Windows XP - Click Start ---> Search.
In the bottom left corner of the window that pops up, there will be an annoying little animated dog. He made his first appearance in Microsoft Bob oh so many years ago. Well, if '95 is 'oh so many years ago.':)
I have no problem with AC's. In fact, I wouldn't have read the AC post in the first place if I didn't intentionally browse at 0 threshold a lot of the time specifically so I CAN read AC posts. The problem I have is when people hide behind the AC simply because they just want to start a flame war or they're not willing to stand up for their beliefs.
The only reason I launched a flame back is because the original AC poster (if it's not you) bitched about not logging in because he "didn't want to be persecuted," which is bullshit.
The lovely thing about the PATRIOT Act is the fact that if you're put in a position where it's being abused against you, you're in zero position to challenge it in court. Which is exactly why it's a dangerous piece of legislation.
I happen to agree with the GP that McCain likely would've made a good president precisely because he had his own value set and would've been willing to veto legislation that he felt was bad from either side, not just green light it because it came from his side of the aisle.
Either way, you might find people will take you more seriously if you actually log in. There are mods on both sides of the spectrum, and the idea of you being 'persecuted' on slashdot for speaking your mind is a joke. At worst, you lose some karma, big deal. Better that than act like an asshat hiding behind the AC moniker.
Really, that's not the shocker it's made out to be by most people. Tennessee is a rather conservative state, and Gore didn't fit the profile the people of the state wanted. It'd be like a bunch of liberals voting Jerry Fallwell into office just because he's from their home state (extreme example, but same basic thinking).
Correction: A proposal in a speech for this administration doesn't mean much. Remember that the original man on the moon campaign was sparked by a speech given by Kennedy at Rice University.
That said, I do agree with you - I'll have to see it before I'll believe it. The Bush administration seems to talk big on issues like this, but fail to come through on actual execution if for no other reason than they say "Hey, wouldn't this be cool?" before taking cost into account.
While that's a nice idea, the problem lays in the simple physics of it. It takes an enormous amount of energy to break the earth's gravitational pull, and once you've expended that much energy(read:fuel) you're just as well off coasting the rest of the way to the moon until you get picked up by the moon's gravity, rather than stop along the way.
While I love the idea and think it'd be a great thing to do, I feel that it'd also be pretty much financially impossible to make happen as things stand right now. Going to the moon would cost billions upon billions of dollars when the government's already running a half-trillion dollars a year in the hole. This time, there isn't the pressing urge for dominance and brass-balls bragging rights that there was during the peak of the cold war, and without such a rivalry, I doubt the motivation exists within government to find funding for a project this massive in scope.
Good luck on that, and I honestly hope it gets accepted. I've had a couple of similar submissions rejected in the past. Guess the editors aren't that interested.
What you're referring to are problems with applications moreso than the OS. I've been using XP pretty much since its release on numerous machines and the only times I've ever managed to bluescreen it were hardware related - once to a faulty videocard and once using an old USB 1.0 wireless adapter that wasn't really compatible with the USB2.0 ports on my motherboard. Yes, I have the occassional application crash, but again, that's a problem with the application far more often than OS.
Again, if an XP system is well managed, it will be as stable, if not more so than a 2000 system for most uses. The key, like you said, is to avoid poor drivers and hardware, and keep the absolute minimal number of background processes possible running.
Sidenote: You have no idea how much I hate Norton software. On many of the boxes I've worked on for others, Cleansweep being particularly craptacular. I can't tell you how many machines I've had come in running slow/flaky/crashing that were brought back to an acceptable state simply by removing Cleansweep.
I really don't understand why so many people make such a strong distinction between 2000 and XP. The biggest difference between the two is the ugly blue-green UI MS slapped on top of XP. The same rules apply to XP for keeping a system running well as they do for any other OS - don't keep 30 extraneous background processes running causing slow down and conflict.
As for crashing "once maybe twice a day", a quick cmd--> systeminfo on my XP Pro box reveals:
System Up Time: 8 Days, 7 Hours, 58 Minutes, 36 Seconds
Only that low because I shut it down to go to a LAN party a weekend before last - I was running on several weeks uptime before that. This box gets used for web browsing, game playing, coding, watching DVDs, and pretty much anything else a 'typical user' could ever want to do. So again, why the distinction between between 2000 and XP?
I work in a computer repair shop, and yeah, we see XP more often than 2000, but that's because exponentially more people are running XP, so it should be expected. I never cease to be amazed at how many people can't get past the ugly default theme and automatically conclude that 2000 is in some way substantially better than XP. It's like saying a box running a 2.4.1 kernel with KDE is better than a box running 2.4.23 with Gnome (arbitrary kernel versions) because you happen to like KDE better than Gnome.
I agree that it does, but generally only in situations just like you described - faulty hardware. It's that with XP they've generally moved to more graceful ways of dealing with problems. These days, a BSOD is about equivalent to a kernel panic under Linux.
I normally don't get in on the complaining about dupes, but BOTH of these were posted by Timothy. You'd think he'd at least remember something HE had previously posted.
I wasn't aware of that. I definitely see the value in their site and I'm glad that they're out there, but as I orginally said, their site layout is far too confusing and jumbled for my taste. But if it makes you feel any better, I do tend to try to grab coupon codes from there since Anandtech doesn't allow for those to be posted, so hopefully they're getting some kind of kick back.:)
I've never cared for Fat Wallet's layout, and as such, spend a lot of time lurking in Anandtech's Hot Deals forum. Basically, if there's a deal on anything computer-related going down, you can probably find it there, and most of the better deals from FW manage to drift there fairly quickly as well. =)
One that consumes, especially one that acquires goods or services for direct use or ownership rather than for resale or use in production and manufacturing.
You're one of the people I have no problem owning an SUV. Just remember that you're in the vast, vast minority in your situation. Yes, I'm American. And a city dweller at that. So perhaps you can understand the annoyance some of us have with having to share the road with people who insist on driving vehicles three times bigger than they have any use for.
Better still, if you're going to go through the trouble of editing to track, leave the film intact, but add dummy names of non-existant people to the credits of some of the copies you send out. Once the crackers got wind of it, they'd simply stop including credits in their rips, but until then, I imagine it'd be rather effective.
If the network is encrypted, SSID broadcasting disabled, etc, I agree with you. However, if the wireless network is left wide open without WEP enabled, it's potentially arguable that there's implicit permission to use the network, especially given the growing popularity of wi-fi hotspots. Basically, I agree that if someone intentionally cracks into a network, they should be held accountable, but the owner of the network should also bear some of the responsibility - namely securing it if they don't want just anyone using it.
Odd. My initial post was using Firebird.7, but I fired up IE6 just to check and I got the same result - a gray strip at the top and bottom, effectively wasting 2/3 of the screen space available. Not sure what could cause the inconsistency.
I'm sure that looks very snazzy on the person who developed it's screen, but on my monitor at 1600x1200, that design leads to 2/3 of the screen being wasted with blank gray space. I'll pass, thank you very much.
Except you're assuming that they'd also pick up on the grammar differences on their own. Trying to do a straight translation is what gives us Babelfish fun and great things like All Your Base Are Belong To Us.:)
I'm not sure about Office, but I seem to recall reading that VS.NET is built on.NET's Windows Forms, which are more or less supposed to be a replacement for the current Win32 API.
Slashdot Mirror
Windows XP - Click Start ---> Search. In the bottom left corner of the window that pops up, there will be an annoying little animated dog. He made his first appearance in Microsoft Bob oh so many years ago. Well, if '95 is 'oh so many years ago.' :)
Ohhhhhh awesome flame man. My compliments. Laff.
You've missed my point entirely.
I have no problem with AC's. In fact, I wouldn't have read the AC post in the first place if I didn't intentionally browse at 0 threshold a lot of the time specifically so I CAN read AC posts. The problem I have is when people hide behind the AC simply because they just want to start a flame war or they're not willing to stand up for their beliefs.
The only reason I launched a flame back is because the original AC poster (if it's not you) bitched about not logging in because he "didn't want to be persecuted," which is bullshit.
The lovely thing about the PATRIOT Act is the fact that if you're put in a position where it's being abused against you, you're in zero position to challenge it in court. Which is exactly why it's a dangerous piece of legislation.
I happen to agree with the GP that McCain likely would've made a good president precisely because he had his own value set and would've been willing to veto legislation that he felt was bad from either side, not just green light it because it came from his side of the aisle.
Either way, you might find people will take you more seriously if you actually log in. There are mods on both sides of the spectrum, and the idea of you being 'persecuted' on slashdot for speaking your mind is a joke. At worst, you lose some karma, big deal. Better that than act like an asshat hiding behind the AC moniker.
Really, that's not the shocker it's made out to be by most people. Tennessee is a rather conservative state, and Gore didn't fit the profile the people of the state wanted. It'd be like a bunch of liberals voting Jerry Fallwell into office just because he's from their home state (extreme example, but same basic thinking).
Correction: A proposal in a speech for this administration doesn't mean much. Remember that the original man on the moon campaign was sparked by a speech given by Kennedy at Rice University.
That said, I do agree with you - I'll have to see it before I'll believe it. The Bush administration seems to talk big on issues like this, but fail to come through on actual execution if for no other reason than they say "Hey, wouldn't this be cool?" before taking cost into account.
While that's a nice idea, the problem lays in the simple physics of it. It takes an enormous amount of energy to break the earth's gravitational pull, and once you've expended that much energy(read:fuel) you're just as well off coasting the rest of the way to the moon until you get picked up by the moon's gravity, rather than stop along the way.
While I love the idea and think it'd be a great thing to do, I feel that it'd also be pretty much financially impossible to make happen as things stand right now. Going to the moon would cost billions upon billions of dollars when the government's already running a half-trillion dollars a year in the hole. This time, there isn't the pressing urge for dominance and brass-balls bragging rights that there was during the peak of the cold war, and without such a rivalry, I doubt the motivation exists within government to find funding for a project this massive in scope.
What? With those nubby little arms? You're kidding me, right? :-P
Good luck on that, and I honestly hope it gets accepted. I've had a couple of similar submissions rejected in the past. Guess the editors aren't that interested.
What you're referring to are problems with applications moreso than the OS. I've been using XP pretty much since its release on numerous machines and the only times I've ever managed to bluescreen it were hardware related - once to a faulty videocard and once using an old USB 1.0 wireless adapter that wasn't really compatible with the USB2.0 ports on my motherboard. Yes, I have the occassional application crash, but again, that's a problem with the application far more often than OS.
Again, if an XP system is well managed, it will be as stable, if not more so than a 2000 system for most uses. The key, like you said, is to avoid poor drivers and hardware, and keep the absolute minimal number of background processes possible running.
Sidenote: You have no idea how much I hate Norton software. On many of the boxes I've worked on for others, Cleansweep being particularly craptacular. I can't tell you how many machines I've had come in running slow/flaky/crashing that were brought back to an acceptable state simply by removing Cleansweep.
I really don't understand why so many people make such a strong distinction between 2000 and XP. The biggest difference between the two is the ugly blue-green UI MS slapped on top of XP. The same rules apply to XP for keeping a system running well as they do for any other OS - don't keep 30 extraneous background processes running causing slow down and conflict.
As for crashing "once maybe twice a day", a quick cmd--> systeminfo on my XP Pro box reveals:
System Up Time: 8 Days, 7 Hours, 58 Minutes, 36 Seconds
Only that low because I shut it down to go to a LAN party a weekend before last - I was running on several weeks uptime before that. This box gets used for web browsing, game playing, coding, watching DVDs, and pretty much anything else a 'typical user' could ever want to do. So again, why the distinction between between 2000 and XP?
I work in a computer repair shop, and yeah, we see XP more often than 2000, but that's because exponentially more people are running XP, so it should be expected. I never cease to be amazed at how many people can't get past the ugly default theme and automatically conclude that 2000 is in some way substantially better than XP. It's like saying a box running a 2.4.1 kernel with KDE is better than a box running 2.4.23 with Gnome (arbitrary kernel versions) because you happen to like KDE better than Gnome.
I agree that it does, but generally only in situations just like you described - faulty hardware. It's that with XP they've generally moved to more graceful ways of dealing with problems. These days, a BSOD is about equivalent to a kernel panic under Linux.
I normally don't get in on the complaining about dupes, but BOTH of these were posted by Timothy. You'd think he'd at least remember something HE had previously posted.
I wasn't aware of that. I definitely see the value in their site and I'm glad that they're out there, but as I orginally said, their site layout is far too confusing and jumbled for my taste. But if it makes you feel any better, I do tend to try to grab coupon codes from there since Anandtech doesn't allow for those to be posted, so hopefully they're getting some kind of kick back. :)
I've never cared for Fat Wallet's layout, and as such, spend a lot of time lurking in Anandtech's Hot Deals forum. Basically, if there's a deal on anything computer-related going down, you can probably find it there, and most of the better deals from FW manage to drift there fairly quickly as well. =)
I must've missed the part that said 'paying.'
You're one of the people I have no problem owning an SUV. Just remember that you're in the vast, vast minority in your situation. Yes, I'm American. And a city dweller at that. So perhaps you can understand the annoyance some of us have with having to share the road with people who insist on driving vehicles three times bigger than they have any use for.
Better still, if you're going to go through the trouble of editing to track, leave the film intact, but add dummy names of non-existant people to the credits of some of the copies you send out. Once the crackers got wind of it, they'd simply stop including credits in their rips, but until then, I imagine it'd be rather effective.
Shouldn't be too hard, I hear that the French have pre-emptively surrendered.
If the network is encrypted, SSID broadcasting disabled, etc, I agree with you. However, if the wireless network is left wide open without WEP enabled, it's potentially arguable that there's implicit permission to use the network, especially given the growing popularity of wi-fi hotspots. Basically, I agree that if someone intentionally cracks into a network, they should be held accountable, but the owner of the network should also bear some of the responsibility - namely securing it if they don't want just anyone using it.
Odd. My initial post was using Firebird .7, but I fired up IE6 just to check and I got the same result - a gray strip at the top and bottom, effectively wasting 2/3 of the screen space available. Not sure what could cause the inconsistency.
I'm sure that looks very snazzy on the person who developed it's screen, but on my monitor at 1600x1200, that design leads to 2/3 of the screen being wasted with blank gray space. I'll pass, thank you very much.
Except you're assuming that they'd also pick up on the grammar differences on their own. Trying to do a straight translation is what gives us Babelfish fun and great things like All Your Base Are Belong To Us. :)
I'm not sure about Office, but I seem to recall reading that VS.NET is built on .NET's Windows Forms, which are more or less supposed to be a replacement for the current Win32 API.