 1's instead of 0's, you get better compression by using more bits. But if you find you actually need to use 0's for a legitimate purpose (I use them as eye's in my more elaborate ascii-art for example), then the best thing to do is XOR your data before transmission to flip the bits. This brings the additional benefit of securely encrypting all of your data too.
I'm seeing it too, running Ubuntu 9.04 / Firefox 3.0.11. I do run adBlock+ but disabling it doesn't help. I don't run NoScript so that isn't the problem.
/. over the years! ;)
Quite frankly, I'm astonished given the high quality markup we've come to expect from
On the upside, they've fixed the post headings which were white on a white background for a few days.
However, doesn't Microsoft make OEMs agree NOT to install alternative browsers? Seems to me that's what this would really be about. If Compaq or Toshiba wanted to ship a browser that sucks less than IE, they should be able to, and a version of Windows without IE is one half of that solution.
No, because if MS ship Windows-E but OEMs are allowed to install IE then that's what they'll do. OEMs don't care and since they know IE works and they know some customers will complain if they don't ship IE, then adding IE is a no-brainer for them.
Forcing MS to ship other browsers is certainly a bit weird, but Windows-E would wind up being about as useful as Windows-N.... which is not at all!
Having said that, I think Microsoft's solution of not distributing IE with the OS was a good one.
The only downside was that OEMs would almost certainly have then preinstalled IE.... thus no real change. Which is a bit like Windows-N.... which is why the EU is still looking at what the solution should be.
How about, ship the computer and OS separate?
Not saying this is a good plan.... but it would be interesting if people did have to pick their OS and were able to compare the *real* cost side-by-side.
If we turned it around, we could look at it that MS ship IE as a "free" browser (both with Windows and as a download), and their "competitors" also ship their browsers as "free" downloads. So where's the competition? The answer is kind of reveals the actual intent, which is that it prevents MS from leveraging the browser**
Also...
by offering so-called "genuine consumer choice"?
Is that like Genuine Advantage?! ;)
**Although I suspect that MS will simply shift focus to shipping with the Silverlight pluging by default and enabling it by default regardless of browser... unless the EU are sharp enough to spot that one.
Apple? OSX + Safari. How is it any different? Remember, the complaint isn't IE's integration with Windows any more. It's all about the very fact it's included at the expense of other browsers.
No... it's about MS abusing their monopoly position.
But on a more serious note: grow a pair (EU) or get back to kiddy school (US) Microsoft wouldn't have survived a year if they started in the EU.
The irony being that the US was particularly toothless with it's attempts to deal with MS; at least the EU is doing something!
I think you missed a few steps there, like MS really really dragging their feet through the process and only _now_ (well yesterday) saying this (not shipping with IE) was their plan. The EU in searching for a suitable resolution are considering the impact (or lack there-of) of the Windows Media player case and Windows-N. As I'm sure you know, that didn't really work out very well because no OEM is going to ship a less-functional version of Windows given the choice, and equally, allowing MS to ship Windows without IE but then allow OEMs to install IE is kind of likely to not achieve anything.... no witch hunt! Just looking for a solution that deals with the core problem which is MS leveraging their monopoly position.
[snip] I don't want a new computer cluttered up with multiple browsers. There are some browsers I may not want installed (do I really trust Google's browser?). Some browsers may come with terms and conditions I don't like and quite frankly it's just clutter to me and confusion to others. [snip]
As I understand it, no decision has been made yet, but the " currently preferred" _seems_ to be to have a screen where users select which browser to install. That being the case, you can select IE and everything remains as you like it.
I understand the sentiment of your post though.... this does smell of "bad decision", but equally, Microsofts behaviour has been shown to be anti-competitive and as such, something needs to be done.
There have even been attempts to integrate the browser even more fully into the OS. Microsoft was exploring this (albeit initial efforts were ugly), but I guess the EU action put a crimper on it and the possibility we might see something more radical and better developed.
Maybe... who knows... but the worst out come is that Microsoft will be prevented from "innovating" in this area in the near term. That wouldn't prevent anyone else innovating though, and in reality, MS probably wouldn't be first anyway. Plus, it might give them some time to think about getting WinFS working! ;)
Actually, in all seriousness, it would force them to try to innovate in other areas, so arguably this could foster greater innovation.... but again, this *is* Microsoft we're talking about.
I learn something new everyday! :D
As noted elsewhere, that's OpenReaches problem. But even if it was BT Broadbands problem, surely the answer would be to charge an appropriate price per MB/GB/whatever? I mean, really, it's fairly simple business issue -- you need to make enough money to cover your costs!
:D
Dodgy analogy: If Tesco were selling soooo many packets of Corn Flakes that they were running out of space in their warehouses, then using the BT-School-of-Business route, they'd want to charge the customer the same for the Corn Flakes and *also* charge Kelogs for the privileged of Tesco selling them! Whereas obviously, they need to make enough money by selling products to invest in building the infrastructure to deliver it all.
Actually... I don't normally resort to expletives, but what sort of a fucking prick is John Petter? I mean seriously, either he's a clown with no business nouse at all (has he though of a career in banking?), or he *does* know exactly what he's doing and he's trying to take the public for a ride.
I'm sick an tired of these cunts -- we need to have a cull!!
It's just excuses.
What is?
If the EU is so anti-American, then surely they would also be going after Apple?
You guys just want European PC makers that are selling Windows to bundle them with European browsers. It's just protectionism to benefit Opera.
That's just crap. Opera probably contributes zero-point-nothing to the EU economy; I'm not knocking their success in what they do, but they're a tiny tiny company on any kind of global scale, so there would be no point in this EU action purely to benefit Opera. Plus if that was the case, then, as mentioned above, surely Apple would be in the frame also? Plus, the outcome [what ever it is... it's not been determined yet] should benefit *all* alternative browsers, so that could include Safari and Chrome which whilst both largely open-source, are products built to benefit the companies that produce them -- both of which (Apple & Google) are of course American!
This action [whatever it is....] is being taken because of Microsoft's position in the market and their actions. It has nothing to do with them being a non-EU based company.
You do know that MS was found guilty in the US don't you? You also know that the EU has imposed huge fines on EU based companies too don't you?
But P2P isn't illegal, and is in fact a useful distribution method.
Doesn't IE6 get end-of-lifed around June 2010? I can't believe any corporate would consider running IE6 after that... they could reasonably be sued by their own customers if say they lost data due to a hack.
The natural degradation designed into the HTML specifications still allows them to access the content in a limited fashion. That is all that they want. If they wanted to see more, they wouldn't use IE6.
One of the bigger problems I have with IE6 is that when you wrap major content blocks in DIVs and float your content to position it, IE6 will sometimes throw weird bugs where only half the DIV will show... but when you refresh, a little more of it will appear... or sometimes less. Mostly these bugs seem to be "peek-a-boo" problems, and work-arounds are often fairly straight forward but can on occasion take hours to fix!
:D
Other IE6 crimes include doubling margin sizes; this one isn't too hard to workaround, but since the impact of incorrect margins can mean floated DIV blocks incorrectly placed on the page (not just a few pixels out, but completely screwed up!). Since the work around is to have IE6 specific CSS rules, this increases maintenance costs since when I make a change to the "common" CSS rules, I also have to make the same changes to the IE6 version.
Otherwise I fully agree with you though!
I'm no longer too concerned with things looking perfect in IE6; they merely need to look acceptable. But whilst IE6 maintains a significant market share (20 - 30% for me in the UK), it still adds to development costs.
...and was on Amazon surfing for a book called The Multiorgasmic Man: Sexual Secrets Every Man Should Know
Was it any good?
I am still not that crazy about the taskbar in 7 but Homegroups are really nice and the other UI changes like desktop peek are great.
Win 7 Starter Ed. does not include the Aero interface... although to be fair, this might work out better on a netbook sized screen anyway. I dunno what Homegroups are, but if they're not part of Aero then they might still be included.
I _believe_ that the W7 Starter ed. *will* be available globally as an OEM product... but obviously, anything could happen between now and Octob..^H^H^H^H^H 2010!
The reasoning is that MS cannot have cheap low-end hardware shipping with Linux since that might start the erosion of their market share. To prevent this happening they need a very cheap version of Windows, but to prevent it upsetting their margins, they need to make sure this version is sufficiently crippled that people still need a "full" version of Windows for more intensive computing!