No, I am not. OS X doesn't have the root account enabled by default, i.e. there is no root user to log into. SUDO-s gives root _privileges_, but it doesn't enable the root account.
Yes you are. The fact that SUDO hands off elevation to a USER LEVEL root account is exactly what I am talking about. There is no USER LEVEL root account in Vista. PERIOD.
OS X users can even enable the root USER LEVEL account, and use it to login. There is NO SUCH USER LEVEL account type in Vista, even if you wanted to enable it.
I would assumed you'd know that's standard SUDO behaviour on all systems that ship with it. The default timeout after invoking SUDO is 5 minutes, i.e. root privileges will remain active for 5 minutes after SUDO is invoked.
Yes, but SUDO is not used on all OSes, so making a general statement would be silly.
The fact that OS X by default leaves ROOT OPEN for ANY AMOUNT of TIME, rather than based on SINGLE process request is the security hole. Vista does not leave elevation open for a time period, as it processes security far more granular than ANY UNIX, including OS X. This means Vista gives SPECIFIC TOKEN based permission to the process elevation request, and NOTHING is left open.
The whole security model between NT and *nix is too complicated to get into here, but NT (even though badly enforced in XP) is significantly more robust and controlled. It is truly an object based token security system.
All of those subsystems break a large number of legacy applications, including some from MS
No they don't. The only subsystem that was put in place for backwards abilities was the Win16 (Windows 3.1) subsystem, and it hasn't broke applications for 15 years, and even then the only applications that were broken demanded to install hardware level access that is forbidden in NT.
It would be more correct to say that they didn't use one. The spotty legacy support in Windows XP and Vista does however indicate that they'd probably have been far better off doing what Apple did and shipping a modified version of Win98 to run legacy apps inside XP/Vista instead of using the approach of trying to fold all the bugs from previous versions into new ones without achieving full legacy compatibility.
You really are far off on this, first I need to explain it, and then correct what you are saying.
The subsystem in Vista for example have all been ADDED FOR ADDITIONAL functionality. They didn't break anything. Adding in the Win64 subsystem and straping the Win32 subsystem on Vista x64 added features, and DIDN'T break anything. The only exception would be an application that has a 32bit driver, or tries to tie under the subsystem in the NT core itself. And these have nothing to do with a subsystem.
Here is a simple test for you mind. Microsoft literally took the BSD APIs (UNIX) and created a simple subsystem for it that runs natively on the NT kernel along side Win32/Win64. It is a full BSD implementation, and even uses standard BSD API calls. Since it is running in an NT subysystem it thinks its BSD kernel level calls are going to directly to the computer kernel, when in fact they are going to the subsystem kernel that is sending API calls down to the NT kernel. (Ok that is probably too complicated.)
How about this, get back to me when Apple or any UNIX kernel technology can add a non-virtualized, non-emulated, Windows (Win32) layer that runs along side the main OS layer and talks natively to the kernel, and runs applications flawlessly. So when Apple offers Win32 or Windows SITTING ON TOP OF DARWIN running natively give me a call, because I want to see hell freeze over as it is impossible for Darwin to do this.
NT Subsystems are OS layers they are not virtualization, not VMWare, not WINE (API translation), and are not emulations/emulators.
They are equal subsystem layers sitting on the core NT architecture.
For as simple and elegant as the NT kernel architecture is, it is amazing that people just don'
That's just plain wrong. A "legacy" app written for XP does NOT do any elevation requests and therefore will NOT run on Vista. It will just silently fail. The only exceptions are files that have the keyword "Setup" in their filenames. These files get UAC prompts automatically when the user tries to run them.
Ok, there are two parts to this, and you are incorrect because you are limiting the definition of UAC.
There is the UAC that works from Setup detection, there is also inherent ShellExecute monitoring that will establish the need for elevated privledges. (Some applicaitons can mark themselves from the compatibility tab, a manifest, or even Vista will recognize known software issues and needs.)
The other part of the UAC is the part you DON'T see, and this is the extensive virtualization it offers to legacy applications so they DON'T FAIL.
What happens with legacy applications, if they are writing configuration, user data, accessing restricted Registry areas, etc. UAC steps in virtualizes these actions, and writes this information to a local user area instead of a System Area for example.
Test this yourself, write a quick Application that saves data in the Program Files area, and run it without elevated priviledges, it will run fine, and the data written will be virtualized to a User data area instead.
I have a pet program I wrote years ago in Delphi that demostrates this exactly, as I kept system level configuration data in the Program's folder. Under Vista it runs perfectly, but the data is instead stored in the virtualized Program Files area.
This happens on many levels, and can not only allow older applications to run flawlessly, with the side of effect of keeping security fully intact and not having to bug the user with a UAC prompt.
Simply go read more on the improved UAC security mechanisms in Vista, it is far more than the prompt dialog people see or the initial simple dectection systems for elevation. It is things like this that WORK AS WELL as they do, that people just don't realize they are in Vista and handling crap for them with no UI interaction.
Please give examples of actual spyware that is easily accessible or heavily promoted for OS/X.
I have never run into anything. On the other hand I don't go around promiscuously trying every new "free"/trail software version that happens to be mentioned either. But then that is stupid in the first place!
The only reference to a specific thing I can find is the infamous Sony Rootkit but despite the statement that it affected OS/x at the time I don't think it is a very good example of a current "stealth" spyware situation (which is the real problem).
I was hoping you were joking when I first read your post.
So you need to give up the 'secure' methologies you use, and just go wild and start clicking on the little ads and install the Safari 'enhancements' or Firefox 'plugins' and when you realize how much freaking spyware you are running, you can answer this question for yourself.
As for being careful, etc etc...
The same is true of Windows users. I have never installed a piece of freaking spyware nor had a Virus ever either.(And this isn't my first Rodeo either, since I've been online for over 20 years before www existed.) So does that mean Windows and the other OSes I use have always been Spyware and virus free as well? Probably not...:)
Right now it is just as hard to get spyware on a Vista PC as it is to get it on OS X. Both normally require some form of User approval for it to happen. Vista even has a bit of an edge here with the large drop of security releases for OS X in the last year that significantly out number Vista and XP security issues combined.
Spyware can be anything from unapproved data collection running on your computer and 'shareware' type applications that do a bit more than advertised to the user to full scale malicious software. The biggest problem with most Spyware (even on OS X) is that even if it is not hurting the user's computer or just reporting data or showing ads, it is often poorly written software that often causes problems with other applications. (Like crashing Safari, or even causing OS X to fail and restart because it depleated available RAM.)
Take Care, and enjoy OS X, but don't buy into the whole Windows is total crap and OS X has always been perfect thing. Neither OS has any room to talk down to each other.
Sorry.. I have to stop right there. It's bad enough having to deal with software for which you can't verify correctness or security, but each newer and fancier iteration of that software removes more and more control the end user has over something he or she has purchased.
Next time save yourself and others time and do read on.
Windows users have full control, in fact easier than some other OS distributions. The only control and monitoring is when Vista is running normally.
If you want to shred or change everything in Vista, just freaking boot into Vista WinPE v2.0, it is the NT kernel with a basic CLI and you can do anything to the OS your heart desires.
This is how people mod Windows, change core system files, add unsupported patches, or anything they want to do with NO RESTRICTIONS or anyone including MS looking over their shoulder.
Non-daily Windows users seem to forget, that even as a closed OS, the binaries are still freaking assembly, and people make changes to the Windows OS all the time. (From hacks to feature changes.)
Do all OSS people really think you can't fully modify or change EVERYTHING about Windows? It may require a bit of decompile and assembly skills, but people do it all the time.
(Want to enable Remote Desktop in XP or Vista Home, there is a patch somewhere, want to enable multi-user login abilities in any version of XP or Vista so you can have several users remoting into the same box via RDP like it was Windows Server (and even using freaking Glass remotely), the search for that mod as well.
Just because the 733t hackers of today want Open Source code to modify things, doesn't mean the REAL OLD developers aren't still modifying things like Windows every freaking day, and sometimes easier than re-writing Open Source Code due to the modularity of the NT/Windows architecture. (i.e. there is never a reason to recompile the NT kernel because it is not jammed full of crap and drivers, these are layerd out in kernel APIs. So someone that wants to make NTFS work differently can modify the according binary, and slip it into the installation, no kernel changes, no recompiling.)
I get SO SICK of the Windows is 'closed' and not changeable and big brother blah blah. Go look at Windows Embedded running in your freaking home routers now even, then tell me how BLOATED and unchangeable and/or non-modular it is.
(MS does provide source to NT for academic purposes, find a professor to request it for you if you need to see the freaking source.)
The fact that there's no root account on OS X by default means that Apple get the idea rather better than most Linux distros. Administrator != root.
Um, you are on the right track, but sadly OS X isn't doing the same thing here.
What you are referencing is how OS X sets up and uses SUDO with the initial account as the 'administrator' account to elevate to root. However, Linux and other *nixs also provide SUDO to do the same thing that OS X is doing, which allows them to also run without a root level account and elevate as needed.
Also like I mentioned, the SUDO implemenation in OS X is a bit whacked, as it just gives the OK, and there is monitoring, and no restrictions past that OK. The SUDO elevation also leaves the root account access active for a period of time after the application or user requires the elevation in the process.
Also root is just as alive in OS X as any other *nix, since it still is a user level account in OS X.
The only real good thing Apple does is disable root as a 'sign in' account.
Apple did allow System 9 apps to run before they phased out their PPC-based systems. The difference was one of approach: a special version of System 9 shipped on the OS X disks that ran "inside" OS X whenever a System 9 application was launched
Yes, this is called an emulator.
Windows on the other hand has never needed to resort to an emulation program to support legacy applications. Even NT 3.1 had a Windows 3.1 subsystem in the OS, just as Vista has a Win32 and Win64 subsystem that work side by side on Vista x64 with no emulation.
NT (Vista) also takes this approach past the 'Windows' world, as early versions of NT shipped with OS/2 and POSIX subsystems that were NOT EMULATORS but real subsystems running on the NT core.
This is something Darwin can't even begin to think of doing. The MACH/BSD (UNIX model) that Darwin uses is not condusive to concepts that are inherent abilities of the NT architecture.
(I thought about writing more in detail of this and the contrast to Darwin and other UNIX architectures, but I will not waste everyone's time with stuff they can look up.)
Today you see Vista has a full UNIX subsystem as well, support V5 and yes even full BSD. This subsystem, like the Win32 and Win64 subsystems all run along side each other on the NT kernel.
So ya, Microsoft could have created a sandbox emulator for Win9x or Even Win3.1 applications and told users to just get use to it like Apple did, instead they chose to implement it the best way possible, and with the NT Client/Server architecture, adding in subsystems instead of an Emulation environment was the best choice.
If Apple had to make System 9 apps run natively on Darwin, OS X might not still be released.
So obviously the solution is to teach users to click on Accept every time a box comes up. Because that's all that the Vista UAC has done, is train hundreds of thousands of users that when a box pops up, you hit accept to do what you were trying to do.
Oh I hate to write this post on SlashDot, but here goes...
Despite the ignorance or inherent hate around the UAC, it works well, and does what it is supposed to do. Sure users are still allowed to run as administrators, but with Vista the administrator level is no longer equivalent with root as it was in previous versions of Windows. Administrator is a power user that doesn't have to type root password for elevation, but doesn't inherently get upper level rights.
In Vista, root is a non-user level of security, which is a far more secure and elegant than good old root in *nix. Something with complete control should not be a user-wide available level of security in a modern OS. (This is an argument that needs to be taken to heart by *nix OS developers as well more far than it is.)
Note: In Vista, administrators can obtain root level elevation, and can do anything they want; however, it is conditional based on process or need and is also something that is controlled and logged by the OS. Users could also boot into WinPE 2.0 on Vista, which is a full NT CLI without the Win32/64 subsystems running and screw with whatever they want if they have physical access to the machine a install DVD.
Now...
The whole psychological argument is NO different than an OS X user saying, "Ya, I have to type in a password every time I do this or run this application." And then you watch them do this mindlessly while watching them authorize a piece of spyware. And then of course they then tell you how much more secure and cool OS X is because they had to type in a password. (And this is a freaking elevation to let OS X run the spyware they are having problems with, none the less.) Then comes when you are uncontrollably doing the obligatory *smacking head on table* and considering how to explain 'security' to them all the while have to de-program from the Apple commercials on TV and be the horrible person that tells them their beloved Apple tends to lie a little bit. Ok, recent incident, went a bit cathartic.)
Anyway, clicking 'Allow' and mindlessly typing in root are NO different in psychological terms of redundancy. OS X users are just as open to user engineered security problems. (I could say the same of other *nixes, but most of them get the important of root elevation.)
The argument could also be made that Vista does a better job with elevation prompts than OS X, as Vista doesn't allow the privilege to propagate or remain open as OS X does. OS X instead of just flat out allowing the process to do what it needs, goes the extra (lazy) step and leaves elevation open for a period of time past the required need. Which is a horribly bad idea.
Besides, there is no way to win on this if you are Microsoft.
Microsoft could have locked the UAC down harder, but enough people turn it off already, and people would bitch. Just like they bitch when NT security wasn't enforced for applications like in XP, compromising security, and now are bitching because their application was written by an idiot and never even looked at or consider the OS had security APIs.
With XP they considered locking down the applications, but in getting consumers to migrate from the Win9X world would have failed, as Win9x software was security ignorant. They made a 'bad' decision to allow the migration to be easier and push developers to start writing with Security in mind. The second part of this didn't happen, developers don't do crap if they don't have to.
The UAC:
1) Does force developers to FINALLY realize there is a security model to NT applications and code for them.
2) Is able to not only handle elevates, but is able to detect the request for elevation, which is far more important, not only for noticing security compromise a
This probably says more about your customers than anything else:
Ya, our little customers like EDS, GM, NASA, Lockheed, etc...
6 Million Java Developers Worldwide
These are Sun numbers based on downloads. Guess the % of active developers?
4 Million Total Java-enabled Blu Ray devices
Um, are you talking about BD-J by chance? This is a UI/Multimedia subset for Disc Menus and Content, not JAVA or a JAVA platform rather an adaptation. (Something Sun would have sued over just a few years ago.)
Ripped right from a Sun marketing Blog none the less, sweet. If we are using this as facts, then I could say Windows is the world's greatest OS, Linux is doomed, and OS X is a fad for people that don't understand computers. (I'll let you find the blogs that support all these insane claims as well.)
Wow, I would bet my programming future on the number of people that downloaded the JDK. Go look at VS and VS trial downloads from this last year alone and it makes the 6 Million JAVA developers look foolish to even try to purport as something 'impressive'. (Hell even be credible and compare it to the number of MSDN subscribers that PAY MONEY for full platform releases and development tools.)
By the end of CY 2007, About 85% of all mobile devices shipping will have Java technology in them (Ovum, May 2007)
Wow again. The name numbers are expected for Flash and even Silverlight. (Of course Silverlight is only a year old, how many years of optimizing has it taken to get a stable or competent JAVA VM?)
Let alone if you are looking to the future of development JAVA is dated, buggy, slow, BIG, and doesn't even start to touch new graphical programming constructs the world is moving to. (Hence the push for Flash and Silverlight on mobile devices.)
JAVA had a chance, that chance is fading fast. The graphical changes in just the last year alone have left dust on JAVA for many developers.
If you compare it to things like.NET w/WPF or even freaking Flash JAVA is slow and doesn't have a stable graphical core that can even compete to either.
It is like this: JAVA - cool you can make Duke Nukem type games for phones.
MS.NET - used to write parts of DirectX9.0c, an equally freaking managed language, but with performance JAVA couldn't dream of having.
MS.NET 3.x - WPF that can handle 2D graphics that PDFs and Illustrator itself can't understand in complexity, let alone provides a UI managed layer to DirectX.
SilverLight - WPF Light so to speak, that in 2.0 is hardware accelerated, runs on a.NET VM core, and runs circles around JAVA in performance, let alone features.
Real application development? Well you move to a real language like C or even freaking C# if you want to stay managed and in.NET.
As for.NET outside of Windows, look at Silverlight and then take a serious look at Mono if you think it is going anywhere. The Linux users using Mono as a crossplatform development solution is probably bigger than 6 Million downloads even. Geesh
And I could go on and on with freaking real world examples that a lot of people still haven't figured out, or haven't looked outside their basement window in the last couple of years to even understand. Do yourself a favor, do some Google searches on people that JAVA fell short and have already moved on.
Besides, quoting numbers is a bit silly. There are 1 Billion Windows installation, should we all just throw away our other OSes?
This is like the MASSIVE headlines about 1 million Mac users Switching to Windows in a Year
1) This is would not pertain to a new consumer player, nor a PC that can read any DVD format (Even PC DVD drives from 1998)
2) Disc Art is seldom used in collections, people are use to it.
The Disc that you may be refering to with the T2 limited Edition that was HD on DVD, and required a PC to play it. It used VC1 and fit on a standard Dual-Layer DVD. T2 Extreme I believe.
It is the very example of what Toshiba may be up to, as the full HD movie easily fit on a single side of the Dual Layer DVD, and extras including the regular DVD quality were on another DVD.
As for T2 being the first dual-layer movie DVD, I don't think it was. Dual-Layer DVDs have been around as long as DVDs. To my knowledge every early model consumer DVD player supports dual-layer DVDs, as this was part of the specification, since longer playing DVD Movies in MPEG2 cannot fit in 4.5gb of space, thus requiring dual layer DVDs from the begining.
It is only writers that were limited to single layer writing initially.
However, MS was one of the biggest JAVA proponents, even integrating the VM in their OS as soon as possible. So what did Sun gain in fighting over a 'technical' issue with the Windows VM version?
MS had no intention of 'polluting' JAVA, as they were not distributing JAVA for anything but Windows. As for the.core changes, it is worth noting that MS was trying to make JAVA even more of a contender as a real Windows Solution.
Sun got butt hurt over several other things, and used the 'technical' arguments to halt MS, and in the end got what they deserved. As other OSes, even OS X took the same license and liberties with JAVA, even modifying.core portions of JAVA for OS optimizations. Microsoft is the only company that got sued though.
At the time Sun was pissed that Microsoft's push forward with JAVA was ahead of what Sun was doing with JAVA. Sun also wanted to pull back MS to maintain the OS distribution binaries for JAVA, and eliminate the MS VM.
The fact that the MS VM was the first to have runtime optimizations that allowed the MS VM to run over 10x faster than the Sun VM didn't help matters, as it gave the Sun JAVA team a bit of egg on their face. Even to this day, the MS VM still out benchmarks the Sun VM binaries, which is horribly sad.
In a recent internal study our company produced, it was found that less than 10% of Windows installations included any form of JAVA VM, and almost 1/2 of these were still running the MS VM..NET 3.0 has a larger install base in the Windows world than JAVA, and this is not even including Vista, where it is installed by default (And that is 100 million installations in addition)
Real development teams hardly pays attention to JAVA unless they have a specific cross platform need that JAVA is the quick and dirty solution..NET took the place of JAVA development for Windows applications, and even as Mono moves forward, many Linux developers are already considering.NET as a viable platform. This will explode as the.NET 3.0 features get outside of the Vista world with 3.5, since not only do you get what Sun promised 11 years ago, but features that are not currently part of any other development paradigm.
Sun screwed themselves, plain and simple, and JAVA still hasn't met the expectations or promises given to the IT community from the mid 90s. We are still waiting on a VM that works consistency across plaforms, has inherent managed security, and can perform faster than a snail in a pile of salt.
So you are correct about the technical/legal angle Sun used to sue Microsoft, but the reasons behind it is something you are not explaining, nor the ramifications of what Sun did, and even internally admits was the worst corporate decision affecting JAVA they ever made.
Having the core Java packages unpolluted is important for making it simple to ensure your application is run anywhere. (Well, except for bugs in native libraries or JVM.) To undo the damage, Sun ended up having to create the 100% Pure Java campaign with a program to check for core extensions.
This was NOT a result of the MS suit, but a track Sun was already starting before they tried to reel MS in initially. They wanted full control, and also wanted the optimization code MS wrote for the MS VM, when MS went WTF, Sun sued them. PERIOD. (Notice other companies 'polluting' the core with the same license MS had didn't get sued, as they had little Sun wanted back.)
1) MS demostrated HD VC1 content on regular DVDs over 4 years ago, then explaining that there was no need for higher density discs for HD content.
2) Blu-Ray may not be the winner we all seem to think, Sony jumping prices when HD-DVD pulled the plug wasn't something most of the Movie industry was too happy about.
3) Online HD content is ready, working, faster than going to Video Store. In terms of rental content Online distribution will be the leading HD source (As it already is, see XBox Live, etc) (VHS Rentals along with fitting a 2HR Movie on the tape is specifically what killed BetaMax)
4) Ownership of HD content is the only area that Blu-Ray has a chance, and even then most videophiles break and rip the content to HD servers - hence online distribution being the natural progression of even online purchased HD content in the upcoming year.
So if Toshiba's plan is to introduce a DVD player than can decode VC1 HD content natively, it would be a serious contender to Blu-Ray, especially since PCs could easily use the content as well with 10 year old DVD players.
The 'selling point' of HD-DVD and Blu-Ray was not the extra capacity for the movies but the room for additional interactive content, which Blu-Ray had crap support for initially and is only now catching up to the maturity HD-DVD had at launch. If a Toshiba DVD could offer the Movie on a DVD in HD format, and do the usually 'extras' DVD for additional content, this would fit the current DVD model of distribution and be cheaper than Blu-Ray for distribution.
So this could fly and circumvent the still less than adapted Blu-Ray market, especially if the Toshiba VC1/MPEG4 HD DVDs have less DRM.
And the extra Blu-Ray DRM is what MS opposed and fought for Sony to remove, forcing MS to support HD-DVD which had less DRM for things like off Media playing, etc. -Ironically on SlashDot as much as people hate DRM, the same people seem to love Blu-Ray and hate MS, when it was MS that took a stand against Blu-Ray DRM for consumer interests. (MS forsees Video Distribution Servers in homes as standard, just as Audio CD are already ripped and distributed. MS PlaysForSure and Zune DRM even allows for computer to computer or device streaming inherently, even if the local device doesn't have the DRM rights, but the serving Computer does. This is how you can play Napster or other DRM content on XBox or Vista or via WMP11 on XP from any computer on your network, even if only one computer has the DRM subscription.)
The irony level in this situation is simply astounding. Secondary attack can cause execution of said downloaded binaries? What about all that malicious content that Internet Exploiter happily executes for the user with nary a warning or confirmation?
So it has been 5 or more years since you have used Windows or IE uh? IE has blocked ActiveX and any other local execution for a long time. (Notice there haven't been rampant IE attacks using local execution in a long long time.)
Currently the most secure way to browse the Internet is IE on Vista, as it runs with lower than user permissions(Protected Mode), so even if a exploit did manifest, it can't even touch user files/folders. (And yes I know this will make 99% of SlashDot cringe or go WTF, but it is sadly true.)
You shouldn't comment on crap you apparently don't understand.
It specifically allows someone like Microsoft to rape it - BECAUSE IT LACKS SO MANY STANDARD FORMAT implementations...
Microsoft will turn ODF into a virtual equivalent of OOXML (think ODF/MS) if it is the standard. Ink content ODF/MS format, Voice tagging OSF/MS format, etc etc etc...
So again to read any non ODF written standard, MS will write it and you will still be using MS specifications in the long run.
Do more research, Sony and other companies have offered 'full' Windows based PCs that are 'faster' and smaller than the freaking Airbook.
Don't believe Apple Marketing, there is a reason the UK makes them rip their ads off of TV.
UMPCs have been around for years, are full XP and Vista computers, there are even handheld Linux and Windows and EVEN Vista PCs that are as powerful, battery efficient, and even have more features than a freaking Airbook.
Next go look up light TabletPCs, there are SEVERAL that are 'close' to the airbook in size, but have faster processors, better video (non-intel crap) and are running Vista in industries that use handrecognition technologies, which is something a freaking Mac can't even begin to freaking compare to.
If you want to go look at one site and compare one model, then you will find what YOU are looking for, and Sony is EXPENSIVE in the PC world. Go over the EnGadget and look at the numerous Airbook class computers that slam Airbooks in price, performance, and even Size...
What pisses me off, it is people like you that when the UMPCs came out a few years ago, said they were worthless cause they were too limited or small, and now that Apple is trying to enter the lightweight market, you are the first to champion how BRILLIANT the concept is because fucking Apple told you how awesome they are.
There is such a disconnect between Apple marketing, and the people that listen to their crap, and the real computing world it is insane to have to listen to stupid Mac locked users try to justify anything Apple does or creates.
Real tech people look at Apple, and go, oh, nice, been there done that several years ago, nice they are catching up....
(This is where I could go into a rant about iPhones as well, and sadly I can still press the button on my wireless bluetooth and say 'dial John Smith' or 'dial 800 555 1212' and it just freaking works, and is sadly a foreign concept to iPhone users that have to fumble with the freaking screen to just make a phone call. But hey, motorola and Windows mobile phones only have been doing this for 4 years or so, Apple will eventually catch up as well. -And yes the multi-touch UI on the iPhone is a rip off from the TED presentation a few years ago, google it, then google how long Windows Mobile phones have had touch screens, and notice how many years behind Apple is on even that basic concept. Oh, and we can write notes on Windows Mobile Phones too, and it will recognize our handwriting.)
While you're at it, check out the difference between LED backlights and OLED screens.
You are right, I shouldn't have lumped OLEDs and LED backlighted displays into the same category, as it seems to CONFUSE Fanbois.
OLEDs and backlight LED LCDs are not the exact same technology...
HOWEVER,THEY HAVE THE SAME PROBLEMS. PERIOD.
Just as true OLED based screens (and there are very few) suffer from long term usage degredation, so do LED backlight LCD displays.
LED Backlight LCDs have a hard time with uniformity, and this becomes even more pronounced over time. Even 1,000 hours of usage will displace and reduce fidelity and brightness by 20%.
This is LESS than six months usage.
Additionally, LED backlights have mulitple R/G/B for each point, meaning that to maintain a consistent level or white at any LCD pixel point is troublesome, and with time becomes a major problem with LED backlight displays. (And again this is LED backlight displays like in the Airbook, not non-LCD OLED displays.)
They do save power, but at what cost?
All display technologys degrade after time, but mainstream LCD backlight technologies like CCFL or other newer methods have some trouble with bleeding and loss of uniformity, but this starts to occur at the 20,000 hour usage, not a freaking 1,000 hrs. (Most rear projectors hold consistent lighting for more than 1,000hrs, and they are hard core.)
So again I will RESTATE for the slow fanbois, LED 'lightsources' lose 20% in the first 1,000 hours. This is the problem with full OLED based displays
PERIOD.
So the freaking backlight is going to dim... Enjoy that dimming effect, and the color shifting around the screen... (The joys of locking yourself into Marketing instead of real technology, - ah the life of a Mac fanboi.)
Have these people ever actually tried to use them to handle a small database?). I'd rather have a root canal without anesthetic than use Access for a small job. Excel is loaded with whacky "features" that will lie in wait and trash your database unexpectedly.
You are talking about the 'Application Interfaces' to the file formats and data, so I am going to assume this topic is over your head.
Go do a bit of Cobol, or even learn to use a quick XML parser if you want to be 'cutting' edge.
If you are 'Opening Access' to manage data for a simple table to keep data, you really need to start back at the basics. Literally a 10 line Pascal application can do this in a Flat format, or as I suggested, use a freaking script (especially in an OS like Vista where scripting is the most advanced OS level scripting interface ever designed) that can access a simple text file, CSV, whatever, or even store the simple flat table on the corporate SQL server, and again, you are looking at 5 - 10 lines of scripting code.
This reminds me of a few weeks ago a friend of a friend was writing a massive interface to do scanning and printing from his multi-function device, because he wanted it automated. He literally had invested weeks into the project, and I show him less than 30 lines of Windows Script that tapped WIA, and not only did what he wanted, but OCRed the documents and filed them automatically, and he could print them with a simple drag and drop or click start and typing Print DocumentXYZ from the Vista start menu. And Vista already automates this stuff to Granny level of usage already, so this was a slick conditional script that would let him drop crap in his scanner and walk away.
Sadly he thought I was a god, when it was somethinghe should have learned a long time ago. I wonder sometimes how people get around when simple things became big projects. And usually these are my OSS friends that are reinventing the wheel, when there are libraries and OS level APIs to do exactly what they need if they had even done a freaking Google search.
If ANYONE is using Windows, especailly Vista, go read up on Windows Scripting. It does so much itis sometimes mind blowing for average developers/IT people. (Also Vista users check out Start++, it is a novel concept of using the search integration in Vista so you can give serach or sub searches commands like [play elton john] and the computer just handles it and music starts playing.)
My favorite was a user who tried to cut and paste a ZIP code field only to find that Excel had thoughtfully incremented each and every ZIP code that was the same as the row above it by one... starting from the bottom of the paste area. i.e a bunch of 05452 fields now read 05452, 05453, 05454
Again this is something,a simple question in Excel help would have fixed for the user,but Help seems so hard to click on for people. There are tons of paste,and transfer concepts in excel, and if someone is leaving the zipcode column data as 'values' they should be slapped up side the head. They are strings.
The 'bizarre' Excel and CSV problems border from myth and poor formatted files to users that can't work the import wizard. These are NOT excel issues.
Again, has nobody ever read about relation databases? Does data modeling and normalization seem like god like concepts? I don't except your end user to 'get this stuff' but any IT person should be able to talk 4th & 5th normal form without blinking an eye, let alone freaking data structures that I usually teach in Week one of 101 classes.
your graphics designers are tards...video cards have almost no effect on 2d graphic programs
Really, oh, that is right, on OS X, 2D Acceleration doesn't even happen on Video, and turningon GPU rendering for legacy 2D drawing crashed too much in tiger, so even leopard never was able to enable it.
Windows it does make a difference, as there are 2D accelerated and 3D accelerated portions of Video cards, and Windows uses both. XP is the 2D world.
Oh, did I mention most 'real' graphic designers usually do work in some form of 3D environment? So even on OS X, using a 3D drawing/rendering application would use the 3D GPU.
Your statement here shows you are more 'tarded' than you think my graphic designers are.
Besides the fact there are graphic designers (yes in my company) that work almost entirely in 3d environments and rendering, stressing a video to its limits so they don't have to work in wireframe like they 'use to have to do on OS X'...
You also do realize that Vista uses the 3D GPU to shove even legacy GDI+ (Windows equivalent to Display PDF) through the GPU to speed up rendering, and also for compressing and processing bitmaps and even drawing anti-aliased fonts on the GPU?
(I know these are advanced concepts to a 'MAC PERSON', but in the real world, this is how things really works. - Especially since OS X's IDEA of using a GPU is to draw textures on a surface for composing, and THAT IS VIRTUALLY IT, even in freaking leopard. For real 3D you have to abandon the Apple Aqua, and move to OpenGL, sadly.) Geesh, and with such sad arrogrance. What a fool you are. You should go punch your Mac guru in the face that lied and taught you this ignorant crap about Windows vs OSX.)
Hmmm my 8 core 16 GB- low end computer - is quite insulted
And how does that stock ATI Radeon that is 1/4 the speed of high end graphics cards feel about my statement?
And the dude is lierally typing this above statement to me on Leopard OS X, a 32BIT FREAKING kernel, that only 'allows' 64bit addressing, but doesn't use it internally. Wow. That rocks dude.
Maybe when you grow up, you can get an OS that is really 64bits, and takes advantage of the 64bit features at the kernel and OS level, like managing the 64bit paging tables, and 64bit registers, etc. Oh, wait, better stop, afraid this is over your head. (Hint Google this, THIS IS WHY OSX USES 32BIT DRIVERS STILL!!!)
PS. You'll LOVE that 16gb of RAM when Adobe releases the next version of its software in 32bit for OS X. It will sit there for nothing. However, Vista x64 users will be using a real 64bit OS and get real 64bit versions of Adobe software, and slam it with 128gb of RAM and let the applications freaking fly.
You have heard of Adobe, right? It tends to be somewhat important to even small time graphic designers.
Show me a single one of your notebooks that runs rings round the MacBook is less than an inch thick and 13" across
UMPC or a Sony?
Does Apple really convince people like you so easily that they provide the best hardware too?
Holy freaking cow...
How about one that is close in size that you can write on and it actually recognizes what you write unlike the horrid handwriting in OSX? You know, like 5 yr old TabletPCs? (Youtube search the handwriting difference between TabletPC/Vista and OSX, it is really sad.)
And yes these are small lightweight FULL FEATURED computers.
Geesh.
Get back to me in a year when that AirBook screen has lost 20% of its brightness. Yes it will happen, so enjoy your screen while you can. (Google it)
Is it just me, or have people completely gone nuts?
How about a freaking text file, CSV? Cobol even? XML even?
If you just need a FLAT DB, meaning more than a 'format' and an 'interface' then freaking even make your own, write a few lines in Pascal.
Heck, on Vista you could write an application using the Windows scripting built in, and in like 5-10 lines to do everything you want, and stuff the data in every format ODBC can talk to from XML, CSV, to even MDB formats.
(OS level scripting today is not like the old *nix or DOS/bat world. They are extremely rich platforms on their own using common language syntax from JScript,VBScript,C#,etc..)
Holy scary cow. What do people think we did before dDase, Oracle, Access, etc for small localized non-relational data storage?
I swear SlashDot has gone to the script kiddies, or should I say, the unable to script kiddies.
Price does not equal high-end. Considering you can't even buy a Mac or Macbook with what is the current technology high-end, this is more than a bit misleading.
Show me a Macbook with a 7950GTX let alone a 8800M video Card, or god forbid, an SLI video notebook. We still have OLD 2005 notebooks with 1920x1200 17" displays that runs circles around Macbooks, and even most Mac Desktops. And this is really sad... (Our graphic designers run from Mac Hardware for these reasons alone)
Even the desktop models are medium range technology, and to get high-end performance, you have to replace Video at the minimum as well.
(And this doesn't even touch the horrid Apple LCDs in notebooks, especially the newly beloved OLED notbooks that tests show lose 20% of their color fidelity within six months of usage (1000 hours).)
For overpriced computers, Apple has more suckers... As for 'high-end' computing Apple doesn't even make a high end computer.
Great for Linux, but what about the other 20 floating kernel technologies in use.
Linux is NOT the end all be all for kernels. It does what it does well or OK, but had very little long term design as it was basically going from past concepts already in use.
This is why we are seeing problems with granularity, getting to realtime, and other things that are not only working well but easy for some kernel architectures to deal with and adapt to, like the NT kernel for example.
If we were all discussing this stuff, then this isn't stuff people would be ignorant of, and less OS worship would occur. Especially in the OSS world, where semi-mainstream variants become the flavors used and many aspects could be improved on. The hard lock in Linux and the legacy code that is buried in Linux is a very big example of this and why even SlashDot readers should be somewhat knowledgeable on the subject. Linux is not well structure code, nor agile, and this is OSS and it should be more agile than NT, and sadly has a more restrictive endpoint of progession because so few people know so little about the deep layers of Linux and the actual code or methods it uses.
There are virtually no comprehensive sites dedicated to exploring kernel architecture past basic features or concepts, we need more people paying attention to the code and internal structuring as well. And this can include Solaris, and NT even, as any of us can obtain academic source access to the base NT kernel without any subsystems. (Just like MinWin or Win7 as some idiots tried to call it.)
Although it probably seems foreign to most of us here, mouse hand-eye coordination is not automatic.
And for new users or even new users at a business, our IT people encourage people to start with something like solitaire and just let people goof off until it becomes automatic. (Notice the stores or businesses that have mouse driven software and the users take FOREVER to move the cursor on screen to make selections. Giving them a week of play time on something like Soitaire would increase their productivity in the long run, and reduce customer frustration. (Not that I recommend a Mouse UI for checkstands or small business invoicing, but there is a lot of crap software out there in specific industries that rely on it.
It is also a good tool for users moving to touch pads, pens, thumbsticks, etc as it is simple, mindless and yet lets people master the abstract motor neural control of input devices.
Everytime we have a proficient tech that 'hates' an input device, our policies are to make them use that input device, at least for stuff like solitaire if not general work until it becomes second nature. Especially if the tech is ever going to be using it in public or assisting corporate clients where the device might be widely used. (Touchpads and Thumbsticks being #1 on this list.)
Slashdot Mirror
You have obviously drank the kool-aid. Good luck with that. Try to avoid going over the top so much, though.
Not blindly loving and supporting JAVA is drinking kool-aid?
Have another cup, they say the second dose makes JAVA even more cool.
*hands civilizedINTENSITY another glass of Java laced Kool-Aid*
Geesh...
No, I am not. OS X doesn't have the root account enabled by default, i.e. there is no root user to log into. SUDO-s gives root _privileges_, but it doesn't enable the root account.
Yes you are. The fact that SUDO hands off elevation to a USER LEVEL root account is exactly what I am talking about. There is no USER LEVEL root account in Vista. PERIOD.
OS X users can even enable the root USER LEVEL account, and use it to login. There is NO SUCH USER LEVEL account type in Vista, even if you wanted to enable it.
I would assumed you'd know that's standard SUDO behaviour on all systems that ship with it. The default timeout after invoking SUDO is 5 minutes, i.e. root privileges will remain active for 5 minutes after SUDO is invoked.
Yes, but SUDO is not used on all OSes, so making a general statement would be silly.
The fact that OS X by default leaves ROOT OPEN for ANY AMOUNT of TIME, rather than based on SINGLE process request is the security hole. Vista does not leave elevation open for a time period, as it processes security far more granular than ANY UNIX, including OS X. This means Vista gives SPECIFIC TOKEN based permission to the process elevation request, and NOTHING is left open.
The whole security model between NT and *nix is too complicated to get into here, but NT (even though badly enforced in XP) is significantly more robust and controlled. It is truly an object based token security system.
All of those subsystems break a large number of legacy applications, including some from MS
No they don't. The only subsystem that was put in place for backwards abilities was the Win16 (Windows 3.1) subsystem, and it hasn't broke applications for 15 years, and even then the only applications that were broken demanded to install hardware level access that is forbidden in NT.
It would be more correct to say that they didn't use one. The spotty legacy support in Windows XP and Vista does however indicate that they'd probably have been far better off doing what Apple did and shipping a modified version of Win98 to run legacy apps inside XP/Vista instead of using the approach of trying to fold all the bugs from previous versions into new ones without achieving full legacy compatibility.
You really are far off on this, first I need to explain it, and then correct what you are saying.
The subsystem in Vista for example have all been ADDED FOR ADDITIONAL functionality. They didn't break anything. Adding in the Win64 subsystem and straping the Win32 subsystem on Vista x64 added features, and DIDN'T break anything. The only exception would be an application that has a 32bit driver, or tries to tie under the subsystem in the NT core itself. And these have nothing to do with a subsystem.
Here is a simple test for you mind. Microsoft literally took the BSD APIs (UNIX) and created a simple subsystem for it that runs natively on the NT kernel along side Win32/Win64. It is a full BSD implementation, and even uses standard BSD API calls. Since it is running in an NT subysystem it thinks its BSD kernel level calls are going to directly to the computer kernel, when in fact they are going to the subsystem kernel that is sending API calls down to the NT kernel. (Ok that is probably too complicated.)
How about this, get back to me when Apple or any UNIX kernel technology can add a non-virtualized, non-emulated, Windows (Win32) layer that runs along side the main OS layer and talks natively to the kernel, and runs applications flawlessly. So when Apple offers Win32 or Windows SITTING ON TOP OF DARWIN running natively give me a call, because I want to see hell freeze over as it is impossible for Darwin to do this.
NT Subsystems are OS layers they are not virtualization, not VMWare, not WINE (API translation), and are not emulations/emulators.
They are equal subsystem layers sitting on the core NT architecture.
For as simple and elegant as the NT kernel architecture is, it is amazing that people just don'
That's just plain wrong. A "legacy" app written for XP does NOT do any elevation requests and therefore will NOT run on Vista. It will just silently fail. The only exceptions are files that have the keyword "Setup" in their filenames. These files get UAC prompts automatically when the user tries to run them.
Ok, there are two parts to this, and you are incorrect because you are limiting the definition of UAC.
There is the UAC that works from Setup detection, there is also inherent ShellExecute monitoring that will establish the need for elevated privledges. (Some applicaitons can mark themselves from the compatibility tab, a manifest, or even Vista will recognize known software issues and needs.)
The other part of the UAC is the part you DON'T see, and this is the extensive virtualization it offers to legacy applications so they DON'T FAIL.
What happens with legacy applications, if they are writing configuration, user data, accessing restricted Registry areas, etc. UAC steps in virtualizes these actions, and writes this information to a local user area instead of a System Area for example.
Test this yourself, write a quick Application that saves data in the Program Files area, and run it without elevated priviledges, it will run fine, and the data written will be virtualized to a User data area instead.
I have a pet program I wrote years ago in Delphi that demostrates this exactly, as I kept system level configuration data in the Program's folder. Under Vista it runs perfectly, but the data is instead stored in the virtualized Program Files area.
This happens on many levels, and can not only allow older applications to run flawlessly, with the side of effect of keeping security fully intact and not having to bug the user with a UAC prompt.
Simply go read more on the improved UAC security mechanisms in Vista, it is far more than the prompt dialog people see or the initial simple dectection systems for elevation. It is things like this that WORK AS WELL as they do, that people just don't realize they are in Vista and handling crap for them with no UI interaction.
Spyware, what Spyware (i.e. Mac OS/X)
:)
Please give examples of actual spyware that is easily accessible or heavily promoted for OS/X.
I have never run into anything.
On the other hand I don't go around promiscuously trying every new "free"/trail software version that happens to be mentioned either. But then that is stupid in the first place!
The only reference to a specific thing I can find is the infamous Sony Rootkit but despite the statement that it affected OS/x at the time I don't think it is a very good example of a current "stealth" spyware situation (which is the real problem).
I was hoping you were joking when I first read your post.
So you need to give up the 'secure' methologies you use, and just go wild and start clicking on the little ads and install the Safari 'enhancements' or Firefox 'plugins' and when you realize how much freaking spyware you are running, you can answer this question for yourself.
As for being careful, etc etc...
The same is true of Windows users. I have never installed a piece of freaking spyware nor had a Virus ever either.(And this isn't my first Rodeo either, since I've been online for over 20 years before www existed.) So does that mean Windows and the other OSes I use have always been Spyware and virus free as well? Probably not...
Right now it is just as hard to get spyware on a Vista PC as it is to get it on OS X. Both normally require some form of User approval for it to happen. Vista even has a bit of an edge here with the large drop of security releases for OS X in the last year that significantly out number Vista and XP security issues combined.
Spyware can be anything from unapproved data collection running on your computer and 'shareware' type applications that do a bit more than advertised to the user to full scale malicious software. The biggest problem with most Spyware (even on OS X) is that even if it is not hurting the user's computer or just reporting data or showing ads, it is often poorly written software that often causes problems with other applications. (Like crashing Safari, or even causing OS X to fail and restart because it depleated available RAM.)
Take Care, and enjoy OS X, but don't buy into the whole Windows is total crap and OS X has always been perfect thing. Neither OS has any room to talk down to each other.
Sorry.. I have to stop right there. It's bad enough having to deal with software for which you can't verify correctness or security, but each newer and fancier iteration of that software removes more and more control the end user has over something he or she has purchased.
Next time save yourself and others time and do read on.
Windows users have full control, in fact easier than some other OS distributions. The only control and monitoring is when Vista is running normally.
If you want to shred or change everything in Vista, just freaking boot into Vista WinPE v2.0, it is the NT kernel with a basic CLI and you can do anything to the OS your heart desires.
This is how people mod Windows, change core system files, add unsupported patches, or anything they want to do with NO RESTRICTIONS or anyone including MS looking over their shoulder.
Non-daily Windows users seem to forget, that even as a closed OS, the binaries are still freaking assembly, and people make changes to the Windows OS all the time. (From hacks to feature changes.)
Do all OSS people really think you can't fully modify or change EVERYTHING about Windows? It may require a bit of decompile and assembly skills, but people do it all the time.
(Want to enable Remote Desktop in XP or Vista Home, there is a patch somewhere, want to enable multi-user login abilities in any version of XP or Vista so you can have several users remoting into the same box via RDP like it was Windows Server (and even using freaking Glass remotely), the search for that mod as well.
Just because the 733t hackers of today want Open Source code to modify things, doesn't mean the REAL OLD developers aren't still modifying things like Windows every freaking day, and sometimes easier than re-writing Open Source Code due to the modularity of the NT/Windows architecture. (i.e. there is never a reason to recompile the NT kernel because it is not jammed full of crap and drivers, these are layerd out in kernel APIs. So someone that wants to make NTFS work differently can modify the according binary, and slip it into the installation, no kernel changes, no recompiling.)
I get SO SICK of the Windows is 'closed' and not changeable and big brother blah blah. Go look at Windows Embedded running in your freaking home routers now even, then tell me how BLOATED and unchangeable and/or non-modular it is.
(MS does provide source to NT for academic purposes, find a professor to request it for you if you need to see the freaking source.)
GEESH...
The fact that there's no root account on OS X by default means that Apple get the idea rather better than most Linux distros. Administrator != root.
Um, you are on the right track, but sadly OS X isn't doing the same thing here.
What you are referencing is how OS X sets up and uses SUDO with the initial account as the 'administrator' account to elevate to root. However, Linux and other *nixs also provide SUDO to do the same thing that OS X is doing, which allows them to also run without a root level account and elevate as needed.
Also like I mentioned, the SUDO implemenation in OS X is a bit whacked, as it just gives the OK, and there is monitoring, and no restrictions past that OK. The SUDO elevation also leaves the root account access active for a period of time after the application or user requires the elevation in the process.
Also root is just as alive in OS X as any other *nix, since it still is a user level account in OS X.
The only real good thing Apple does is disable root as a 'sign in' account.
Apple did allow System 9 apps to run before they phased out their PPC-based systems. The difference was one of approach: a special version of System 9 shipped on the OS X disks that ran "inside" OS X whenever a System 9 application was launched
Yes, this is called an emulator.
Windows on the other hand has never needed to resort to an emulation program to support legacy applications. Even NT 3.1 had a Windows 3.1 subsystem in the OS, just as Vista has a Win32 and Win64 subsystem that work side by side on Vista x64 with no emulation.
NT (Vista) also takes this approach past the 'Windows' world, as early versions of NT shipped with OS/2 and POSIX subsystems that were NOT EMULATORS but real subsystems running on the NT core.
This is something Darwin can't even begin to think of doing. The MACH/BSD (UNIX model) that Darwin uses is not condusive to concepts that are inherent abilities of the NT architecture.
(I thought about writing more in detail of this and the contrast to Darwin and other UNIX architectures, but I will not waste everyone's time with stuff they can look up.)
Today you see Vista has a full UNIX subsystem as well, support V5 and yes even full BSD. This subsystem, like the Win32 and Win64 subsystems all run along side each other on the NT kernel.
So ya, Microsoft could have created a sandbox emulator for Win9x or Even Win3.1 applications and told users to just get use to it like Apple did, instead they chose to implement it the best way possible, and with the NT Client/Server architecture, adding in subsystems instead of an Emulation environment was the best choice.
If Apple had to make System 9 apps run natively on Darwin, OS X might not still be released.
So obviously the solution is to teach users to click on Accept every time a box comes up. Because that's all that the Vista UAC has done, is train hundreds of thousands of users that when a box pops up, you hit accept to do what you were trying to do.
Oh I hate to write this post on SlashDot, but here goes...
Despite the ignorance or inherent hate around the UAC, it works well, and does what it is supposed to do. Sure users are still allowed to run as administrators, but with Vista the administrator level is no longer equivalent with root as it was in previous versions of Windows. Administrator is a power user that doesn't have to type root password for elevation, but doesn't inherently get upper level rights.
In Vista, root is a non-user level of security, which is a far more secure and elegant than good old root in *nix. Something with complete control should not be a user-wide available level of security in a modern OS. (This is an argument that needs to be taken to heart by *nix OS developers as well more far than it is.)
Note: In Vista, administrators can obtain root level elevation, and can do anything they want; however, it is conditional based on process or need and is also something that is controlled and logged by the OS. Users could also boot into WinPE 2.0 on Vista, which is a full NT CLI without the Win32/64 subsystems running and screw with whatever they want if they have physical access to the machine a install DVD.
Now...
The whole psychological argument is NO different than an OS X user saying, "Ya, I have to type in a password every time I do this or run this application." And then you watch them do this mindlessly while watching them authorize a piece of spyware. And then of course they then tell you how much more secure and cool OS X is because they had to type in a password. (And this is a freaking elevation to let OS X run the spyware they are having problems with, none the less.) Then comes when you are uncontrollably doing the obligatory *smacking head on table* and considering how to explain 'security' to them all the while have to de-program from the Apple commercials on TV and be the horrible person that tells them their beloved Apple tends to lie a little bit. Ok, recent incident, went a bit cathartic.)
Anyway, clicking 'Allow' and mindlessly typing in root are NO different in psychological terms of redundancy. OS X users are just as open to user engineered security problems. (I could say the same of other *nixes, but most of them get the important of root elevation.)
The argument could also be made that Vista does a better job with elevation prompts than OS X, as Vista doesn't allow the privilege to propagate or remain open as OS X does. OS X instead of just flat out allowing the process to do what it needs, goes the extra (lazy) step and leaves elevation open for a period of time past the required need. Which is a horribly bad idea.
Besides, there is no way to win on this if you are Microsoft.
Microsoft could have locked the UAC down harder, but enough people turn it off already, and people would bitch. Just like they bitch when NT security wasn't enforced for applications like in XP, compromising security, and now are bitching because their application was written by an idiot and never even looked at or consider the OS had security APIs.
With XP they considered locking down the applications, but in getting consumers to migrate from the Win9X world would have failed, as Win9x software was security ignorant. They made a 'bad' decision to allow the migration to be easier and push developers to start writing with Security in mind. The second part of this didn't happen, developers don't do crap if they don't have to.
The UAC:
1) Does force developers to FINALLY realize there is a security model to NT applications and code for them.
2) Is able to not only handle elevates, but is able to detect the request for elevation, which is far more important, not only for noticing security compromise a
This probably says more about your customers than anything else:
.NET w/WPF or even freaking Flash JAVA is slow and doesn't have a stable graphical core that can even compete to either.
.NET - used to write parts of DirectX9.0c, an equally freaking managed language, but with performance JAVA couldn't dream of having.
.NET 3.x - WPF that can handle 2D graphics that PDFs and Illustrator itself can't understand in complexity, let alone provides a UI managed layer to DirectX.
.NET VM core, and runs circles around JAVA in performance, let alone features.
.NET.
.NET outside of Windows, look at Silverlight and then take a serious look at Mono if you think it is going anywhere. The Linux users using Mono as a crossplatform development solution is probably bigger than 6 Million downloads even. Geesh
Ya, our little customers like EDS, GM, NASA, Lockheed, etc...
6 Million Java Developers Worldwide
These are Sun numbers based on downloads. Guess the % of active developers?
4 Million Total Java-enabled Blu Ray devices
Um, are you talking about BD-J by chance? This is a UI/Multimedia subset for Disc Menus and Content, not JAVA or a JAVA platform rather an adaptation. (Something Sun would have sued over just a few years ago.)
800 Million Total Java Desktops
7 Million Total Java enabled set-top boxes
4 Million Total Java-enabled Blu Ray devices
436,000,000 JRE downloads br>
8,750,000 Total Java SDK downloads -(SE, EE, ME)
6,300,000 Java SE JDK downloads
720,000 Java SE JDK downloads/month
Ripped right from a Sun marketing Blog none the less, sweet. If we are using this as facts, then I could say Windows is the world's greatest OS, Linux is doomed, and OS X is a fad for people that don't understand computers. (I'll let you find the blogs that support all these insane claims as well.)
Wow, I would bet my programming future on the number of people that downloaded the JDK. Go look at VS and VS trial downloads from this last year alone and it makes the 6 Million JAVA developers look foolish to even try to purport as something 'impressive'. (Hell even be credible and compare it to the number of MSDN subscribers that PAY MONEY for full platform releases and development tools.)
By the end of CY 2007, About 85% of all mobile devices shipping will have Java technology in them (Ovum, May 2007)
Wow again. The name numbers are expected for Flash and even Silverlight. (Of course Silverlight is only a year old, how many years of optimizing has it taken to get a stable or competent JAVA VM?)
Let alone if you are looking to the future of development JAVA is dated, buggy, slow, BIG, and doesn't even start to touch new graphical programming constructs the world is moving to. (Hence the push for Flash and Silverlight on mobile devices.)
JAVA had a chance, that chance is fading fast. The graphical changes in just the last year alone have left dust on JAVA for many developers.
If you compare it to things like
It is like this:
JAVA - cool you can make Duke Nukem type games for phones.
MS
MS
SilverLight - WPF Light so to speak, that in 2.0 is hardware accelerated, runs on a
Real application development? Well you move to a real language like C or even freaking C# if you want to stay managed and in
As for
And I could go on and on with freaking real world examples that a lot of people still haven't figured out, or haven't looked outside their basement window in the last couple of years to even understand. Do yourself a favor, do some Google searches on people that JAVA fell short and have already moved on.
Besides, quoting numbers is a bit silly. There are 1 Billion Windows installation, should we all just throw away our other OSes?
This is like the MASSIVE headlines about 1 million Mac users Switching to Windows in a Year
Geesh, the Sun developers are still so bitter... (And apparently horny)
1: Older players couldn't deal with it.
2: NO DISC ART!
1) This is would not pertain to a new consumer player, nor a PC that can read any DVD format (Even PC DVD drives from 1998)
2) Disc Art is seldom used in collections, people are use to it.
The Disc that you may be refering to with the T2 limited Edition that was HD on DVD, and required a PC to play it. It used VC1 and fit on a standard Dual-Layer DVD. T2 Extreme I believe.
It is the very example of what Toshiba may be up to, as the full HD movie easily fit on a single side of the Dual Layer DVD, and extras including the regular DVD quality were on another DVD.
As for T2 being the first dual-layer movie DVD, I don't think it was. Dual-Layer DVDs have been around as long as DVDs. To my knowledge every early model consumer DVD player supports dual-layer DVDs, as this was part of the specification, since longer playing DVD Movies in MPEG2 cannot fit in 4.5gb of space, thus requiring dual layer DVDs from the begining.
It is only writers that were limited to single layer writing initially.
Technically, correct...
.core changes, it is worth noting that MS was trying to make JAVA even more of a contender as a real Windows Solution.
.core portions of JAVA for OS optimizations. Microsoft is the only company that got sued though.
.NET 3.0 has a larger install base in the Windows world than JAVA, and this is not even including Vista, where it is installed by default (And that is 100 million installations in addition)
.NET took the place of JAVA development for Windows applications, and even as Mono moves forward, many Linux developers are already considering .NET as a viable platform. This will explode as the .NET 3.0 features get outside of the Vista world with 3.5, since not only do you get what Sun promised 11 years ago, but features that are not currently part of any other development paradigm.
However, MS was one of the biggest JAVA proponents, even integrating the VM in their OS as soon as possible. So what did Sun gain in fighting over a 'technical' issue with the Windows VM version?
MS had no intention of 'polluting' JAVA, as they were not distributing JAVA for anything but Windows. As for the
Sun got butt hurt over several other things, and used the 'technical' arguments to halt MS, and in the end got what they deserved. As other OSes, even OS X took the same license and liberties with JAVA, even modifying
At the time Sun was pissed that Microsoft's push forward with JAVA was ahead of what Sun was doing with JAVA. Sun also wanted to pull back MS to maintain the OS distribution binaries for JAVA, and eliminate the MS VM.
The fact that the MS VM was the first to have runtime optimizations that allowed the MS VM to run over 10x faster than the Sun VM didn't help matters, as it gave the Sun JAVA team a bit of egg on their face. Even to this day, the MS VM still out benchmarks the Sun VM binaries, which is horribly sad.
In a recent internal study our company produced, it was found that less than 10% of Windows installations included any form of JAVA VM, and almost 1/2 of these were still running the MS VM.
Real development teams hardly pays attention to JAVA unless they have a specific cross platform need that JAVA is the quick and dirty solution.
Sun screwed themselves, plain and simple, and JAVA still hasn't met the expectations or promises given to the IT community from the mid 90s. We are still waiting on a VM that works consistency across plaforms, has inherent managed security, and can perform faster than a snail in a pile of salt.
So you are correct about the technical/legal angle Sun used to sue Microsoft, but the reasons behind it is something you are not explaining, nor the ramifications of what Sun did, and even internally admits was the worst corporate decision affecting JAVA they ever made.
Having the core Java packages unpolluted is important for making it simple to ensure your application is run anywhere. (Well, except for bugs in native libraries or JVM.) To undo the damage, Sun ended up having to create the 100% Pure Java campaign with a program to check for core extensions.
This was NOT a result of the MS suit, but a track Sun was already starting before they tried to reel MS in initially. They wanted full control, and also wanted the optimization code MS wrote for the MS VM, when MS went WTF, Sun sued them. PERIOD. (Notice other companies 'polluting' the core with the same license MS had didn't get sued, as they had little Sun wanted back.)
Is this just iPhone fear-mongering?
Of course it is, because the iPhone is the only PDA or SmartPhone in the world... (If you live under an Apple or a Rock.)
1) MS demostrated HD VC1 content on regular DVDs over 4 years ago, then explaining that there was no need for higher density discs for HD content.
2) Blu-Ray may not be the winner we all seem to think, Sony jumping prices when HD-DVD pulled the plug wasn't something most of the Movie industry was too happy about.
3) Online HD content is ready, working, faster than going to Video Store. In terms of rental content Online distribution will be the leading HD source (As it already is, see XBox Live, etc) (VHS Rentals along with fitting a 2HR Movie on the tape is specifically what killed BetaMax)
4) Ownership of HD content is the only area that Blu-Ray has a chance, and even then most videophiles break and rip the content to HD servers - hence online distribution being the natural progression of even online purchased HD content in the upcoming year.
So if Toshiba's plan is to introduce a DVD player than can decode VC1 HD content natively, it would be a serious contender to Blu-Ray, especially since PCs could easily use the content as well with 10 year old DVD players.
The 'selling point' of HD-DVD and Blu-Ray was not the extra capacity for the movies but the room for additional interactive content, which Blu-Ray had crap support for initially and is only now catching up to the maturity HD-DVD had at launch. If a Toshiba DVD could offer the Movie on a DVD in HD format, and do the usually 'extras' DVD for additional content, this would fit the current DVD model of distribution and be cheaper than Blu-Ray for distribution.
So this could fly and circumvent the still less than adapted Blu-Ray market, especially if the Toshiba VC1/MPEG4 HD DVDs have less DRM.
And the extra Blu-Ray DRM is what MS opposed and fought for Sony to remove, forcing MS to support HD-DVD which had less DRM for things like off Media playing, etc. -Ironically on SlashDot as much as people hate DRM, the same people seem to love Blu-Ray and hate MS, when it was MS that took a stand against Blu-Ray DRM for consumer interests. (MS forsees Video Distribution Servers in homes as standard, just as Audio CD are already ripped and distributed. MS PlaysForSure and Zune DRM even allows for computer to computer or device streaming inherently, even if the local device doesn't have the DRM rights, but the serving Computer does. This is how you can play Napster or other DRM content on XBox or Vista or via WMP11 on XP from any computer on your network, even if only one computer has the DRM subscription.)
The irony level in this situation is simply astounding. Secondary attack can cause execution of said downloaded binaries? What about all that malicious content that Internet Exploiter happily executes for the user with nary a warning or confirmation?
So it has been 5 or more years since you have used Windows or IE uh? IE has blocked ActiveX and any other local execution for a long time. (Notice there haven't been rampant IE attacks using local execution in a long long time.)
Currently the most secure way to browse the Internet is IE on Vista, as it runs with lower than user permissions(Protected Mode), so even if a exploit did manifest, it can't even touch user files/folders. (And yes I know this will make 99% of SlashDot cringe or go WTF, but it is sadly true.)
You shouldn't comment on crap you apparently don't understand.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/office/bb265236.aspx
OOXML is already supported in the fullest implmentation available.
It is also extensible to support full specification (which was requested features outside of Microsoft).
So for the ODF before OOXML is not only wrong, but REALLY wrong.
But idiots like you think ODF is a god format?
It specifically allows someone like Microsoft to rape it - BECAUSE IT LACKS SO MANY STANDARD FORMAT implementations...
Microsoft will turn ODF into a virtual equivalent of OOXML (think ODF/MS) if it is the standard. Ink content ODF/MS format, Voice tagging OSF/MS format, etc etc etc...
So again to read any non ODF written standard, MS will write it and you will still be using MS specifications in the long run.
And no one else here thought of this before?
Do more research, Sony and other companies have offered 'full' Windows based PCs that are 'faster' and smaller than the freaking Airbook.
Don't believe Apple Marketing, there is a reason the UK makes them rip their ads off of TV.
UMPCs have been around for years, are full XP and Vista computers, there are even handheld Linux and Windows and EVEN Vista PCs that are as powerful, battery efficient, and even have more features than a freaking Airbook.
Next go look up light TabletPCs, there are SEVERAL that are 'close' to the airbook in size, but have faster processors, better video (non-intel crap) and are running Vista in industries that use handrecognition technologies, which is something a freaking Mac can't even begin to freaking compare to.
If you want to go look at one site and compare one model, then you will find what YOU are looking for, and Sony is EXPENSIVE in the PC world. Go over the EnGadget and look at the numerous Airbook class computers that slam Airbooks in price, performance, and even Size...
What pisses me off, it is people like you that when the UMPCs came out a few years ago, said they were worthless cause they were too limited or small, and now that Apple is trying to enter the lightweight market, you are the first to champion how BRILLIANT the concept is because fucking Apple told you how awesome they are.
There is such a disconnect between Apple marketing, and the people that listen to their crap, and the real computing world it is insane to have to listen to stupid Mac locked users try to justify anything Apple does or creates.
Real tech people look at Apple, and go, oh, nice, been there done that several years ago, nice they are catching up....
(This is where I could go into a rant about iPhones as well, and sadly I can still press the button on my wireless bluetooth and say 'dial John Smith' or 'dial 800 555 1212' and it just freaking works, and is sadly a foreign concept to iPhone users that have to fumble with the freaking screen to just make a phone call. But hey, motorola and Windows mobile phones only have been doing this for 4 years or so, Apple will eventually catch up as well. -And yes the multi-touch UI on the iPhone is a rip off from the TED presentation a few years ago, google it, then google how long Windows Mobile phones have had touch screens, and notice how many years behind Apple is on even that basic concept. Oh, and we can write notes on Windows Mobile Phones too, and it will recognize our handwriting.)
While you're at it, check out the difference between LED backlights and OLED screens.
You are right, I shouldn't have lumped OLEDs and LED backlighted displays into the same category, as it seems to CONFUSE Fanbois.
OLEDs and backlight LED LCDs are not the exact same technology...
HOWEVER,THEY HAVE THE SAME PROBLEMS. PERIOD.
Just as true OLED based screens (and there are very few) suffer from long term usage degredation, so do LED backlight LCD displays.
LED Backlight LCDs have a hard time with uniformity, and this becomes even more pronounced over time. Even 1,000 hours of usage will displace and reduce fidelity and brightness by 20%.
This is LESS than six months usage.
Additionally, LED backlights have mulitple R/G/B for each point, meaning that to maintain a consistent level or white at any LCD pixel point is troublesome, and with time becomes a major problem with LED backlight displays. (And again this is LED backlight displays like in the Airbook, not non-LCD OLED displays.)
They do save power, but at what cost?
All display technologys degrade after time, but mainstream LCD backlight technologies like CCFL or other newer methods have some trouble with bleeding and loss of uniformity, but this starts to occur at the 20,000 hour usage, not a freaking 1,000 hrs. (Most rear projectors hold consistent lighting for more than 1,000hrs, and they are hard core.)
So again I will RESTATE for the slow fanbois, LED 'lightsources' lose 20% in the first 1,000 hours. This is the problem with full OLED based displays
PERIOD.
So the freaking backlight is going to dim... Enjoy that dimming effect, and the color shifting around the screen... (The joys of locking yourself into Marketing instead of real technology, - ah the life of a Mac fanboi.)
Have these people ever actually tried to use them to handle a small database?). I'd rather have a root canal without anesthetic than use Access for a small job. Excel is loaded with whacky "features" that will lie in wait and trash your database unexpectedly.
... starting from the bottom of the paste area. i.e a bunch of 05452 fields now read 05452, 05453, 05454
You are talking about the 'Application Interfaces' to the file formats and data, so I am going to assume this topic is over your head.
Go do a bit of Cobol, or even learn to use a quick XML parser if you want to be 'cutting' edge.
If you are 'Opening Access' to manage data for a simple table to keep data, you really need to start back at the basics. Literally a 10 line Pascal application can do this in a Flat format, or as I suggested, use a freaking script (especially in an OS like Vista where scripting is the most advanced OS level scripting interface ever designed) that can access a simple text file, CSV, whatever, or even store the simple flat table on the corporate SQL server, and again, you are looking at 5 - 10 lines of scripting code.
This reminds me of a few weeks ago a friend of a friend was writing a massive interface to do scanning and printing from his multi-function device, because he wanted it automated. He literally had invested weeks into the project, and I show him less than 30 lines of Windows Script that tapped WIA, and not only did what he wanted, but OCRed the documents and filed them automatically, and he could print them with a simple drag and drop or click start and typing Print DocumentXYZ from the Vista start menu. And Vista already automates this stuff to Granny level of usage already, so this was a slick conditional script that would let him drop crap in his scanner and walk away.
Sadly he thought I was a god, when it was somethinghe should have learned a long time ago. I wonder sometimes how people get around when simple things became big projects. And usually these are my OSS friends that are reinventing the wheel, when there are libraries and OS level APIs to do exactly what they need if they had even done a freaking Google search.
If ANYONE is using Windows, especailly Vista, go read up on Windows Scripting. It does so much itis sometimes mind blowing for average developers/IT people. (Also Vista users check out Start++, it is a novel concept of using the search integration in Vista so you can give serach or sub searches commands like [play elton john] and the computer just handles it and music starts playing.)
My favorite was a user who tried to cut and paste a ZIP code field only to find that Excel had thoughtfully incremented each and every ZIP code that was the same as the row above it by one
Again this is something,a simple question in Excel help would have fixed for the user,but Help seems so hard to click on for people. There are tons of paste,and transfer concepts in excel, and if someone is leaving the zipcode column data as 'values' they should be slapped up side the head. They are strings.
The 'bizarre' Excel and CSV problems border from myth and poor formatted files to users that can't work the import wizard. These are NOT excel issues.
Again, has nobody ever read about relation databases? Does data modeling and normalization seem like god like concepts? I don't except your end user to 'get this stuff' but any IT person should be able to talk 4th & 5th normal form without blinking an eye, let alone freaking data structures that I usually teach in Week one of 101 classes.
your graphics designers are tards...video cards have almost no effect on 2d graphic programs
Really, oh, that is right, on OS X, 2D Acceleration doesn't even happen on Video, and turningon GPU rendering for legacy 2D drawing crashed too much in tiger, so even leopard never was able to enable it.
Windows it does make a difference, as there are 2D accelerated and 3D accelerated portions of Video cards, and Windows uses both. XP is the 2D world.
Oh, did I mention most 'real' graphic designers usually do work in some form of 3D environment? So even on OS X, using a 3D drawing/rendering application would use the 3D GPU.
Your statement here shows you are more 'tarded' than you think my graphic designers are.
Besides the fact there are graphic designers (yes in my company) that work almost entirely in 3d environments and rendering, stressing a video to its limits so they don't have to work in wireframe like they 'use to have to do on OS X'...
You also do realize that Vista uses the 3D GPU to shove even legacy GDI+ (Windows equivalent to Display PDF) through the GPU to speed up rendering, and also for compressing and processing bitmaps and even drawing anti-aliased fonts on the GPU?
(I know these are advanced concepts to a 'MAC PERSON', but in the real world, this is how things really works. - Especially since OS X's IDEA of using a GPU is to draw textures on a surface for composing, and THAT IS VIRTUALLY IT, even in freaking leopard. For real 3D you have to abandon the Apple Aqua, and move to OpenGL, sadly.) Geesh, and with such sad arrogrance. What a fool you are. You should go punch your Mac guru in the face that lied and taught you this ignorant crap about Windows vs OSX.)
Hmmm my 8 core 16 GB- low end computer - is quite insulted
And how does that stock ATI Radeon that is 1/4 the speed of high end graphics cards feel about my statement?
And the dude is lierally typing this above statement to me on Leopard OS X, a 32BIT FREAKING kernel, that only 'allows' 64bit addressing, but doesn't use it internally. Wow. That rocks dude.
Maybe when you grow up, you can get an OS that is really 64bits, and takes advantage of the 64bit features at the kernel and OS level, like managing the 64bit paging tables, and 64bit registers, etc. Oh, wait, better stop, afraid this is over your head.
(Hint Google this, THIS IS WHY OSX USES 32BIT DRIVERS STILL!!!)
PS. You'll LOVE that 16gb of RAM when Adobe releases the next version of its software in 32bit for OS X. It will sit there for nothing. However, Vista x64 users will be using a real 64bit OS and get real 64bit versions of Adobe software, and slam it with 128gb of RAM and let the applications freaking fly.
You have heard of Adobe, right? It tends to be somewhat important to even small time graphic designers.
What an Apple Tool...
Show me a single one of your notebooks that runs rings round the MacBook is less than an inch thick and 13" across
UMPC or a Sony?
Does Apple really convince people like you so easily that they provide the best hardware too?
Holy freaking cow...
How about one that is close in size that you can write on and it actually recognizes what you write unlike the horrid handwriting in OSX? You know, like 5 yr old TabletPCs? (Youtube search the handwriting difference between TabletPC/Vista and OSX, it is really sad.)
And yes these are small lightweight FULL FEATURED computers.
Geesh.
Get back to me in a year when that AirBook screen has lost 20% of its brightness. Yes it will happen, so enjoy your screen while you can. (Google it)
Is it just me, or have people completely gone nuts?
How about a freaking text file, CSV?
Cobol even?
XML even?
If you just need a FLAT DB, meaning more than a 'format' and an 'interface' then freaking even make your own, write a few lines in Pascal.
Heck, on Vista you could write an application using the Windows scripting built in, and in like 5-10 lines to do everything you want, and stuff the data in every format ODBC can talk to from XML, CSV, to even MDB formats.
(OS level scripting today is not like the old *nix or DOS/bat world. They are extremely rich platforms on their own using common language syntax from JScript,VBScript,C#,etc..)
Holy scary cow. What do people think we did before dDase, Oracle, Access, etc for small localized non-relational data storage?
I swear SlashDot has gone to the script kiddies, or should I say, the unable to script kiddies.
Price does not equal high-end. Considering you can't even buy a Mac or Macbook with what is the current technology high-end, this is more than a bit misleading.
Show me a Macbook with a 7950GTX let alone a 8800M video Card, or god forbid, an SLI video notebook. We still have OLD 2005 notebooks with 1920x1200 17" displays that runs circles around Macbooks, and even most Mac Desktops. And this is really sad... (Our graphic designers run from Mac Hardware for these reasons alone)
Even the desktop models are medium range technology, and to get high-end performance, you have to replace Video at the minimum as well.
(And this doesn't even touch the horrid Apple LCDs in notebooks, especially the newly beloved OLED notbooks that tests show lose 20% of their color fidelity within six months of usage (1000 hours).)
For overpriced computers, Apple has more suckers... As for 'high-end' computing Apple doesn't even make a high end computer.
Just put up a link to lwn.net
Great for Linux, but what about the other 20 floating kernel technologies in use.
Linux is NOT the end all be all for kernels. It does what it does well or OK, but had very little long term design as it was basically going from past concepts already in use.
This is why we are seeing problems with granularity, getting to realtime, and other things that are not only working well but easy for some kernel architectures to deal with and adapt to, like the NT kernel for example.
If we were all discussing this stuff, then this isn't stuff people would be ignorant of, and less OS worship would occur. Especially in the OSS world, where semi-mainstream variants become the flavors used and many aspects could be improved on. The hard lock in Linux and the legacy code that is buried in Linux is a very big example of this and why even SlashDot readers should be somewhat knowledgeable on the subject. Linux is not well structure code, nor agile, and this is OSS and it should be more agile than NT, and sadly has a more restrictive endpoint of progession because so few people know so little about the deep layers of Linux and the actual code or methods it uses.
There are virtually no comprehensive sites dedicated to exploring kernel architecture past basic features or concepts, we need more people paying attention to the code and internal structuring as well. And this can include Solaris, and NT even, as any of us can obtain academic source access to the base NT kernel without any subsystems. (Just like MinWin or Win7 as some idiots tried to call it.)
Solitaire is a good thing.
Although it probably seems foreign to most of us here, mouse hand-eye coordination is not automatic.
And for new users or even new users at a business, our IT people encourage people to start with something like solitaire and just let people goof off until it becomes automatic. (Notice the stores or businesses that have mouse driven software and the users take FOREVER to move the cursor on screen to make selections. Giving them a week of play time on something like Soitaire would increase their productivity in the long run, and reduce customer frustration. (Not that I recommend a Mouse UI for checkstands or small business invoicing, but there is a lot of crap software out there in specific industries that rely on it.
It is also a good tool for users moving to touch pads, pens, thumbsticks, etc as it is simple, mindless and yet lets people master the abstract motor neural control of input devices.
Everytime we have a proficient tech that 'hates' an input device, our policies are to make them use that input device, at least for stuff like solitaire if not general work until it becomes second nature. Especially if the tech is ever going to be using it in public or assisting corporate clients where the device might be widely used. (Touchpads and Thumbsticks being #1 on this list.)