Internet Explorer for Mac: canceled -Actually kept alive longer than MS should have, even Apple no longer wanted IE developed and Safari was already available by the time MS got around to killing off IE. Do you really think MS loved keeping the Apple port for a tiny fraction of users?
WMP for Mac: canceled -MS would have been smarter to have kept it, as their Windows Media is very absent from the Mac platform because of this. However, iTunes and Quicktime were the babies of Apple and Apple didn't want MS playing in their sandbox. Apple had more to do with the canceling of WMP than MS did.
Office: delayed, all support for VBA macros removed Delayed because MS insists on keeping it a native code base, unlike the fiasco of when they tried a Windows Port of Office. MS is also trying to target the new Intel Macs and features in 10.5 that Office will 'depend' on, just as Office 2007 has some features that it depends on being in Vista or the equivalent installed on XP. VB being removed is not something I personally know about, but security issues are the main reason MS keeps such a tight lock on them even on the Windows version. If it weren't for the business development that uses Office as a platform, MS would have removed them from the Windows versions as well. Besides, outside of Office, MS would have no control over the security of VB in Office on OS X. This is not such a good thing especially now that Apple is finding itself the target of exploits.
MSN messenger: lags far behind windows version, will probably be canceled soon Actually the Mac version is pretty close to the Windows Version, and you can always use the Web version, even on a Mac. Besides, this is ANOTHER area where Apple is telling MS to get out of their sandbox because they have iChat.
Virtual PC: canceled (too hard to port from PPC OSX to x86 OSX. They still maintain the x86 Windows version however) Once Apple went x86, there was ALSO little need for it. Boot Camp was something planned far before the Intel Mac's released, and MS knew of this. MS was not trying to kill a market, Apple already killed the need and market for this product by moving to x86, as it essentially was ONLY USED to run Windows on the PPC. We also have tons of other virtualization tools now available on OS X, and certainly no need for MS Virtual PC.
Considering Silverlight can be written literally in notepad or XAMLpad, this will put a big dent in Adobe's premium development tool costs that are required for Flash and Web content creation.
Multi-Cast would have been a better team. In other words the Video Content provider only has to allocate bandwidth for 1 stream of the content even if 100,000 people are viewing the video at the same time.
This is used already in Radio on the web and is becoming more important with Video on the web with Live Broadcasting of HD content.
Basically even a small internet company could provide 100 channels of HD video content in live streams via Silverlight.
(This is what Windows Media Server technologies already do, but with Silverlight it can stream from non-MS servers and can play on non-MS software.)
Its not only DirectX, MS was involved with OpenGL years ago as well until the OpenGL group didn't want to target 3D hardware for gaming.
MS also has put a lot of money in research in the area of Graphics, from photo recognition to camera input device concepts, etc.
There is also the entire XBox division which has now spent years understanding graphics, rendering, and has even been instrumental in shaping the design of GPUs in NVidia and ATI cards.
XBox technology is also at the heart of the new Vista graphics subsystem. Adding features that make up DX10 and WDDM, all the way from unified Shaders to GPU RAM virtualization to OS level GPU pre-emption and physics/math support on GPUs through a standard API.
I have more faith in MS and Silverlight on cross platform than I do Flash anymore after the past few years. Not only is Silverlight already available on other platforms it even supports 64bit (gasp).
And this is just the Silverlight 1.0 RC and MS doesn't expect long range use or adoption until 1.1 is finalized as it adds in massive amounts of support for web interaction and more language support. (1.1 is already in developer circles, and will be out not long after 1.0)
Also for people worried about adoption, take a look at MLB.com. There are a lot things in Silverlight especially on the programming side that Flash just can't do easily. Silverlight not only builds on Vista XAML technology for the web but also does HD quality video and can also do single feed streaming unlike Flash.
Bit of trivia -- NTFS does the exact same thing with regards to access times. There's a registry entry to disable it buried somewhere deep that I don't remember at the moment, but if you're stuck on Windows it might be worth looking up to improve I/O performance.
Bit of additional trivia, Vista already disables it by default, and the whole access timestamp mechanism has changed, removing this performance penalty all together.
This setting appears to be disabled by default on Vista. (ie atime is not set). Which makes sense with the amount of thumbnail viewing that goes on in that OS.
Yes it is disabled by default in Vista, and the 'Last Access Update' is addressed in another way on Vista. So unless an application SPECIFICALLY checks for this timestamp or flag, Vista handles this in another way and it should be left off.
However, even though this change does increase performance it has nothing to do with performance regarding thumbnails.
1) Windows had Thumbnails going back to Win95 and especially in XP with the enhanced Thumbnail size introduced. So they are not 'new' in Vista. (XP even had the same shell filters etc, although Vista does expand the features with a few new APIs and the ability to resize Icon Views on the fly easier.)
2) Thumbnails are cached, so the files are not being read everytime they are viewed in Explorer or Photo Viewer. In older versions it was a local cache (in the folder), and in Vista the thumbnails are cached in a central store that works with the Searching service. (This also works over network connections just like the new Searching service does, so a local machine can just ask the remote server/system for the cached images, just as it can do remote queries on the remote search index.)
The new iMac has an ATI Radeon HD 2600 Pro videocard. Does any one of you have experiences with this card?
This is a very, very low mid-range card. In comparison to DX9 cards, a 1950 will smoke it by a factor of 2-3x.
For DX10 it should do well though, but you will need Vista and a DX10 made game to get the 'goodie' out of this card.
I honestly don't see why Apple is dropping DX10 cards in Macs, as OSX and OpenGL can't use many of the features of the card beyond the basic unified shader. However for Windows dual-booters like yourself it makes more sense if that is the market they are aiming for.
DX10 cards like the 2600 are designed to be used with an OS that does both VRAM virtualization and pre-emptive GPU operations so that the OS manages the RAM shifting and the GPU for tasking in and out game needs for video and physics. (Yes OpenGL can multi-task, but is application yielded and without an OS level driver handling the pre-emption it makes cards like this rather weak on non-Vista platforms.)
Without the WDDM of Vista, this is only a mediocre card for OpenGL and does ok for HD playback assuming Apple adds the correct DRM to 10.5.
Once someone has to actually use them day-to-day glass screens are a huge distraction because of all the reflections and glare.
A lot of glass and 'gloss' displays have anti-glare coatings, obviously the cheaper ones don't. So we will have to wait and see if Apple provides a good quality coating or not.
As an example we have a couple of 'gloss' screen laptops with comperable LCDs, one brand has a great finish and the gloss actually works well, the other is a reflection nightmare for most lighting environments.
Do you work for Microsoft or are you just an unfunny troll? I've read some of your post history and it's almost constantly about praising Microsoft for this and that. And now you're saying we don't talk about Microsoft often enough. Sigh... why am I even bothering... any retard can see that you have an agenda going here.
I only use my EVIL MS login when correcting stupid crap that an average nine year old understands about Windows, yet the knowledge escapes 90% of the 'brilliant' SlashDot users.
However, Microsoft's "revolutionary technology" is normally 'old news' as well. It's rare for a big company to come out with tons of new features that weren't already implemented (maybe even partially) in some way elsewhere.
I don't disagree, it is all based on 0s and 1s anyhow. But when a company like MS shifts over 50% of their company operations and development stategies and tools, it causes large ripples in the IT world, and yet 90% of SlashDot readers wouldn't have a clue about any of this if it bit them.
And this is actually kind of scary. (Notice the post above yours, an Apple fan running to defend OS X's search abilities, touting a feature that has been in Windows since at least 1995, and yet they think it is 'new' technology because Apple markets it as a 'new technology/feature'.)
I understand that SlashDot is a place to get away from non-OSS, but filtering information and knowledge out of the general news does nothing but breed ignorance, I don't care if the most evil person in the world is doing it. (Hoover didn't like Tesla, but he at least kept a freaking eye on what Tesla was doing, just in case.)
Also I truly don't get how Apple is the darling of OSS, when Apple exploits OSS, uses DRM more than MS and has not only has a more 'closed' OS but even 'closed' hardware to do along with it. The OSS people use to be the smart ones 'bucking' the trend and now they are OS X fanbois, WTH happened?
Spotlight will search within documents including PDF's and you can create these things called "smart" folders which behave like smart playlists in iTunes. Nice try troll.
Obviously you can't read a post properly or have you used anything but OS X.
There is a grand difference between 'smart' folders, called 'search' folders in Vista, and 'stacks', and 'inherented search' folders, all features in Vista that make OS X's search and organization look very pathetic; however, that is NOT WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT.
There is a BIGGER difference of an ability of the OS Search engine to look for WORDS represented as TEXT in a document like a PDF, as OS X can do, and the ability of an OS to be able to take a scanned document and when you type 'Idiot' if that word appeared in that IMAGE of the SCANNED DOCUMENT, it returns that document to you in the search results, which Vista can do. It is actually doing OCR on top of NORMAL search.
There is also a difference when the SEARCH ENGINE in Vista supports searching AUDIO for words that were said in the AUDIO.
Searching inside PDFs is NOT THE SAME, searching inside PDFs is something Windows users have been doing since Windows95 (12 years ago), Windows95 also had saved Search Folders, which is what Apple OS X calls 'Smart Folders' today and it is SCARY that Mac users think Apple is innovative or new with this idea.
And this simple lack of knowledge on things VERY SIMPLE prove my point completely. Apple users and SlashDot readers are SO OUT OF TOUCH with the basic technology in MS products they run to prove how stupid they are; thank you for your post.
Go my ignorant troll, go stick your head back in the sand and keep repeating to yourself, "Apple is the greatest and nothing else compares."
This is almost as elegant or easy as Photo Gallery in Vista.
Although the stacks, searching, and import tagging is easier in Vista and also works better for document management scans for business too since you can search for words in a scanned document. Even meeting sound recordings can be text searched, but give Apple a few years. Of course TabletPC users or OneNote users are already use to this type of technology from back in 2002/2003 so this isn't that new to them when using Vista.
But good job Steve, and maybe Apple will address these features to catch up to Vista in OS XI.
Of course I'm being a smart ass before anyone assumes otherwise. Here is my main point:
How come we get these great press releases on SlashDot for every little 'tiny' thing Apple does, yet when MS is releasing technology changing the industry it gets NO mention whatsoever.
The irony is the average SlashDot user becomes more and more ignorant of 'technology' on a whole because of the dismissal or non-reporting of anything MS.
It DOESN'T hurt the SlashDot world to PAY ATTENTION to what MS is doing if they want to remain 'informed' or competitive. And it certainly wouldn't hurt for SlashDot readers to offset the 'we love Apple' with facts or information that shines some light on the 'Jobs distortion field', as when he talks 'revolutionary technology' it is often stuff that is OLD NEWS and already been done by the #1 OS running on almost 1 billion desktops, yet the Apple and *nix crowd doesn't even realize this.
You just should remove the 'news for nerds' and replace it with 'SlashDot users, proud of their ignorance and determined to keep it.'
People (I.T. guys included) will almost always go with what they are comfortable with. IIS is very easy to configure and you could have a Windows Server up and running in no time. With Apache, it's not so simple. Modifying text files gives the admins great control over nearly everything; but it's not so simple. And some n00b admin couldn't exactly master Apache in a weekend like they could IIS.
Although these are good reasons, it goes beyond just the administration side of things. Any good IT person should be able to assemble an Apache or IIS server.
The catch is when users or site developers or site owners start asking for features. With IIS you can give them anything Apache has, and when you get the users asking for Sharepoint or.NET features or ASP features or even older FP Extension/CGI features, it is ALL available.
If you are only running Apache then your options are limited, especially with the new movement in.NET and server side programming coming out of MS. MS has been working hard on becoming standards compliant and in the process creating a large set of tools for developers. From AJAX development to XAML applications over the internet, MS has been pushing up the game and part of this is in addition to the.NET foundations and new communication mechanisms.
Of course there is some.NET functions that can be used on Apache, but there is a loss of features and productivity for average developers that doesn't have to be worried about with IIS.
There is also support for non-IIS features that you gain in the Windows server world, application side tools to MS SQL, etc. And with IIS and Windows you can still do MySQL and PHP and have all of them active for the site users at the same time depending on what they want/need.
As for features Apache has over IIS, I would open this post as a place for people to post things Apache does that IIS can't, and I mean this in terms of providing features to the end users/developers. (i.e. It doesn't run on BSD, is not a good example.)
(I am surprised they would keep any serious data in a Windows NTFS machine, if you need to apply a patch and you have a computation taking several days accessing data there, well, lets say your patch would have to wait, in other machines, depending on the nature of the patch, most likely you can apply it on the fly).
How would NTFS be any different than any other FS in this regard? Do you not update all OSes running on FSes?
Also with Vista, NTFS is self healing, something again most other FS can't or don't do. So even with hardware failure the machine would stay running far longer than another FS on another OS.
I couldn't believe that people were discounting his music abilities because they didn't like his opinion. Either that or they truly are too young or stupid to have any understanding of him or his music. Sadly a lot of people think he only goes back to the Lion King, and yet some of the greatest modern melodies mixed throughout our societies are his creations.
I personally am pretty eclectic when it comes to music, admittedly listening to Britney myself, but I also have some sort of sense of appreciation that goes beyond the latest Gwen or Fergie hit I also enjoy.
I don't necessarily agree with Elton's views, but they really don't impact much and are just his freaking views, and they certainly don't take away from his 'influence' and impact on society through music.
As for the poster above that claims to have been around 'a long time' and thinks Elton has had no influence, they are either lying or really sheltered. My grandfather was a country music star of the 40s and 50s, and even he acknowledges major impacts various non-country artists have had on the entire industry, and Elton is one outside the country industry he would name.
Anyone that thinks Elton sucks at music or is a hack should look up an old episode of Inside the Actor's Studio, where he literally writes brilliant music to words from a textbook, impromptu.
Re:Geeks do- everyone else doesn't.
on
The DRM Scorecard
·
· Score: 1
doesn't mean that the average Joe on the street can do so
Also since iTunes and Apple users are a large share of the DRM market, getting white out off their screen is usually enough time spent hacking into secret areas of the screen for the day.:)
Last time I checked, it was OS X with a BSD subsystem.
You may wanna research that.
Actually OS X has NO subsystems, you might want to research that. OS X uses a BSD interface to the MACH kernel.
I can't believe so many people don't have a clue on the NT BSD Subsystem, and it also scares me that people don't realize NT is the only mainstream OS architecture that can run different OS API subsystems natively.
MS isn't out of the equation at all. The whole point of TFA is about switching AWAY from Vista
Why when Vista ships with a full BSD subsystem? Unix, Win32, Win64, NT Core. Not such a bad thing for Windows business environments.
Also if the *nix OSS world would embrace the Vista BSD a bit, they could get Windows business and home users playing with a real *nix environment and slowying use a carrot to bring them over to other distributions.:)
There is a LOT more to functionality than the ability to play DiVX files. Saying a Creative Zen is somehow a superior overall product just does't make any sense, and you can't chalk up the iPod's success to "marketing". Plus, my Nano doesn't even play videos;-)
Well that wasn't my argument, but sure we can go with that.
So on my non-iPod Nanoish device, I just copy WMA files or other Audio formats without conversion.
Also my device cost $20, has more space than a nano, and I don't have to use iTunes or convert my songs when transfering them to it.;)
Slashdot Mirror
Internet Explorer for Mac: canceled
-Actually kept alive longer than MS should have, even Apple no longer wanted IE developed and Safari was already available by the time MS got around to killing off IE. Do you really think MS loved keeping the Apple port for a tiny fraction of users?
WMP for Mac: canceled
-MS would have been smarter to have kept it, as their Windows Media is very absent from the Mac platform because of this. However, iTunes and Quicktime were the babies of Apple and Apple didn't want MS playing in their sandbox. Apple had more to do with the canceling of WMP than MS did.
Office: delayed, all support for VBA macros removed
Delayed because MS insists on keeping it a native code base, unlike the fiasco of when they tried a Windows Port of Office. MS is also trying to target the new Intel Macs and features in 10.5 that Office will 'depend' on, just as Office 2007 has some features that it depends on being in Vista or the equivalent installed on XP. VB being removed is not something I personally know about, but security issues are the main reason MS keeps such a tight lock on them even on the Windows version. If it weren't for the business development that uses Office as a platform, MS would have removed them from the Windows versions as well. Besides, outside of Office, MS would have no control over the security of VB in Office on OS X. This is not such a good thing especially now that Apple is finding itself the target of exploits.
MSN messenger: lags far behind windows version, will probably be canceled soon
Actually the Mac version is pretty close to the Windows Version, and you can always use the Web version, even on a Mac. Besides, this is ANOTHER area where Apple is telling MS to get out of their sandbox because they have iChat.
Virtual PC: canceled (too hard to port from PPC OSX to x86 OSX. They still maintain the x86 Windows version however)
Once Apple went x86, there was ALSO little need for it. Boot Camp was something planned far before the Intel Mac's released, and MS knew of this. MS was not trying to kill a market, Apple already killed the need and market for this product by moving to x86, as it essentially was ONLY USED to run Windows on the PPC. We also have tons of other virtualization tools now available on OS X, and certainly no need for MS Virtual PC.
Considering Silverlight can be written literally in notepad or XAMLpad, this will put a big dent in Adobe's premium development tool costs that are required for Flash and Web content creation.
Multi-Cast would have been a better team. In other words the Video Content provider only has to allocate bandwidth for 1 stream of the content even if 100,000 people are viewing the video at the same time.
This is used already in Radio on the web and is becoming more important with Video on the web with Live Broadcasting of HD content.
Basically even a small internet company could provide 100 channels of HD video content in live streams via Silverlight.
(This is what Windows Media Server technologies already do, but with Silverlight it can stream from non-MS servers and can play on non-MS software.)
Its not only DirectX, MS was involved with OpenGL years ago as well until the OpenGL group didn't want to target 3D hardware for gaming.
MS also has put a lot of money in research in the area of Graphics, from photo recognition to camera input device concepts, etc.
There is also the entire XBox division which has now spent years understanding graphics, rendering, and has even been instrumental in shaping the design of GPUs in NVidia and ATI cards.
XBox technology is also at the heart of the new Vista graphics subsystem. Adding features that make up DX10 and WDDM, all the way from unified Shaders to GPU RAM virtualization to OS level GPU pre-emption and physics/math support on GPUs through a standard API.
In other related news today:
1 -46.html
Microsoft Nurtures Linux Silverlight Port
http://www.sdtimes.com/article/LatestNews-2007080
I have more faith in MS and Silverlight on cross platform than I do Flash anymore after the past few years. Not only is Silverlight already available on other platforms it even supports 64bit (gasp).
And this is just the Silverlight 1.0 RC and MS doesn't expect long range use or adoption until 1.1 is finalized as it adds in massive amounts of support for web interaction and more language support. (1.1 is already in developer circles, and will be out not long after 1.0)
Also for people worried about adoption, take a look at MLB.com. There are a lot things in Silverlight especially on the programming side that Flash just can't do easily. Silverlight not only builds on Vista XAML technology for the web but also does HD quality video and can also do single feed streaming unlike Flash.
Bit of trivia -- NTFS does the exact same thing with regards to access times. There's a registry entry to disable it buried somewhere deep that I don't remember at the moment, but if you're stuck on Windows it might be worth looking up to improve I/O performance.
Bit of additional trivia, Vista already disables it by default, and the whole access timestamp mechanism has changed, removing this performance penalty all together.
This setting appears to be disabled by default on Vista. (ie atime is not set). Which makes sense with the amount of thumbnail viewing that goes on in that OS.
Yes it is disabled by default in Vista, and the 'Last Access Update' is addressed in another way on Vista. So unless an application SPECIFICALLY checks for this timestamp or flag, Vista handles this in another way and it should be left off.
However, even though this change does increase performance it has nothing to do with performance regarding thumbnails.
1) Windows had Thumbnails going back to Win95 and especially in XP with the enhanced Thumbnail size introduced. So they are not 'new' in Vista. (XP even had the same shell filters etc, although Vista does expand the features with a few new APIs and the ability to resize Icon Views on the fly easier.)
2) Thumbnails are cached, so the files are not being read everytime they are viewed in Explorer or Photo Viewer. In older versions it was a local cache (in the folder), and in Vista the thumbnails are cached in a central store that works with the Searching service. (This also works over network connections just like the new Searching service does, so a local machine can just ask the remote server/system for the cached images, just as it can do remote queries on the remote search index.)
The new iMac has an ATI Radeon HD 2600 Pro videocard. Does any one of you have experiences with this card?
This is a very, very low mid-range card. In comparison to DX9 cards, a 1950 will smoke it by a factor of 2-3x.
For DX10 it should do well though, but you will need Vista and a DX10 made game to get the 'goodie' out of this card.
I honestly don't see why Apple is dropping DX10 cards in Macs, as OSX and OpenGL can't use many of the features of the card beyond the basic unified shader. However for Windows dual-booters like yourself it makes more sense if that is the market they are aiming for.
DX10 cards like the 2600 are designed to be used with an OS that does both VRAM virtualization and pre-emptive GPU operations so that the OS manages the RAM shifting and the GPU for tasking in and out game needs for video and physics. (Yes OpenGL can multi-task, but is application yielded and without an OS level driver handling the pre-emption it makes cards like this rather weak on non-Vista platforms.)
Without the WDDM of Vista, this is only a mediocre card for OpenGL and does ok for HD playback assuming Apple adds the correct DRM to 10.5.
Once someone has to actually use them day-to-day glass screens are a huge distraction because of all the reflections and glare.
A lot of glass and 'gloss' displays have anti-glare coatings, obviously the cheaper ones don't. So we will have to wait and see if Apple provides a good quality coating or not.
As an example we have a couple of 'gloss' screen laptops with comperable LCDs, one brand has a great finish and the gloss actually works well, the other is a reflection nightmare for most lighting environments.
Do you work for Microsoft or are you just an unfunny troll? I've read some of your post history and it's almost constantly about praising Microsoft for this and that. And now you're saying we don't talk about Microsoft often enough. Sigh... why am I even bothering... any retard can see that you have an agenda going here.
I only use my EVIL MS login when correcting stupid crap that an average nine year old understands about Windows, yet the knowledge escapes 90% of the 'brilliant' SlashDot users.
(You realize you are trolling a troll?)
However, Microsoft's "revolutionary technology" is normally 'old news' as well. It's rare for a big company to come out with tons of new features that weren't already implemented (maybe even partially) in some way elsewhere.
I don't disagree, it is all based on 0s and 1s anyhow. But when a company like MS shifts over 50% of their company operations and development stategies and tools, it causes large ripples in the IT world, and yet 90% of SlashDot readers wouldn't have a clue about any of this if it bit them.
And this is actually kind of scary. (Notice the post above yours, an Apple fan running to defend OS X's search abilities, touting a feature that has been in Windows since at least 1995, and yet they think it is 'new' technology because Apple markets it as a 'new technology/feature'.)
I understand that SlashDot is a place to get away from non-OSS, but filtering information and knowledge out of the general news does nothing but breed ignorance, I don't care if the most evil person in the world is doing it. (Hoover didn't like Tesla, but he at least kept a freaking eye on what Tesla was doing, just in case.)
Also I truly don't get how Apple is the darling of OSS, when Apple exploits OSS, uses DRM more than MS and has not only has a more 'closed' OS but even 'closed' hardware to do along with it. The OSS people use to be the smart ones 'bucking' the trend and now they are OS X fanbois, WTH happened?
Spotlight will search within documents including PDF's and you can create these things called "smart" folders which behave like smart playlists in iTunes. Nice try troll.
Obviously you can't read a post properly or have you used anything but OS X.
There is a grand difference between 'smart' folders, called 'search' folders in Vista, and 'stacks', and 'inherented search' folders, all features in Vista that make OS X's search and organization look very pathetic; however, that is NOT WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT.
There is a BIGGER difference of an ability of the OS Search engine to look for WORDS represented as TEXT in a document like a PDF, as OS X can do, and the ability of an OS to be able to take a scanned document and when you type 'Idiot' if that word appeared in that IMAGE of the SCANNED DOCUMENT, it returns that document to you in the search results, which Vista can do. It is actually doing OCR on top of NORMAL search.
There is also a difference when the SEARCH ENGINE in Vista supports searching AUDIO for words that were said in the AUDIO.
Searching inside PDFs is NOT THE SAME, searching inside PDFs is something Windows users have been doing since Windows95 (12 years ago), Windows95 also had saved Search Folders, which is what Apple OS X calls 'Smart Folders' today and it is SCARY that Mac users think Apple is innovative or new with this idea.
And this simple lack of knowledge on things VERY SIMPLE prove my point completely. Apple users and SlashDot readers are SO OUT OF TOUCH with the basic technology in MS products they run to prove how stupid they are; thank you for your post.
Go my ignorant troll, go stick your head back in the sand and keep repeating to yourself, "Apple is the greatest and nothing else compares."
iPhoto Events - Brilliant...
This is almost as elegant or easy as Photo Gallery in Vista.
Although the stacks, searching, and import tagging is easier in Vista and also works better for document management scans for business too since you can search for words in a scanned document. Even meeting sound recordings can be text searched, but give Apple a few years. Of course TabletPC users or OneNote users are already use to this type of technology from back in 2002/2003 so this isn't that new to them when using Vista.
But good job Steve, and maybe Apple will address these features to catch up to Vista in OS XI.
Of course I'm being a smart ass before anyone assumes otherwise. Here is my main point:
How come we get these great press releases on SlashDot for every little 'tiny' thing Apple does, yet when MS is releasing technology changing the industry it gets NO mention whatsoever.
The irony is the average SlashDot user becomes more and more ignorant of 'technology' on a whole because of the dismissal or non-reporting of anything MS.
It DOESN'T hurt the SlashDot world to PAY ATTENTION to what MS is doing if they want to remain 'informed' or competitive. And it certainly wouldn't hurt for SlashDot readers to offset the 'we love Apple' with facts or information that shines some light on the 'Jobs distortion field', as when he talks 'revolutionary technology' it is often stuff that is OLD NEWS and already been done by the #1 OS running on almost 1 billion desktops, yet the Apple and *nix crowd doesn't even realize this.
You just should remove the 'news for nerds' and replace it with 'SlashDot users, proud of their ignorance and determined to keep it.'
People (I.T. guys included) will almost always go with what they are comfortable with. IIS is very easy to configure and you could have a Windows Server up and running in no time. With Apache, it's not so simple. Modifying text files gives the admins great control over nearly everything; but it's not so simple. And some n00b admin couldn't exactly master Apache in a weekend like they could IIS.
.NET features or ASP features or even older FP Extension/CGI features, it is ALL available.
.NET and server side programming coming out of MS. MS has been working hard on becoming standards compliant and in the process creating a large set of tools for developers. From AJAX development to XAML applications over the internet, MS has been pushing up the game and part of this is in addition to the .NET foundations and new communication mechanisms.
.NET functions that can be used on Apache, but there is a loss of features and productivity for average developers that doesn't have to be worried about with IIS.
Although these are good reasons, it goes beyond just the administration side of things. Any good IT person should be able to assemble an Apache or IIS server.
The catch is when users or site developers or site owners start asking for features. With IIS you can give them anything Apache has, and when you get the users asking for Sharepoint or
If you are only running Apache then your options are limited, especially with the new movement in
Of course there is some
There is also support for non-IIS features that you gain in the Windows server world, application side tools to MS SQL, etc. And with IIS and Windows you can still do MySQL and PHP and have all of them active for the site users at the same time depending on what they want/need.
As for features Apache has over IIS, I would open this post as a place for people to post things Apache does that IIS can't, and I mean this in terms of providing features to the end users/developers. (i.e. It doesn't run on BSD, is not a good example.)
1) Don't they own the computers at your work?
2) What happens when you get malware from a Firefox exploit? (Lately it has been more on the hit list than IE)
3) Why would you jeopardize your employment just to run Firefox, as it would violate user guidelines and THEIR security policies?
(I am surprised they would keep any serious data in a Windows NTFS machine, if you need to apply a patch and you have a computation taking several days accessing data there, well, lets say your patch would have to wait, in other machines, depending on the nature of the patch, most likely you can apply it on the fly).
How would NTFS be any different than any other FS in this regard? Do you not update all OSes running on FSes?
Also with Vista, NTFS is self healing, something again most other FS can't or don't do. So even with hardware failure the machine would stay running far longer than another FS on another OS.
Where have you been?
:)
Elton has always been a bitter Queen, that is why a lot of people like him.
- And I use the term Queen with lots of respect.
Wow, if I could give you a mod point I would. Rare to see anyone here go, 'oops'.
Take Care...
That's funny when you realize Elton writes almost none of his music, just the lyrics. Bernie Taupin is pretty exclusively the music writer.
Are you retarded? You have it exactly opposite.
Actually I was being a plain and simple smartass.
I couldn't believe that people were discounting his music abilities because they didn't like his opinion. Either that or they truly are too young or stupid to have any understanding of him or his music. Sadly a lot of people think he only goes back to the Lion King, and yet some of the greatest modern melodies mixed throughout our societies are his creations.
I personally am pretty eclectic when it comes to music, admittedly listening to Britney myself, but I also have some sort of sense of appreciation that goes beyond the latest Gwen or Fergie hit I also enjoy.
I don't necessarily agree with Elton's views, but they really don't impact much and are just his freaking views, and they certainly don't take away from his 'influence' and impact on society through music.
As for the poster above that claims to have been around 'a long time' and thinks Elton has had no influence, they are either lying or really sheltered. My grandfather was a country music star of the 40s and 50s, and even he acknowledges major impacts various non-country artists have had on the entire industry, and Elton is one outside the country industry he would name.
Anyone that thinks Elton sucks at music or is a hack should look up an old episode of Inside the Actor's Studio, where he literally writes brilliant music to words from a textbook, impromptu.
doesn't mean that the average Joe on the street can do so
:)
Also since iTunes and Apple users are a large share of the DRM market, getting white out off their screen is usually enough time spent hacking into secret areas of the screen for the day.
Try creating music that people like
;)
And sadly like most SlashDot nerds, you still sign along to the Lion King even though it makes you want to cry.
Sadly kiddies on SlashDot have no clue of the impact Elton has on Music.
Let's see, hmm, a true music writer with perfect pitch, ya that just doesn't work in today's Britney, lipsync crowd.
Last time I checked, it was OS X with a BSD subsystem.
You may wanna research that.
Actually OS X has NO subsystems, you might want to research that. OS X uses a BSD interface to the MACH kernel.
I can't believe so many people don't have a clue on the NT BSD Subsystem, and it also scares me that people don't realize NT is the only mainstream OS architecture that can run different OS API subsystems natively.
Geesh
MS isn't out of the equation at all. The whole point of TFA is about switching AWAY from Vista
:)
Why when Vista ships with a full BSD subsystem? Unix, Win32, Win64, NT Core. Not such a bad thing for Windows business environments.
Also if the *nix OSS world would embrace the Vista BSD a bit, they could get Windows business and home users playing with a real *nix environment and slowying use a carrot to bring them over to other distributions.
There is a LOT more to functionality than the ability to play DiVX files. Saying a Creative Zen is somehow a superior overall product just does't make any sense, and you can't chalk up the iPod's success to "marketing". Plus, my Nano doesn't even play videos ;-)
;)
Well that wasn't my argument, but sure we can go with that.
So on my non-iPod Nanoish device, I just copy WMA files or other Audio formats without conversion.
Also my device cost $20, has more space than a nano, and I don't have to use iTunes or convert my songs when transfering them to it.