Nope. Win 95 start menu used all the vertical space available, and become larger and larger as you needed deeper menus.
Win 7 start menu puts everything into a small rectangle, where you can't see everything, must click on menus to see what is inside (compounded with the classical bad arrangement of menus in Windows, that's very bad), and nested menus have even less horizontal space because of identation and share the same vertical space with everything else.
Vista didn't cost MS their monopoly. They still have it. If you aren't a MS sharehlder, Vista didn't make much of difference any way, except for freezing XP long enough for Wine to catch-up.
MS is behaving like they lost their monopoly because... well, if anybody discover that, please tell me. The only reasons I can see are:
1 - They are delusioned, thinking the desktop is dead. 2 - They need to grow, Grow, and GROW! Phones and tablets are the only thing growing, and MS isn't there. (Is it a coincidence?) 3 - They think people will realise phones and tablets are computers, just like the stuff they have on their table, and notice you can do more with them.
As #3 is the only rational option, and the odds are quite against it, I simply don't understand what is behing MS's strategy.
I'll wait and see if that will really make a dent on Windows popularity. Even taking into account that there are several other factors against MS here (like their fight with the OEMs), I'm not convinced that it won't simply be another Vista.
The managers normaly decide the more sexy issues, like if it is alowed to bring your iPad into work. IT people get to decide those problems that fly under the radar, like what version of Windows you'll use.
You can get a model B. Ok, it is 50% more expensive, but is still cheap, still runs an OS that will help you, indead of making you suffer, and still has all those GPIO pins everybody is crazy about.
What answers the question of "how can the police arrest somebody that isn't there?"
The police goes where the criminal are, guided by signal triangulation if needed. They could also follow a sub with their own $50 sub, but it was never practical to search the water for that kind of thing anyway, it won't become practical now (if one puts the price 3 or 4 orders of magnitude lower, that may change).
I can also agree that he deserves to be fined, just as a speeder going over 65 mph deserves a ticket... The problem is that the government doesn't go out finning speeders 50%-90% of what an average person earns his entire life. Why not cut the hipocrisy and declare him a slave for once?
Five years are barely enough to get a small modification of a process from a research fab to a real one, if it works flawlessly. A couple more years are typical for technologies that don't work flawlessly at the first try. This process needs an antire new fab, with much more layers than normaly available, and their special etching tech. I wouldn't expect it to get mainstream soon.
I think everyone but the entertainment media/attorney complex would agree that copyright can be useful if scaled back to 15 years or so and ending extensions.
No registration, no deal. It's nearly impossible to create a working copyright system without mandatory registration.
Same with vigorously limiting the scope of patents.
At a minimum, patents need a smaller duration (a product nowadays may apply hundreds of patents, that's ridiculous) and need requirements for clarity and specificity. At the specificity requirements there must be a clear clause for voiding any patent broad enough to not permit interoperability. Still, I'm not certain if the best policy isn't to completely extinguish them.
And I hope you can see how trademark law can prevent public confusion.
Trademark laws (and design patents) should be restricted to only avoid public confusion. All their other effects should be void.
Or, to be short, all intelectual property laws are a mess, and only work for the benefit of lawyers and the people with pockets deep enough to pay for those lawyers. All the thing is a farce, and need at least a profound reform.
I really don't get all that buzz about non-practicing entities. Why can't a lone inventor protect something he created, but can't produce, yet a corporation can patent anything they like just because they own a factory? Restricting things this way will only shield big companies from the bad consequences of the patent system, while giving them even more force to bully small companies out of their markets.
A sane patent legislation would employ the requisites of non-obviouness, novelty, specificity and clarity. If the patent fail on any of those, it should be invalid. The patent owner isn't relevant. (Of course, I still thinks that enables too many patents, the right number of patents to enable is zero.)
If you are not willing to put the money into the infrastructure, you are not going to get the infrastructure that you would have if you had put the money into it.
That's true, but there are several shades of "not putting the money into infrastructure". For example, one can put PCs on a HA setup (a redundant array of inexpensive computers), that will increase the uptime when compared to a single PC, and if done well can even be more reliable that a server. Or, use RAID, hardware or even software RAID if the performance tradeoff doesn't look that bad. Or increase the frequency of backup and create a fast restoring procedure, to minimize downtime.
There are plenty of hacks where one can spend a bit of money on, and get a bit more of reliability.
It is funny that it's your impression. Those nuts are a fringe minority. Even the Pope has publicaly stated that they are wrong, but they wouldn't listen to the Pope, would they?
MySQL was very fast up to version 3. But then they started adding most that functionality you need on a real DBMS, and now it is one of the slowest ones available.
You know, in most of the democratic countries you can't sign a right away. Oracle can prohibit free speech all it wants, that can only have an impact where people didn't have that right at the begining.
If that is the reason, why do they prohibit any benchmark? Just prohibiting you to claim the benchmark is official sufices.
The reason is that benchmarks can show that any of the four competitive DBMS are the fastest one, depending on how you tune things. It also can show a gap between products as huge or small as you want. Oracle just don't want people to discover that their hardware and their settings are orders of magnitude more important for performance than their choice of DBMS, so they may continue several times more on Oracle's DBMS than on hardware.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope. Win 95 start menu used all the vertical space available, and become larger and larger as you needed deeper menus.
Win 7 start menu puts everything into a small rectangle, where you can't see everything, must click on menus to see what is inside (compounded with the classical bad arrangement of menus in Windows, that's very bad), and nested menus have even less horizontal space because of identation and share the same vertical space with everything else.
Vista didn't cost MS their monopoly. They still have it. If you aren't a MS sharehlder, Vista didn't make much of difference any way, except for freezing XP long enough for Wine to catch-up.
MS is behaving like they lost their monopoly because... well, if anybody discover that, please tell me. The only reasons I can see are:
1 - They are delusioned, thinking the desktop is dead.
2 - They need to grow, Grow, and GROW! Phones and tablets are the only thing growing, and MS isn't there. (Is it a coincidence?)
3 - They think people will realise phones and tablets are computers, just like the stuff they have on their table, and notice you can do more with them.
As #3 is the only rational option, and the odds are quite against it, I simply don't understand what is behing MS's strategy.
Some will say that, without a doubt. The only questions are how many? And will they be enough to make any overall difference?
Yet, people don't get out of their way to put Android or iOS into desktops. Those things are relegated to where they are necessary.
In fact, from what I see around, that is the main argument against him.
I'll wait and see if that will really make a dent on Windows popularity. Even taking into account that there are several other factors against MS here (like their fight with the OEMs), I'm not convinced that it won't simply be another Vista.
The managers normaly decide the more sexy issues, like if it is alowed to bring your iPad into work. IT people get to decide those problems that fly under the radar, like what version of Windows you'll use.
You can get a model B. Ok, it is 50% more expensive, but is still cheap, still runs an OS that will help you, indead of making you suffer, and still has all those GPIO pins everybody is crazy about.
Yes.
And we'll finally see the year of Linux robot. Who could think it would come before the year of the Linux desktop?
So, just like any regular boat?
What answers the question of "how can the police arrest somebody that isn't there?"
The police goes where the criminal are, guided by signal triangulation if needed. They could also follow a sub with their own $50 sub, but it was never practical to search the water for that kind of thing anyway, it won't become practical now (if one puts the price 3 or 4 orders of magnitude lower, that may change).
I can agree that he is different.
I can also agree that he deserves to be fined, just as a speeder going over 65 mph deserves a ticket... The problem is that the government doesn't go out finning speeders 50%-90% of what an average person earns his entire life. Why not cut the hipocrisy and declare him a slave for once?
Five years are barely enough to get a small modification of a process from a research fab to a real one, if it works flawlessly. A couple more years are typical for technologies that don't work flawlessly at the first try. This process needs an antire new fab, with much more layers than normaly available, and their special etching tech. I wouldn't expect it to get mainstream soon.
No registration, no deal. It's nearly impossible to create a working copyright system without mandatory registration.
At a minimum, patents need a smaller duration (a product nowadays may apply hundreds of patents, that's ridiculous) and need requirements for clarity and specificity. At the specificity requirements there must be a clear clause for voiding any patent broad enough to not permit interoperability. Still, I'm not certain if the best policy isn't to completely extinguish them.
Trademark laws (and design patents) should be restricted to only avoid public confusion. All their other effects should be void.
Or, to be short, all intelectual property laws are a mess, and only work for the benefit of lawyers and the people with pockets deep enough to pay for those lawyers. All the thing is a farce, and need at least a profound reform.
I really don't get all that buzz about non-practicing entities. Why can't a lone inventor protect something he created, but can't produce, yet a corporation can patent anything they like just because they own a factory? Restricting things this way will only shield big companies from the bad consequences of the patent system, while giving them even more force to bully small companies out of their markets.
A sane patent legislation would employ the requisites of non-obviouness, novelty, specificity and clarity. If the patent fail on any of those, it should be invalid. The patent owner isn't relevant. (Of course, I still thinks that enables too many patents, the right number of patents to enable is zero.)
I don't like Dolphin... But yeah, I like KDE a lot. And I can't even imagine going back to version 3.
That's true, but there are several shades of "not putting the money into infrastructure". For example, one can put PCs on a HA setup (a redundant array of inexpensive computers), that will increase the uptime when compared to a single PC, and if done well can even be more reliable that a server. Or, use RAID, hardware or even software RAID if the performance tradeoff doesn't look that bad. Or increase the frequency of backup and create a fast restoring procedure, to minimize downtime.
There are plenty of hacks where one can spend a bit of money on, and get a bit more of reliability.
To be fair, that is how they learned that science thing at school.
It is funny that it's your impression. Those nuts are a fringe minority. Even the Pope has publicaly stated that they are wrong, but they wouldn't listen to the Pope, would they?
Are you saying that they evolve?!?
Mythology is the set of myths of stupid dead people that can't sue you for calling them stupid.
Religion is the set of myths of all those really smart people alive today.
I wouldn't areee on that. Looking at what we were 1 million years ago, I'd say you grant it too little time.
Also, inteligence must be a very unlikely trait to evolve, otherwise it should have appeared several hundreds of years ago.
MySQL was very fast up to version 3. But then they started adding most that functionality you need on a real DBMS, and now it is one of the slowest ones available.
You know, in most of the democratic countries you can't sign a right away. Oracle can prohibit free speech all it wants, that can only have an impact where people didn't have that right at the begining.
If that is the reason, why do they prohibit any benchmark? Just prohibiting you to claim the benchmark is official sufices.
The reason is that benchmarks can show that any of the four competitive DBMS are the fastest one, depending on how you tune things. It also can show a gap between products as huge or small as you want. Oracle just don't want people to discover that their hardware and their settings are orders of magnitude more important for performance than their choice of DBMS, so they may continue several times more on Oracle's DBMS than on hardware.