The laptop in question might be a piece of shit, too.
I don't think that's the answer. I had a similar problem with Vista on my Compaq V6000. WMP and iTunes would both start to skip after about 90 seconds of play. Both SLED 10, and later XP worked fine on the same machine.
I'll be very curious what their development toolchain ends up looking like, but it seems clear they understand the issue.
You can see that on their website. There's a PDF showing the specs there, but it looks like it'll be useful straight out of the box.
Tilera's Multicore Development Environment (MDE) is a complete, standards-based multicore programming solution that enables developers to take full advantage of the parallel processing potential of the Tile Processor architecture. Old multicore models required all operations to be done in a core-by-core fashion, making it impossible to efficiently program, debug or profile any more than a handful of cores. The great innovation of Tilera's MDE suite is that it enables developers to move to ever-larger and more complex multicore applications in an easy, predictable way.
http://www.tilera.com/products/software.php
The poster seemed to feel that because there were patents that made it totally inferior and thus the ISO had been corrupted. I'm trying to show how that might not be the case.
It is clearly the case.
Microsoft have stuffed committees in Sweden, Kenya, Belgium, Denmark and Australia. They have blocked access to members from Sun and IBM in Portugal and are trying to subvert the process in Spain, New Zealand and other voting countries.
If MOOXML is truly an open format, what benefit do you think Microsoft will gain that makes it worth such a concerted effort?
However, this being Slashdot, people don't want to hear that because it doesn't reinforce their view of how the world should be, hence I get moderated "overrated".
There's abundant evidence in TFA to show that MOOXML is clearly an encumbered and inferior format. You were probably modded overrated for not knowing much about the topic.
Microsoft is spinning duplicate standards as "choice" when in fact acceptance of MOOXML as a standard would be a breach of ISO's mandate.
"one standard, one test, and one conformity assessment procedure accepted everywhere." Microsoft is pushing this line heavily in their attempt to subvert the approvals process in Standards Australia.
It's pretty clear proof that they have no intention of allowing interoperability and are simply using MOOXML as a means of spiking ODF.
both are covered by an almost identical perpetual promise.
The blog includes a link to the Sun promise http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/office/ipr.ph p. If you'd read that and TFA, you'd have noticed that Sun give blanket indemnity for any implementation of ODF, while Microsoft only grants indemnity for the specification in the proposed MOOXML standard.
Since the MOOXML format is impossible to fully implement without using external specifications not covered by the covenant, Microsoft can still sue someone who implements MOOXML in their software.
Even the mainstream media is saying it. This is Forbes' take on Vista.
DRM is bad, both for consumers and for the entertainment industry: something the entertainment industry is just starting to realize, but Microsoft is still fighting.
In the meantime, the only advice I can offer you is to not upgrade to Vista.
They just have to make a better, more intuitive, easy to use word processor.
MOOXML isn't about competing with other office suites. It's about preventing competition from thousands of specialised document creation tools.
If ODF becomes ubiquitous, it will be easy for specialised tools to create documents which can then be opened/parsed by the office suite or by other tools (ie databases, document managers, aggregators etc) in the chain. Instead of having a few easy targets to embrace, extend..., Microsoft will have to contend with a whole ecosystem of document tools.
Of course, having that flexibility will be an immense improvement for businesses and other computer users, but less profit for Microsoft means it must be fought with all the tools their monopoly position can muster.
Just curious, but are these 10-year-old archived documents edited or used as the basis for new documents?
In my experience (Workers Compensation claims), the documents are opened for analysis and printed immediately, a copy will be made in a modern format for redaction and/or inclusion in other documents.
The rules in this case come fro Australia's Records in Evidence legislation, but they're likely to be similar worldwide.
While the 'original document rule' has been abolished, it is still necessary for parties to authenticate evidence of the contents of documents tendered in one of these ways. For example, in relation to a document in writing that is signed, it remains necessary to lead evidence (if the point is contested) that the signature appearing on the document is the signature of the person who has purported to sign it. In the case of computer records, it is necessary to give evidence that the computer output is what it purports to be.
The procedures, which can be set in motion before the hearing of a proceeding, may result in the making of court orders against the party leading evidence of the contents of the document, including an order that:
in the case of a computer or similar document, that a party be permitted to examine and test the way in which the document was produced or has been kept.
In other words, a printout will most likely be acceptable, but if the evidence is contested, you may need to show an examiner how you stored and retrieved the information.
"So now, it's war. As they attempt to create "work arounds" for my blocks, I work on more comprehensive blocks that will defeat their work arounds. I also am informing other how to block people using the plug-in. The people who wrote the plug-in aren't terribly clever; thieves rarely are. But now they've inspired me, via their arrogance, to make sure a method for defeating their plug-in can be developed and distributed." --> Danny Carlton (http://jacklewis.net/weblog/, posted July 27, 2007)
However, point to a single competitor that has developed improvements that are significantly greater.
I believe it's significant that so many competitors are appearing as soon as there's potential for a genuinely interoperable document format (ODF) to become ubiquitous.
As far as competitors go, KOffice is more complete than MS Office, and has more momentum. When it appears for Windows, I suspect it will give Microsoft a shake up.
I have not been looking too hard for OSS voting machines myself, so maybe they're already out there. In that case, they just need some PR so that they're visible to the general population.
I have used it, and still do with some of my client-supplied computers.
As you say, any improvements are superficial, and once you get past the glitz there's next to nothing that can't be done as effectively in Office 2000.
Actually it's nothing but a change in the ancient URL/URI trick where you trick the user into believing a link sends him somewhere else (akin to something like this: www.microsoft.com.
Thanks dude!
I installed that update to XP, and now my computer runs like a dream. Microsoft finally got it right!
Slashdot Mirror
No, I think TENTH SHOW JAM might be on to something there.
These things DO pop up very early in most threads critical of Microsoft.
Ok fanboi, here's a real one for you to drool over.
Presenting the Micrsoft oPhone!7 /05/07/the-windows-mobile-ophone-video/
http://microsoft.blognewschannel.com/archives/200
By that standard, a Viking landing on Slashdot planet would find no sign of life.
No, she's hacking the voting machine. What? You thought only young men could hack.
Well, think again. And get off my lawn before I set the FBI on you.
No irony there, just common sense.
We want choice in our products and standards for our containers. The disk is the container, not the product.
So you're suggesting we shut down universities and only tell people exactly what they should do in order to be productive citizens?
I don't think that's the answer. I had a similar problem with Vista on my Compaq V6000. WMP and iTunes would both start to skip after about 90 seconds of play. Both SLED 10, and later XP worked fine on the same machine.
It is clearly the case.
Microsoft have stuffed committees in Sweden, Kenya, Belgium, Denmark and Australia. They have blocked access to members from Sun and IBM in Portugal and are trying to subvert the process in Spain, New Zealand and other voting countries.
If MOOXML is truly an open format, what benefit do you think Microsoft will gain that makes it worth such a concerted effort?
There's abundant evidence in TFA to show that MOOXML is clearly an encumbered and inferior format. You were probably modded overrated for not knowing much about the topic.
Apart from common sense, of course.
This is another red herring that has been addressed many times before, including here. http://www.openmalaysiablog.com/2007/02/microsofts _defi.html
Microsoft is spinning duplicate standards as "choice" when in fact acceptance of MOOXML as a standard would be a breach of ISO's mandate.
"one standard, one test, and one conformity assessment procedure accepted everywhere." Microsoft is pushing this line heavily in their attempt to subvert the approvals process in Standards Australia.It's pretty clear proof that they have no intention of allowing interoperability and are simply using MOOXML as a means of spiking ODF.
The blog includes a link to the Sun promise http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/office/ipr.ph p. If you'd read that and TFA, you'd have noticed that Sun give blanket indemnity for any implementation of ODF, while Microsoft only grants indemnity for the specification in the proposed MOOXML standard.
Since the MOOXML format is impossible to fully implement without using external specifications not covered by the covenant, Microsoft can still sue someone who implements MOOXML in their software.
No it doesn't. This FUD has been addressed long ago. http://blogs.sun.com/webmink/entry/raising_the_bar _on_patents
Even the mainstream media is saying it. This is Forbes' take on Vista.
DRM is bad, both for consumers and for the entertainment industry: something the entertainment industry is just starting to realize, but Microsoft is still fighting.In the meantime, the only advice I can offer you is to not upgrade to Vista.
http://www.forbes.com/security/2007/02/10/microsoI've seen similar sentiments in a lot of trade mags too, as well as many of the other complaints being aired here.
MOOXML isn't about competing with other office suites. It's about preventing competition from thousands of specialised document creation tools.
If ODF becomes ubiquitous, it will be easy for specialised tools to create documents which can then be opened/parsed by the office suite or by other tools (ie databases, document managers, aggregators etc) in the chain. Instead of having a few easy targets to embrace, extend..., Microsoft will have to contend with a whole ecosystem of document tools.
Of course, having that flexibility will be an immense improvement for businesses and other computer users, but less profit for Microsoft means it must be fought with all the tools their monopoly position can muster.
In my experience (Workers Compensation claims), the documents are opened for analysis and printed immediately, a copy will be made in a modern format for redaction and/or inclusion in other documents.
The rules in this case come fro Australia's Records in Evidence legislation, but they're likely to be similar worldwide.
While the 'original document rule' has been abolished, it is still necessary for parties to authenticate evidence of the contents of documents tendered in one of these ways. For example, in relation to a document in writing that is signed, it remains necessary to lead evidence (if the point is contested) that the signature appearing on the document is the signature of the person who has purported to sign it. In the case of computer records, it is necessary to give evidence that the computer output is what it purports to be.The procedures, which can be set in motion before the hearing of a proceeding, may result in the making of court orders against the party leading evidence of the contents of the document, including an order that:
in the case of a computer or similar document, that a party be permitted to examine and test the way in which the document was produced or has been kept.
In other words, a printout will most likely be acceptable, but if the evidence is contested, you may need to show an examiner how you stored and retrieved the information.There is no such thing as Excel server, Word server, etc.
Because the guy who wrote the site coded it that way. http://dannycarlton.com/AD_Tools/ABPfence.php. He offers tools to block anyone running ABP from any site.
He's had a long-running feud with the Adblock team https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/discussio ns/comments.php?DiscussionID=3060&page=3.
"So now, it's war. As they attempt to create "work arounds" for my blocks, I work on more comprehensive blocks that will defeat their work arounds. I also am informing other how to block people using the plug-in. The people who wrote the plug-in aren't terribly clever; thieves rarely are. But now they've inspired me, via their arrogance, to make sure a method for defeating their plug-in can be developed and distributed." --> Danny Carlton (http://jacklewis.net/weblog/, posted July 27, 2007)I believe it's significant that so many competitors are appearing as soon as there's potential for a genuinely interoperable document format (ODF) to become ubiquitous.
As far as competitors go, KOffice is more complete than MS Office, and has more momentum. When it appears for Windows, I suspect it will give Microsoft a shake up.
Yep, it's been used over here, and runs on Linux live CDs. http://www.softimp.com.au/evacs/index.html
There's a Wired article here: http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2003/11/61 045
I have used it, and still do with some of my client-supplied computers.
As you say, any improvements are superficial, and once you get past the glitz there's next to nothing that can't be done as effectively in Office 2000.
You're joking, right?
There hasn't been a significant upgrade to Office in nearly a decade.
All that's changed between Office 2000 and 2007 is cosmetics. There's been nothing to improve productivity for users in that whole time.
Thanks dude!
I installed that update to XP, and now my computer runs like a dream. Microsoft finally got it right!
Don't cry, my Microsoft loving friend.
Vista will have a chance to shine in an event more suited to its capabilities.
I can't work out what you're trying to say.