> Uhhh...You CAN buy nicer screens for windows too you know billy, they just ain't cheap,
You certainly can, and they're not any more expensive than a Thunderbolt of similar size. What it comes down to is that a professional buys hardware appropriate for the job, and the OS is only there to load the applications and manage resources, not be cute or colorful. If Apple wants to screw around, they can do it in someone else's sandbox. I used to think I needed them. Apple managed to beat that out of me.
...unless you need a matte screen, which Apple hasn't made since 2007. Glossy is apparently cooler, even though statistically most people don't want glossy screens. Apple dropping the matte option was a serious blow to graphics designers, and then pissing off Adobe was kicking designers in the ass as they left the Mac store for the final time. Apple had a killer app and a root constituency, and it's like Management made a conscious decision to drive them away.
Mind you, I'm not fond of Windows, but what are ya gonna do? At some point it's necessary to get work done. I'm participating in a thread at the Adobe forum to convince them to port Photoshop et al to Android, and it finally looks like we're getting some traction. But the hardware would still need to catch up.
Re:What is my overriding reason to migrate off XP?
on
10 Years of Windows XP
·
· Score: 1
If someone in your family is not practicing safe surfing, get them their own computer (they're cheap) and use the Windows recovery disk as necessary. You really shouldn't let them play on your computer.
Virii galore maybe, but it all depends on what steps you take. My daughter has used XP since she was seven (she's just months short of 18 now) and caught a virus exactly once, when she let a boyfriend download some kind of music sharing service. I understand that's not totally fair because she has a geek as a father and I've taught her some stuff, but... don't your kids, too?
I may give you that for pesticides and fertilizers and such, but being on the farm, I lived in the country, and rich tend to live downtown. Doesn't living in a big city have its own collection of environmental irritants and pathogens?
Wow, remember when, if you were a Photoshop user, you were automatically a Mac user? I'm trying to remember what the killer app is for Macintosh now. (Hint: It's not "lion".)
Repeat after me: "It's just an OS. The purpose of an OS is to load programs and manage resources. The OS is not the application."
Re:What is my overriding reason to migrate off XP?
on
10 Years of Windows XP
·
· Score: 1
Thanks, I *do* have the 64 bit version of Windows 7, according to the media, and according to Computer -> Properties. I have four identical 2 gigabyte sticks and four memory slots. I put any two sticks in A1 and B1 or A2 and B2 and it boots up with 4 GB. If I populate one or both of the remaining slots, it won't boot. The manual indicates that the memory (Kingston) is supported and the motherboard supports 8 GB and more. (Up to 16 or 32, I forget.) It's a mystery.
I was an OSX user, but with the current snit between Apple and Adobe, I switched to Windows 7. I'm a heavy Adobe user, and it used to be that Mac was the platform of choice for that.
Of our four most used machines at home, the media center is running Windows 7 because I was told Media Center works better than in "Windows XP Media Center Edition". (Only partially true -- the surround doesn't work right.) My machine is running Windows 7 because I thought I needed more than 4 GB of ram. And then I found that the machine wouldn't boot with more than 4 GB of ram, so that was kinda a bust. (Maybe with a different motherboard?) The others are still running XP and the programs wife and child use still load up and work fine.
That's the point people seem to forget. The OS isn't important. (Well, maybe for Windows 2000 and up -- nobody in their right mind, except for the people who designed those can and bottle recycling kiosks, still runs Windows 98.) What's important are the applications the OS runs. Sometimes these applications need resources unavailable to that particular OS (sometimes for marketing reasons) and then an upgrade may be unavoidable. But until then, why bother? The OS is not the application.
I read TFA, and it seems vague what they mean by "rich". I grew up on a farm. We were dirt poor. We got a lot of exercise, as one does on a farm, where whether you eat or not depends on whether you got your chores done. Being on a farm, we ate fairly far down the food chain, commonly fresh foods with almost no processed foods, which we couldn't afford. (This is probably why I never really developed a taste for candy or for overly processed foods.) Sometimes we ate what my dad hunted. (I never did learn to enjoy the taste of venison.)
So, what health risks did I suffer, as opposed to someone who is rich, doesn't have to exercise, and can eat whatever the hell they want? And in what way was their upbringing superior to mine?
This is true. I haven't watched live TV in years now, and I only listen to the radio to and from work (for traffic reports). My only indication of a national disaster would be cars careening off the road.
It seems to me that the recourse is to overpower them. Despite youtube taking down the video, I suspect there are many copies in the wild. As a user community, one strategy at our disposal is to leverage our numbers, as we did with the HD encryption string, and make sure it's everywhere. Universal needs to understand that if it's fair use, they will only make matters worse for them by trying to suppress it.
In what universe would your mailer limit the amount of mail your company can send? It's not like it cost Microsoft any more to send it. This is a completely artificial limit to try to get you to pay more. In a perfect world this would drive everyone to a free mailer.
Slashdot Mirror
> Uhhh...You CAN buy nicer screens for windows too you know billy, they just ain't cheap,
You certainly can, and they're not any more expensive than a Thunderbolt of similar size. What it comes down to is that a professional buys hardware appropriate for the job, and the OS is only there to load the applications and manage resources, not be cute or colorful. If Apple wants to screw around, they can do it in someone else's sandbox. I used to think I needed them. Apple managed to beat that out of me.
Mind you, I'm not fond of Windows, but what are ya gonna do? At some point it's necessary to get work done. I'm participating in a thread at the Adobe forum to convince them to port Photoshop et al to Android, and it finally looks like we're getting some traction. But the hardware would still need to catch up.
If someone in your family is not practicing safe surfing, get them their own computer (they're cheap) and use the Windows recovery disk as necessary. You really shouldn't let them play on your computer.
Virii galore maybe, but it all depends on what steps you take. My daughter has used XP since she was seven (she's just months short of 18 now) and caught a virus exactly once, when she let a boyfriend download some kind of music sharing service. I understand that's not totally fair because she has a geek as a father and I've taught her some stuff, but... don't your kids, too?
Sadly, true.
It gets past POST and starts to boot Windows, (shows the Windows 7 logo) and then hangs.
Turns out there *is* a bios update for the motherboard. I will try that.
Booting a live CD -- that's absolutely brilliant, and easy to do. I'm a little annoyed I didn't think of that.
Thanks.
I may give you that for pesticides and fertilizers and such, but being on the farm, I lived in the country, and rich tend to live downtown. Doesn't living in a big city have its own collection of environmental irritants and pathogens?
Wow, remember when, if you were a Photoshop user, you were automatically a Mac user? I'm trying to remember what the killer app is for Macintosh now. (Hint: It's not "lion".)
Repeat after me: "It's just an OS. The purpose of an OS is to load programs and manage resources. The OS is not the application."
Thanks, I *do* have the 64 bit version of Windows 7, according to the media, and according to Computer -> Properties. I have four identical 2 gigabyte sticks and four memory slots. I put any two sticks in A1 and B1 or A2 and B2 and it boots up with 4 GB. If I populate one or both of the remaining slots, it won't boot. The manual indicates that the memory (Kingston) is supported and the motherboard supports 8 GB and more. (Up to 16 or 32, I forget.) It's a mystery.
I was an OSX user, but with the current snit between Apple and Adobe, I switched to Windows 7. I'm a heavy Adobe user, and it used to be that Mac was the platform of choice for that.
Of our four most used machines at home, the media center is running Windows 7 because I was told Media Center works better than in "Windows XP Media Center Edition". (Only partially true -- the surround doesn't work right.) My machine is running Windows 7 because I thought I needed more than 4 GB of ram. And then I found that the machine wouldn't boot with more than 4 GB of ram, so that was kinda a bust. (Maybe with a different motherboard?) The others are still running XP and the programs wife and child use still load up and work fine.
That's the point people seem to forget. The OS isn't important. (Well, maybe for Windows 2000 and up -- nobody in their right mind, except for the people who designed those can and bottle recycling kiosks, still runs Windows 98.) What's important are the applications the OS runs. Sometimes these applications need resources unavailable to that particular OS (sometimes for marketing reasons) and then an upgrade may be unavoidable. But until then, why bother? The OS is not the application.
And yet, those recycling kiosks at the grocery store are still running Windows 98.
Make sure he doesn't get close to h4rr4r.
I read TFA, and it seems vague what they mean by "rich". I grew up on a farm. We were dirt poor. We got a lot of exercise, as one does on a farm, where whether you eat or not depends on whether you got your chores done. Being on a farm, we ate fairly far down the food chain, commonly fresh foods with almost no processed foods, which we couldn't afford. (This is probably why I never really developed a taste for candy or for overly processed foods.) Sometimes we ate what my dad hunted. (I never did learn to enjoy the taste of venison.)
So, what health risks did I suffer, as opposed to someone who is rich, doesn't have to exercise, and can eat whatever the hell they want? And in what way was their upbringing superior to mine?
> So then I should be allowed to spread disease if I want?
You'd only be spreading disease to the unvaccinated, wouldn't you?
Well, I guess there would be more of them.
"Not a test, but a demonstration."
This is true. I haven't watched live TV in years now, and I only listen to the radio to and from work (for traffic reports). My only indication of a national disaster would be cars careening off the road.
Outside reading a book... in November?
I thought that had already been answered.
I mean, really.
Right. A whole bunch of post-apocalyptic movies come to mind. But I'm sure it'll come out ok, because it'll be done by real scientists, right?
It's not like we have a spare Earth for testing purposes.
It seems to me that the recourse is to overpower them. Despite youtube taking down the video, I suspect there are many copies in the wild. As a user community, one strategy at our disposal is to leverage our numbers, as we did with the HD encryption string, and make sure it's everywhere. Universal needs to understand that if it's fair use, they will only make matters worse for them by trying to suppress it.
In what universe would your mailer limit the amount of mail your company can send? It's not like it cost Microsoft any more to send it. This is a completely artificial limit to try to get you to pay more. In a perfect world this would drive everyone to a free mailer.