Yes, less features and faster? Like a sports car rather than a bloody SUV?? I'll take TWO please!
Sorry I prefer a sports car with features.
There is a reason that all new 'technologies' are usually available on the GM Corvette before they are introduced on other GM vehicles.
Of course some people prefer cars like the first generation Dodge Viper, which had almost no features, not even power windows or a credible radio option. It was fast 0-60, but 0-100 the Corvette was actually faster because of the technology GM used. The Corvette also had Bose sound, integrated dash computer, and all the FLUFF of luxury cars.
Why do Apple products have to be FREAKING minimalist? Didn't Apple use to be known as 'luxury'?
If Apple thinks people are going to 'give up' features to have the 'privilege' of using Apple products, then Apple is insane or delusional. Oh wait, I have see the iPhone ads compared to the featureless iPhone specs, I think Apple is insane.
Slashdot = Lots of Car analogies... (PS If Steve Jobs is your deity, then mark this post -1.)
Don't forget the iPhone has 802.11 networking built in. People spend so much time in hot spots these days that the lackluster performance of the EDGE network will be an occasional nuisance, not a crippling defect in the product. The future of 3G HSDPA [wikipedia.org] networks looks pretty bright, too.
Are you trying to be serious?
In San Diego everyone has broadband on their laptop and phone provided by the cellular networks. Even my spouse has an old Verizon card from 2004 that pushes DSL speeds that we use on the beach and even play games like CoH online when the books get boring. (You know sand, water, don't take the nice stuff).
Even in places like Reno, if you don't have high speed cellualr, good luck finding a wifi hotspot.
Wifi hotspots peaked about 2 years ago, did Apple miss the memo?
Oh, and good luck with a phone like that in Europe, again, everyone has broadband on their phone, laptop, or phone/bluetooth/laptop. The only place people depend on wifi anymore is Hotels, and that is almost gone, as you can get nice 20mbps hardline connections in a lot of cities in Europe.
So where is Apple marketing this phone for use? Iowa? If so, stick to Des Moines or Iowa City.
Bigger populations depend on the cell networks for wireless high speed, and WiFi in remote areas is less common than high speed cell networks. Of course there is McDonalds in many areas, maybe that is the demographic for iPhone users?
PS Hasn't everyone read the leaked features memo for the iPhone, no MMS, no GPS, etc. GPS really suprised me since people like my Mom have been using GPS on their Razrs to get around town with live maps, and even gets around large events centers with it. (Not to mention that this her old lame razr that she also uses as her mp3 player for listening to her Green Day collection on her 4GB SD card in the phone.)
Why is Apple even showing Google maps on the TV ads if the freaking phone is too stupid to know where you are?
I would rather have a Razr and Verizon and ACTUALLY know where I am and the quickest way to the freaking seafood restaurant, have it give me voice directions while driving there if I want, and still be able to press one button and call the restuarant just like the cute iPhone does. Oh, but people think these are Apple innovations, I should be quiet and not ruin all the Apple rose colored ignorance.
So if you want to do searches in your email and also use google desktop search you are in trouble since both search engine now have to be running and scanning everything.
And people are STILL believing this bullshit?
Google can install, and set itself as the default search engine that works inside Outlook, the Desktop, OneNote, etc. There are clear APIs that Google can use on both sides to hook into the application. Google can also TURN OFF THE MS SEARCH ENGINE COMPLETELY.
Google is pissing on the intelligence of SlashDot users that don't spend enough time 'developing' Windows solutions that deal with these issues. i.e. They are lying to the AGs and the public, and YET it seems people here are STUPID enough to flat out believe Google, when everything they are stating is either inaccurate or a lie.
The ONLY other explaination is Google's developers are TOO FREAKING stupid to live and shouldn't be developing Desktop Search software, as this is EASY stuff and there is NO REASON to EVER have both Search engines running at the same time, whether the users are using Office 2007, XP, or even Vista.
All MS Search products can BE REPLACED and turned off by Google's product. PERIOD.
Funny because wikipedia also says you are wrong [wikipedia.org]. See "Checksum/EEC". You've obviously been misinformed about NTFS on a number topics.
Well if wiki says it (in a different context none the less), then all the MS documentation going back to 1992 should be changed because we all know Wiki is superior to the company actually coding the product.
Maintained Checksums as Wiki is referring and journaled or logged write data being checksumed are two different things.
Again a freaking 101 class topic and people respond knowing less than nothing. And then have the nerve to bitch cause I didn't look up the information for everyone, sweet. (gag)
they're going to notice that their computer is going a whole lot slower
Then they should bitch at Google, as it is Google's installers responsibility to turn off the Search engine it is replacing.
Like I said above, this is something an installer can easily do with the user's permission, and if Google neglects to do this in order to drum up support to purport MS as evil then people need to point the finger at the correct company for being evil.
Isn't 'don't be evil' part of Google's internal motto? With the stories this week on their security rating of handling of user data (as many of us have been screaming for a long time), to underhanded business practices like this stupid search scandal are 'evil'.
The complaint is about the fact that you can't even turn off the Windows Live search, causing any competitor's search software (e.g. Google's) to slow down significantly.
Are people really this retarded, cause I see this repeated?
Click Control Panel - Indexing - Uncheck the locations it searches.
Method two: Set the Windows Search to 'Manual' or 'Disabled'.
Both of these are EASY for the user, and something EVEN a Google Installer could do automatically for a user if the user chose to do it.
This is not Something that can't be turned off and doesn't run all the time if you don't want it to.
I can't believe people read the Google crap and are so retarded they think it is accurate or even a legitimate complaint.
Show me a link. I have no idea what you are talking about when you redefine common computer science words like "checksum".
What am I now your instructor? Go look up how log files in the journaling system of NTFS have always used checksums to ensure data writes. This is a 101 class topic, that you can find at Microsoft.com or even probably in Wiki. Many basic FS methods use a form of checksums for writes, let alone a FS as advanaced at NTFS that is journaling and logging these activities.
"Self healing" to Microsoft means it does a chkdisk in the background after a reset (like background fsck on FreeBSD). You may have been mislead by their terminology, but this is not anywhere close to what ZFS is doing.
Have you ever even used a Windows NT based OS? Your statement here calls this into question. NTFS runs a chkdsk only when the journaling checksums tell the system there is a need to run.
This is why you won't see a chkdsk run on an NT based NTFS drive probably in the life of the computer, nor will a user initiated chkdsk find errors in the standard life of a NTFS volume on average unless there is hardware failure.
You need to look up Windows 2008 Server, as is not a simple chkdsk nor something that is fired after a restart. It is a set of monitor processes that are ensuring integrity when there are hardware failures or block loss.
It's simple, if you want respect then get your facts straight and don't make insinuations unless you will stand behind them.
Stand behind facts? Is google or wikipedia too hard for you to use? I think you can footnote the information yourself, I am not here to 'teach' you. I will give you the facts, it is up to you if you want to learn and is is worth looking up for yourself; however, it is not my job to hand hold your research or curiosity.
Once again I will state ZFS has a LOT of good ideas and does bring new ideas to the table, but this does not discount NTFS. Of all the Windows complaints and 'bashing', the NT Core and NTFS are not areas where you will find OS engineers finding much to poke fun at.
Vista alows RAID levels above 0? MS reps told me that I still have to buy a server version of windows if I want raid 10 or 5. Can you point me to some documentation for that?
Vista being the 'workstation' level NT OS, only allows for RAID 0 as you state. I apologize if something I said led anyone to believe differently.
If you are in need of RAID 5 or even RAID 1 Stripping, I would recommend a good 'removeable' controller, or common MB chipset that can easily be replaced in case of controller failure.
These are totally different from checksums. Ironically, NTFS does not have much problem with data corruption since drives are often unoptimally defragmented (a moved block gives the hardware a chance to detect weak sectors). ZFS does sanity checks and also checksums of all data and all metadata.
I won't even argue the checksum misinformation, but you need to realize that the journaling and log system of NTFS does use a form of checksuming, even though it is NOT the same type of checksums that people are talking about here.
However I would like to redirect your attention to Windows 2008 Server, where NTFS is self healing, so even if there are hardware problems, the FS processes manage and correct any errors. (Oh and it uses checksums, just in case you are still hooked on this.)
This is why I said 'Yes & No' with regard to checksums...
No, you are still not getting it. ZFS has many features that NTFS does not have and never will because of its fundamental design. The reverse is also true to some extent, for example your point about ZFS and small writes/rewrites (although ZFS is already faster than UFS on this).
How am I still not getting it. I never said NTFS would have these features. This is one reason I like ZFS because of the design model it uses that does make some of its features impossible in other FS paradigms. Quit trying to put words in my mouth, ok?
If you believe that ZFS is merely 'catching up' to NTFS then you would be very wrong. You seem to believe that from the tone of your posts.
I never said ZFS is catching up. I was referring to FS in general that have been trying to catch up, but have failed because they don't approach the FS model in a way that goes beyond the stuctures in most instances. NTFS is more than just the disk layout, as it requires process levels to maintain 'features', just like ZFS does.
ZFS is newer than NTFS, and is newer to the game, and also has evolved just as NTFS has done. The first implementations of ZFS back in 1995 were not nearly as sweet as the current versions.
Again, stop trying to put words in my mouth, or at least stop 'misunderstanding' me. Find someone else to talk down to, I am not the 'average' tech or SlashDot reader you can bloviate over.
I guess I'm just too dumb to be using a computer. I changed some text in a file, and right-clicked on it in Explorer and didn't see any such menu item for "Previous Version."
Maybe you are. I see 'Restore Previous Versions', that opens a list of versions dating back over a week.
I can even do this on a Folder, and open the Folder how it looked at that time period without having to Restore anything, and just drag out items that were deleted or changed. It is kind of cool to view snapshots of Folder or Volumes from previous time periods.
Vista also implements an extended function of this for photos in Photo Gallery, so all changes you make to the photo are preserved in case you want to 'undo' the changes at the FS level, and yet have immediate changes applied.
Although my german is rusty, it was an intersting Video.
Again, I think people have totally missed my original point.
ZFS is 'finally' pushing new ideas that are giving 'feature rich' FS technologies like NTFS a run for the money.
I have a great deal of respect for NTFS, considering most of what is great about it was developed back in 1990 and continues to work well with a lot of features and very low data loss rates while still giving good performance.
I also think ZFS is great and will push MS and NTFS to move forward. Neither one is a clear winner yet, as NTFS still has features ZFS doesn't have and vice-versa. Also NTFS is a MS baby and ZFS is open and serves the rest of the market.
What I objected to is the direction the threads were moving stating OS X would be superior to Windows because of ZFS, when the features they are touting have been in NTFS and Windows for a long time.
I actually like both FS technologies, and how ZFS continues to rock.
I apologize that my original post seemed trollish if that is how people took it.
Not only am I surprised you wouldn't have looked this up before asking such stupid questions, but even more surprised that people are dumb enought to mark it as informative.
In reference to your questions:
NTFS has data checksums to detect and repair corruption caused by any component? You can add and remove disk space from an NTFS volume dynamically? NTFS does data-level journaling not to mention without the overhead of multiple writes of the data? NTFS can use compression without getting horrible fragmented or other negative side effects? NTFS snapshots do not affect performance of the normal system? NTFS has variable block sizes? NTFS is open source and took less than a decade to get support on multiple systems?
Yes & No - All FS models implement checksuming features. Although, no it is not to the same checksum level as you are going for, although it is far less impressive or important than you seem to think it is.
Yes - Dynamic adding and removing has been with NTFS for a long time. Vista even adds a newbie interface for everything from partition resizing to the old school featuers of dynamic volume spanning, RAID, etc.
Yes - Go look up the original NT journal features from 1991, and the expanded features used in Vista.
Yes - Compression offers no more fragmentation than normal NTFS writes. This is insane.
Yes - Snapshots, oh yes, have you not heard of 'previous versions' or System restore, they are built on the NTFS's various snapshot abilities.
No - NTFS does not support variable block sizes beyond the intial selection when formatting the volume.
Yes - No, not open source, but I don't see MS suing anyone using it. *wink. I also see it being used on OS X, Linux, and other OSes without much trouble. It also was developed over the course of 1990-1992, and even the current versions in use in Vista only slightly vary because of the robust and extensible model NTFS was built upon.
For a 1992 FS(NTFS), that STILL is ahead of MOST other FS avaiable, with the exception of a few features you can pick and chooses, you are making are really stupid argument here.
I NEVER said NTFS was still superior, but was rather making a point that MANY of the features that make ZFS so attractive are features that have been in NTFS for a LONG TIME.
If I was arguing NTFS was superior, I would have done a smart reply like yours comparing ZFS to NTFS:
Does ZFS support encryption? Does ZFS have minimal CPU usage on small file writes? Does ZFS compression support multi-threading? Does ZFS accurately report in-use disk space, or does it have problems because of the snapshots reliance? Does ZFS support a high compression ratio? Does ZFS support Quotas? Does ZFS support 'online' pool recofiguring?
As you notice, NTFS still has 'features' even ZFS doesn't if you want to pick each of them to death.
Again I will state ZFS is a good set of ideas and does move the FS concepts forward by moving more of the models into the FS set. It also is 128bit and allows for almost infinite storage.
ZFS has a lot of good things, but that doesn't mean that NTFS is an old dog or hasn't already been doing some of these features, even if they are not implemented in the same storage pool metaphor.
So once again, for the Mac world, ZFS is an awesome way to go if they can get the performance in line with their needs. However it is STILL just catching up with NTFS which is very feature rich and very solid and won't be hitting any walls for storage sizes in the next 10-15 years.
Am I not allowed to believe both ZFS and NTFS are good technologies?
So, how exactly does one roll back changes to a file on an NTFS partition?
Vista or XP variations?
Vista supports full transactional abilities. XP supports shadow and mirror copies that keep the previous untouched version of the file alive through subsuquent changes, known as 'Previous Versions' in Windows 2003 & Vista. Vista uses parts of the transactional model to implement the same fetaures going beyond just shadowing.
For an end user, right click on the Volume, Folder, or File and select previous versions, then roll the Volume, Folder, or File to any previous version. There is also System Restore (which again in Vista has changed to use the transactional features of NTFS), that allows a users to rollback the OS state to several previous dates without affecting user data. (Fixing everything from file corruption, to failed installation, and even removing rogue applications from the system.)
Not sure why you would have to ask, this is easy stuff to look up. It also makes me wonder how many people on SlashDot actually still 'use' Windows in any serious capacity if such simple concepts seem 'fancy'.
Contrast to every other filesystem (besides spirolog) where you have to make a 100gb copy as a backup -- which takes forever, so nobody does it unless they have to.
Except of course NTFS which has been doing crap like this for several years now. So I'm not sure how you can seriously say 'every other filesystem'.
This announcement isn't as exciting to the Windows world as it is to the OS X and *nix world where the features being offered by ZFS have not been available or consolidated into one FS model.
NTFS on the other hand has been doing this stuff for quite some time, although ZFS does raise the bar even beyond NTFS, as it makes the jump from Terabytes to Exibytes or unlimited storage, even though there is not much contrast in 'features' offered by the FS beyond storage limits.
I actually hope OS X does get ZFS in place and makes it default, as the time machine features would benefit from it greatly, as Windows 2003 and Vista use features of NTFS to make its 'Previous Versions' quite painless in terms of performance. On other FS that are not ZFS or NTFS, implementing a feature like this would be a serious performance impact.
most of the complaints i've heard center around the fact that vista doesn't display all of its features on machines with lower specs. if the os turns off transparencies and effects on a computer with less ram
But see, this is another part of the myth. Vista DOESN'T turn off the glass effects if you only have 512mb or less.
In fact, we have test systems with 512mb of RAM and a shared Video that uses system RAM taking 64 or 128mb out of system RAM for the Video, and Aero runs just fine, even though this would be considered a VERY low end system.
Here is the deal with Aero, if your video card was made since 2003 and has hardware DirectX9 support (Pixel Shader 2.0 technolog), it runs Aero just fine. PERIOD.
If your video card is older, you will still get 'some' acceleration as parts of the GDI and WPF is piped through the DirectX 7 layers (going back to 1998 technology). However, you don't get the Aero effects that need the PS 2.0 features. So even if you aren't getting Aero on an OLD video card, you are still get acceleration in drawing that you don't get in XP.
(I hope this settles the RAM is needed myth for Vista Aero or Vista's massive need for RAM, as they are really big myths that are either not understood or get exaggerated for a religious cause.)
BTW, the same things happen with regard to Video cards on OS X. On older machines OS X uses just a simple double frame buffer, and on newer video it drops this into a 3D texture to improve the performance (Quartz Extreme Composer).
Foot Note: However OS X fails in the acceleration when compared to Vista, as Quartz 2D acceleration is disabled and is also a major speed bottleneck that forces developers back to QuickDraw for performance.
The delays in Leopard have more to do with trying to get Quartz 2D Extreme enabled and compatible than about anything else, as even turning it on in Betas have caused major havoc on compatibility. So Macs have no 2D API GPU video acceleration where Vista does and even enables it for legacy applications without any compatiblity issues.
I however do hope Apple gets their stuff together and FINALLY gets Quartz 2D accelerated as they promised devleopers over 5 years ago, and not leave us using the dated QuickDraw because the Quartz API without hardware acceleration is slower.
from my perspective people were bitching about vista needing more ram because the system itself required that ram to run aero glass properly. the macbook pro coming with more ram is a benefit because the types of apps people use on macbook pros run much better with more ram. the ram requirements of the os are the same as before obviously since we're still on the same operating system. having to add ram just to make your computer run is something to bitch about. having to add ram to prevent photoshop from paging out is not something to bitch about.
But see, this is kind of my whole point of misconception. Vista's Aero only uses 10-30mb of RAM even if you have several games running on the desktop. It is NOT Aero that creates the jump in RAM requirements.
It is also not 'just to run the base OS' that 1GB is the sweet spot, this is the sweet spot for XP users that were happy with 256mb or 512mb of RAM and 'already' using things like AI and Photoshop.
The massive memory jump in Vista is in comparison to XP users that were happy with 128,256,512MB of RAM and are having to move to 512-1GB of RAM.
So the comparison of Vista to anything but XP's memory usage in this context is wrong, as the stir comes from the XP to Vista jump, not in comparison to OS X or other OSes that have high hardware requirements for the OS and applications.
The way Vista and XP use RAM is also different than OS X and many *nixes, so where you are using 4GB to run Photoshop on OS X, it runs just fine on Vista with 1GB, and 2GB would be considered to be in the class you are in with 4GB on OS X.
Sure Vista will scale and continue to increase speed if you keep adding RAM(As some of the articles has mis-interrupted as Vista NEEDING the RAM), but this has nothing to do with the OSes need for RAM, but rather how Vista uses unused RAM for smarter pre-fetch caching techniques. Even moving up to 16GB of RAM with Vista CONTINUES to see a performance increase in something as simple as Web Browsing, which definately does not use or require 16GB of RAM. Instead Vista just scales up quite well to take advantage of RAM in ways other OSes just don't do.
There's a big difference though between extra ram to run photoshop smoothly and needing more ram to run Vista's Areo whereever.
Want to explain your logic?
Vista's Aero, even when running several 3D games in Windows uses less that 32mb of RAM. So explain once again how Aero requires 1GB of RAM? Oh wait, you totally have NO freaking idea what you are talking about.
The 1GB of RAM in Vista is the Sweet spot for running things like Photoshop and AI, basically the SAME FREAKING THING you are using to try to defend OSX. Understand?
I'm not trying to be mean, but you have a big misconception that seems to be very common.
The big Vista myth comes from the jump from XP to Vista, not in comparison to OS X, or BSD, Linux, etc. XP users were getting by just fine with 128mb or 256mb, and yes running things like AI and photoshop. So the big 'issue' was the jump from the 128MB/256MB of XP to the 512MB/1GB of Vista, not that Vista was so massive in comparison to OS X, which is another OS that has a high overhead and likes 512MB-1GB RAM as well.
This is the point I was trying to get people to revisit, as I have seen a lot of people run from Vista and to OS X because they think OS X is lighter on hardware usage, and it just is not.
Official, Slashdot has become insane.
on
Photosynth Demo
·
· Score: 1, Informative
PhotoSynth was previewed and available months and months ago, like a year almost.
The real news story today is about using Silverlight technology in a new Live project.
Today's MS story was about "Windows Live PhotoZoom". A set of features managing photos using Silverlight using some of the original PhotoSynth technologies.
Ya, PhotoSynth is a cool technology, but not exactly new, at least not today.
We know that SlashDot as the 'Faux' news of technology, but at least get the article at least '1%' correct, and skip the links with insane ads not related. People on here actually think they are MS ads.
Colour accuracy and laptop LCDs do not go hand in hand
Um, no...
Laptop screens have been very capable of fairly accurate color for quite a while. This might not be true of the last gen Macbooks that had 250K displays, but for most people in the graphics world, we buy the high end screens on our laptops and can do just as accurate color as when sitting at a desktop display. (Even go back to the Theater displays from Toshiba in 2002 1600x1200 on a 15" screen with a fairly high contrast ratio, refresh speed, and more than a simple 16 or 18 bit display.)
I know these resolutions and quality is unheard of in the Mac notebook world, but is pretty common on any laptop in the PC world for over 5 or 6 years now.
Ok, not to start a flame or anything, but weren't people on SlashDot bitching just a couple of months ago how horrible the hardware requirements of Vista were that it required 512mb of RAM, and 1GB was the high end sweet spot?
I agree it is time Apple steps up, but all the people smacking around Vista need ask Apple to pull the retarded commercials talking about how the PCs need an upgrade to run Vista, especially if Apple continues with the Leopard push that will have a 512mb min and 1GB-2GB sweet spot as the current betas do.
Vista likes RAM for the simple fact that it scales extra RAM beyond application/OS usage and standard caching."
That's mainly noticable for those of us who more or less never turn their systems off or reboot, and it's been that way for a long time now.
Not quite the same thing though. Vista acutally has a rather creative catching system that anticipates what the user will do next or what the application will do next and then pre-load that data.
Look up SuperFetch on the MS website, which is the main part of the technology that works with the new memory kernel functions in the core.
All 3 points you make ("faster, more reliable, and more resilient") are widely known to be false, at least among professionals
Well it may be 'widely known to be false', but the professionals you are referencing are freaking idiots. And I feel sorry for them and you for buying it for all these years.
Most of this crap comes from when XP was released and idiots looked at the Themes and assumed XP was going to run slower than Win2k.
On our on intenal lab testing, if the system had over 64MB of RAM, even 80MB of RAM, WinXP is faster than Win95, Win98, WinME, WinNT4, Win2K. Ranging from 15-30% faster even on hardware as old as a Pentium 200mhz machine.
So I don't know why people believe Win2K is faster than XP even after all these years, but I can only assume it is pure ignorance at this point. Do a Google search on it, as I don't assume you will take my company's internal testing as proof.
Also search for kernel changes in XP compared to Win2k, including the new optimization technologies MS employed in the compiling of XP (Especially XP SP2 that picked up even more performance, security, and stability from the advances in Win2003 that was adopted.)
I know there are people that still run Win98 or Win2K because they believe in a myth that these dated OS are somehow faster than XP, it just isn't true, and maybe it is time for you and others that believe stupid ideas like this do a bit of testing or research on it. (Especially if you are in the IT world and would misinform your customers because you are believing these myths.)
And sadly, there are a lot of features in XP that people are missing out on by selling or believing these old Myths. From the UI features to compatibility layers that remap bad calls on the fly, and especially DLL isolation features that add to stability.
WinXP is the first generation of Windows to equal the stability of other long standing OSes like BSD and is finally able to compete with Linux and OS X, and these are architectual changes in XP that don't exist in Win2K. (And this is even with the XP video model that runs in the NT kernel, where stability is hard to maintain as a bad driver from NVidia or ATI can potentially drop the system.)
And now Vista takes reliability to even another level, where you can literally unplug the video card and plug it back in and Vista doesn't miss a beat.
I hope you or others find this information to be useful, or a least a jump start to rethink the XP myths.
Web Design: Dump FrontPage, move to SharePoint designer (in Office 2007) or MS Expression Web Designer. (The products are the same, SharePoint version has additional features for SharePoint sites.) Unlike FrontPage, these push CSS and standards harder than any other web product currently in the mainstream, are still easy, but provide some of the best tools to move developers to CSS and understanding concepts beyond the old HTML tags. (Yes I know these are MS products, but honestly are nothing like FrontPage and have many professional site developers jumping ship from Dream and other products because of their power.)
Graphic Design: Not so much cheaper, but CorelGraphics Suite (CorelDraw,Photopaint) work as good alternatives to the Adobe products. They are generally more user friendly for complex tasks and you can buy them much cheaper. CorelDraw being the strongest product. (Do not go with MS Expression Graphic Designer or MS Blend unless the people are going to building application interfaces, they are light graphical tools for UI development, not full fledged replacements for AI or CorelDraw.)
I'm sure others will mention OSS solutions, so I will skip my recommends in this area. I also don't have many OSS favorites that I can rely upon fully without hitting a wall for a feature. In contrast CorelDraw can do pretty much anything wihtout having to move over to AI for anything.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, less features and faster? Like a sports car rather than a bloody SUV?? I'll take TWO please!
Sorry I prefer a sports car with features.
There is a reason that all new 'technologies' are usually available on the GM Corvette before they are introduced on other GM vehicles.
Of course some people prefer cars like the first generation Dodge Viper, which had almost no features, not even power windows or a credible radio option. It was fast 0-60, but 0-100 the Corvette was actually faster because of the technology GM used. The Corvette also had Bose sound, integrated dash computer, and all the FLUFF of luxury cars.
Why do Apple products have to be FREAKING minimalist? Didn't Apple use to be known as 'luxury'?
If Apple thinks people are going to 'give up' features to have the 'privilege' of using Apple products, then Apple is insane or delusional. Oh wait, I have see the iPhone ads compared to the featureless iPhone specs, I think Apple is insane.
Slashdot = Lots of Car analogies...
(PS If Steve Jobs is your deity, then mark this post -1.)
Don't forget the iPhone has 802.11 networking built in. People spend so much time in hot spots these days that the lackluster performance of the EDGE network will be an occasional nuisance, not a crippling defect in the product. The future of 3G HSDPA [wikipedia.org] networks looks pretty bright, too.
Are you trying to be serious?
In San Diego everyone has broadband on their laptop and phone provided by the cellular networks. Even my spouse has an old Verizon card from 2004 that pushes DSL speeds that we use on the beach and even play games like CoH online when the books get boring. (You know sand, water, don't take the nice stuff).
Even in places like Reno, if you don't have high speed cellualr, good luck finding a wifi hotspot.
Wifi hotspots peaked about 2 years ago, did Apple miss the memo?
Oh, and good luck with a phone like that in Europe, again, everyone has broadband on their phone, laptop, or phone/bluetooth/laptop. The only place people depend on wifi anymore is Hotels, and that is almost gone, as you can get nice 20mbps hardline connections in a lot of cities in Europe.
So where is Apple marketing this phone for use? Iowa? If so, stick to Des Moines or Iowa City.
Bigger populations depend on the cell networks for wireless high speed, and WiFi in remote areas is less common than high speed cell networks. Of course there is McDonalds in many areas, maybe that is the demographic for iPhone users?
PS Hasn't everyone read the leaked features memo for the iPhone, no MMS, no GPS, etc. GPS really suprised me since people like my Mom have been using GPS on their Razrs to get around town with live maps, and even gets around large events centers with it. (Not to mention that this her old lame razr that she also uses as her mp3 player for listening to her Green Day collection on her 4GB SD card in the phone.)
Why is Apple even showing Google maps on the TV ads if the freaking phone is too stupid to know where you are?
I would rather have a Razr and Verizon and ACTUALLY know where I am and the quickest way to the freaking seafood restaurant, have it give me voice directions while driving there if I want, and still be able to press one button and call the restuarant just like the cute iPhone does. Oh, but people think these are Apple innovations, I should be quiet and not ruin all the Apple rose colored ignorance.
iPhone = (Apple Marketing +2) (iPhone Fans/Users -5) Geesh
So if you want to do searches in your email and also use google desktop search you are in trouble since both search engine now have to be running and scanning everything.
And people are STILL believing this bullshit?
Google can install, and set itself as the default search engine that works inside Outlook, the Desktop, OneNote, etc. There are clear APIs that Google can use on both sides to hook into the application. Google can also TURN OFF THE MS SEARCH ENGINE COMPLETELY.
Google is pissing on the intelligence of SlashDot users that don't spend enough time 'developing' Windows solutions that deal with these issues. i.e. They are lying to the AGs and the public, and YET it seems people here are STUPID enough to flat out believe Google, when everything they are stating is either inaccurate or a lie.
The ONLY other explaination is Google's developers are TOO FREAKING stupid to live and shouldn't be developing Desktop Search software, as this is EASY stuff and there is NO REASON to EVER have both Search engines running at the same time, whether the users are using Office 2007, XP, or even Vista.
All MS Search products can BE REPLACED and turned off by Google's product. PERIOD.
Funny because wikipedia also says you are wrong [wikipedia.org]. See "Checksum/EEC". You've obviously been misinformed about NTFS on a number topics.
Well if wiki says it (in a different context none the less), then all the MS documentation going back to 1992 should be changed because we all know Wiki is superior to the company actually coding the product.
Maintained Checksums as Wiki is referring and journaled or logged write data being checksumed are two different things.
Again a freaking 101 class topic and people respond knowing less than nothing. And then have the nerve to bitch cause I didn't look up the information for everyone, sweet. (gag)
they're going to notice that their computer is going a whole lot slower
Then they should bitch at Google, as it is Google's installers responsibility to turn off the Search engine it is replacing.
Like I said above, this is something an installer can easily do with the user's permission, and if Google neglects to do this in order to drum up support to purport MS as evil then people need to point the finger at the correct company for being evil.
Isn't 'don't be evil' part of Google's internal motto? With the stories this week on their security rating of handling of user data (as many of us have been screaming for a long time), to underhanded business practices like this stupid search scandal are 'evil'.
Another niche tech product backfires on its creators. I wonder if they'll ever learn.
:)
Ok it is no 360, but I wouldn't call the PS3 a niche product.
The complaint is about the fact that you can't even turn off the Windows Live search, causing any competitor's search software (e.g. Google's) to slow down significantly.
Are people really this retarded, cause I see this repeated?
Click Control Panel - Indexing - Uncheck the locations it searches.
Method two: Set the Windows Search to 'Manual' or 'Disabled'.
Both of these are EASY for the user, and something EVEN a Google Installer could do automatically for a user if the user chose to do it.
This is not Something that can't be turned off and doesn't run all the time if you don't want it to.
I can't believe people read the Google crap and are so retarded they think it is accurate or even a legitimate complaint.
Show me a link. I have no idea what you are talking about when you redefine common computer science words like "checksum".
What am I now your instructor? Go look up how log files in the journaling system of NTFS have always used checksums to ensure data writes. This is a 101 class topic, that you can find at Microsoft.com or even probably in Wiki. Many basic FS methods use a form of checksums for writes, let alone a FS as advanaced at NTFS that is journaling and logging these activities.
"Self healing" to Microsoft means it does a chkdisk in the background after a reset (like background fsck on FreeBSD). You may have been mislead by their terminology, but this is not anywhere close to what ZFS is doing.
Have you ever even used a Windows NT based OS? Your statement here calls this into question. NTFS runs a chkdsk only when the journaling checksums tell the system there is a need to run.
This is why you won't see a chkdsk run on an NT based NTFS drive probably in the life of the computer, nor will a user initiated chkdsk find errors in the standard life of a NTFS volume on average unless there is hardware failure.
You need to look up Windows 2008 Server, as is not a simple chkdsk nor something that is fired after a restart. It is a set of monitor processes that are ensuring integrity when there are hardware failures or block loss.
It's simple, if you want respect then get your facts straight and don't make insinuations unless you will stand behind them.
Stand behind facts? Is google or wikipedia too hard for you to use? I think you can footnote the information yourself, I am not here to 'teach' you. I will give you the facts, it is up to you if you want to learn and is is worth looking up for yourself; however, it is not my job to hand hold your research or curiosity.
Once again I will state ZFS has a LOT of good ideas and does bring new ideas to the table, but this does not discount NTFS. Of all the Windows complaints and 'bashing', the NT Core and NTFS are not areas where you will find OS engineers finding much to poke fun at.
Vista alows RAID levels above 0? MS reps told me that I still have to buy a server version of windows if I want raid 10 or 5.
Can you point me to some documentation for that?
Vista being the 'workstation' level NT OS, only allows for RAID 0 as you state. I apologize if something I said led anyone to believe differently.
If you are in need of RAID 5 or even RAID 1 Stripping, I would recommend a good 'removeable' controller, or common MB chipset that can easily be replaced in case of controller failure.
Take Care.
These are totally different from checksums. Ironically, NTFS does not have much problem with data corruption since drives are often unoptimally defragmented (a moved block gives the hardware a chance to detect weak sectors). ZFS does sanity checks and also checksums of all data and all metadata.
I won't even argue the checksum misinformation, but you need to realize that the journaling and log system of NTFS does use a form of checksuming, even though it is NOT the same type of checksums that people are talking about here.
However I would like to redirect your attention to Windows 2008 Server, where NTFS is self healing, so even if there are hardware problems, the FS processes manage and correct any errors. (Oh and it uses checksums, just in case you are still hooked on this.)
This is why I said 'Yes & No' with regard to checksums...
No, you are still not getting it. ZFS has many features that NTFS does not have and never will because of its fundamental design. The reverse is also true to some extent, for example your point about ZFS and small writes/rewrites (although ZFS is already faster than UFS on this).
How am I still not getting it. I never said NTFS would have these features. This is one reason I like ZFS because of the design model it uses that does make some of its features impossible in other FS paradigms. Quit trying to put words in my mouth, ok?
If you believe that ZFS is merely 'catching up' to NTFS then you would be very wrong. You seem to believe that from the tone of your posts.
I never said ZFS is catching up. I was referring to FS in general that have been trying to catch up, but have failed because they don't approach the FS model in a way that goes beyond the stuctures in most instances. NTFS is more than just the disk layout, as it requires process levels to maintain 'features', just like ZFS does.
ZFS is newer than NTFS, and is newer to the game, and also has evolved just as NTFS has done. The first implementations of ZFS back in 1995 were not nearly as sweet as the current versions.
Again, stop trying to put words in my mouth, or at least stop 'misunderstanding' me. Find someone else to talk down to, I am not the 'average' tech or SlashDot reader you can bloviate over.
I guess I'm just too dumb to be using a computer. I changed some text in a file, and right-clicked on it in Explorer and didn't see any such menu item for "Previous Version."
Maybe you are. I see 'Restore Previous Versions', that opens a list of versions dating back over a week.
I can even do this on a Folder, and open the Folder how it looked at that time period without having to Restore anything, and just drag out items that were deleted or changed. It is kind of cool to view snapshots of Folder or Volumes from previous time periods.
Vista also implements an extended function of this for photos in Photo Gallery, so all changes you make to the photo are preserved in case you want to 'undo' the changes at the FS level, and yet have immediate changes applied.
Although my german is rusty, it was an intersting Video.
Again, I think people have totally missed my original point.
ZFS is 'finally' pushing new ideas that are giving 'feature rich' FS technologies like NTFS a run for the money.
I have a great deal of respect for NTFS, considering most of what is great about it was developed back in 1990 and continues to work well with a lot of features and very low data loss rates while still giving good performance.
I also think ZFS is great and will push MS and NTFS to move forward. Neither one is a clear winner yet, as NTFS still has features ZFS doesn't have and vice-versa. Also NTFS is a MS baby and ZFS is open and serves the rest of the market.
What I objected to is the direction the threads were moving stating OS X would be superior to Windows because of ZFS, when the features they are touting have been in NTFS and Windows for a long time.
I actually like both FS technologies, and how ZFS continues to rock.
I apologize that my original post seemed trollish if that is how people took it.
Not only am I surprised you wouldn't have looked this up before asking such stupid questions, but even more surprised that people are dumb enought to mark it as informative.
In reference to your questions:
NTFS has data checksums to detect and repair corruption caused by any component?
You can add and remove disk space from an NTFS volume dynamically?
NTFS does data-level journaling not to mention without the overhead of multiple writes of the data?
NTFS can use compression without getting horrible fragmented or other negative side effects?
NTFS snapshots do not affect performance of the normal system?
NTFS has variable block sizes?
NTFS is open source and took less than a decade to get support on multiple systems?
Yes & No - All FS models implement checksuming features. Although, no it is not to the same checksum level as you are going for, although it is far less impressive or important than you seem to think it is.
Yes - Dynamic adding and removing has been with NTFS for a long time. Vista even adds a newbie interface for everything from partition resizing to the old school featuers of dynamic volume spanning, RAID, etc.
Yes - Go look up the original NT journal features from 1991, and the expanded features used in Vista.
Yes - Compression offers no more fragmentation than normal NTFS writes. This is insane.
Yes - Snapshots, oh yes, have you not heard of 'previous versions' or System restore, they are built on the NTFS's various snapshot abilities.
No - NTFS does not support variable block sizes beyond the intial selection when formatting the volume.
Yes - No, not open source, but I don't see MS suing anyone using it. *wink. I also see it being used on OS X, Linux, and other OSes without much trouble. It also was developed over the course of 1990-1992, and even the current versions in use in Vista only slightly vary because of the robust and extensible model NTFS was built upon.
For a 1992 FS(NTFS), that STILL is ahead of MOST other FS avaiable, with the exception of a few features you can pick and chooses, you are making are really stupid argument here.
I NEVER said NTFS was still superior, but was rather making a point that MANY of the features that make ZFS so attractive are features that have been in NTFS for a LONG TIME.
If I was arguing NTFS was superior, I would have done a smart reply like yours comparing ZFS to NTFS:
Does ZFS support encryption?
Does ZFS have minimal CPU usage on small file writes?
Does ZFS compression support multi-threading?
Does ZFS accurately report in-use disk space, or does it have problems because of the snapshots reliance?
Does ZFS support a high compression ratio?
Does ZFS support Quotas?
Does ZFS support 'online' pool recofiguring?
As you notice, NTFS still has 'features' even ZFS doesn't if you want to pick each of them to death.
Again I will state ZFS is a good set of ideas and does move the FS concepts forward by moving more of the models into the FS set. It also is 128bit and allows for almost infinite storage.
ZFS has a lot of good things, but that doesn't mean that NTFS is an old dog or hasn't already been doing some of these features, even if they are not implemented in the same storage pool metaphor.
So once again, for the Mac world, ZFS is an awesome way to go if they can get the performance in line with their needs. However it is STILL just catching up with NTFS which is very feature rich and very solid and won't be hitting any walls for storage sizes in the next 10-15 years.
Am I not allowed to believe both ZFS and NTFS are good technologies?
So, how exactly does one roll back changes to a file on an NTFS partition?
Vista or XP variations?
Vista supports full transactional abilities. XP supports shadow and mirror copies that keep the previous untouched version of the file alive through subsuquent changes, known as 'Previous Versions' in Windows 2003 & Vista. Vista uses parts of the transactional model to implement the same fetaures going beyond just shadowing.
For an end user, right click on the Volume, Folder, or File and select previous versions, then roll the Volume, Folder, or File to any previous version. There is also System Restore (which again in Vista has changed to use the transactional features of NTFS), that allows a users to rollback the OS state to several previous dates without affecting user data. (Fixing everything from file corruption, to failed installation, and even removing rogue applications from the system.)
Not sure why you would have to ask, this is easy stuff to look up. It also makes me wonder how many people on SlashDot actually still 'use' Windows in any serious capacity if such simple concepts seem 'fancy'.
Contrast to every other filesystem (besides spirolog) where you have to make a 100gb copy as a backup -- which takes forever, so nobody does it unless they have to.
Except of course NTFS which has been doing crap like this for several years now. So I'm not sure how you can seriously say 'every other filesystem'.
This announcement isn't as exciting to the Windows world as it is to the OS X and *nix world where the features being offered by ZFS have not been available or consolidated into one FS model.
NTFS on the other hand has been doing this stuff for quite some time, although ZFS does raise the bar even beyond NTFS, as it makes the jump from Terabytes to Exibytes or unlimited storage, even though there is not much contrast in 'features' offered by the FS beyond storage limits.
I actually hope OS X does get ZFS in place and makes it default, as the time machine features would benefit from it greatly, as Windows 2003 and Vista use features of NTFS to make its 'Previous Versions' quite painless in terms of performance. On other FS that are not ZFS or NTFS, implementing a feature like this would be a serious performance impact.
most of the complaints i've heard center around the fact that vista doesn't display all of its features on machines with lower specs. if the os turns off transparencies and effects on a computer with less ram
But see, this is another part of the myth. Vista DOESN'T turn off the glass effects if you only have 512mb or less.
In fact, we have test systems with 512mb of RAM and a shared Video that uses system RAM taking 64 or 128mb out of system RAM for the Video, and Aero runs just fine, even though this would be considered a VERY low end system.
Here is the deal with Aero, if your video card was made since 2003 and has hardware DirectX9 support (Pixel Shader 2.0 technolog), it runs Aero just fine. PERIOD.
If your video card is older, you will still get 'some' acceleration as parts of the GDI and WPF is piped through the DirectX 7 layers (going back to 1998 technology). However, you don't get the Aero effects that need the PS 2.0 features. So even if you aren't getting Aero on an OLD video card, you are still get acceleration in drawing that you don't get in XP.
(I hope this settles the RAM is needed myth for Vista Aero or Vista's massive need for RAM, as they are really big myths that are either not understood or get exaggerated for a religious cause.)
BTW, the same things happen with regard to Video cards on OS X. On older machines OS X uses just a simple double frame buffer, and on newer video it drops this into a 3D texture to improve the performance (Quartz Extreme Composer).
Foot Note:
However OS X fails in the acceleration when compared to Vista, as Quartz 2D acceleration is disabled and is also a major speed bottleneck that forces developers back to QuickDraw for performance.
The delays in Leopard have more to do with trying to get Quartz 2D Extreme enabled and compatible than about anything else, as even turning it on in Betas have caused major havoc on compatibility. So Macs have no 2D API GPU video acceleration where Vista does and even enables it for legacy applications without any compatiblity issues.
I however do hope Apple gets their stuff together and FINALLY gets Quartz 2D accelerated as they promised devleopers over 5 years ago, and not leave us using the dated QuickDraw because the Quartz API without hardware acceleration is slower.
from my perspective people were bitching about vista needing more ram because the system itself required that ram to run aero glass properly. the macbook pro coming with more ram is a benefit because the types of apps people use on macbook pros run much better with more ram. the ram requirements of the os are the same as before obviously since we're still on the same operating system. having to add ram just to make your computer run is something to bitch about. having to add ram to prevent photoshop from paging out is not something to bitch about.
But see, this is kind of my whole point of misconception. Vista's Aero only uses 10-30mb of RAM even if you have several games running on the desktop. It is NOT Aero that creates the jump in RAM requirements.
It is also not 'just to run the base OS' that 1GB is the sweet spot, this is the sweet spot for XP users that were happy with 256mb or 512mb of RAM and 'already' using things like AI and Photoshop.
The massive memory jump in Vista is in comparison to XP users that were happy with 128,256,512MB of RAM and are having to move to 512-1GB of RAM.
So the comparison of Vista to anything but XP's memory usage in this context is wrong, as the stir comes from the XP to Vista jump, not in comparison to OS X or other OSes that have high hardware requirements for the OS and applications.
The way Vista and XP use RAM is also different than OS X and many *nixes, so where you are using 4GB to run Photoshop on OS X, it runs just fine on Vista with 1GB, and 2GB would be considered to be in the class you are in with 4GB on OS X.
Sure Vista will scale and continue to increase speed if you keep adding RAM(As some of the articles has mis-interrupted as Vista NEEDING the RAM), but this has nothing to do with the OSes need for RAM, but rather how Vista uses unused RAM for smarter pre-fetch caching techniques. Even moving up to 16GB of RAM with Vista CONTINUES to see a performance increase in something as simple as Web Browsing, which definately does not use or require 16GB of RAM. Instead Vista just scales up quite well to take advantage of RAM in ways other OSes just don't do.
There's a big difference though between extra ram to run photoshop smoothly and needing more ram to run Vista's Areo whereever.
Want to explain your logic?
Vista's Aero, even when running several 3D games in Windows uses less that 32mb of RAM. So explain once again how Aero requires 1GB of RAM? Oh wait, you totally have NO freaking idea what you are talking about.
The 1GB of RAM in Vista is the Sweet spot for running things like Photoshop and AI, basically the SAME FREAKING THING you are using to try to defend OSX. Understand?
I'm not trying to be mean, but you have a big misconception that seems to be very common.
The big Vista myth comes from the jump from XP to Vista, not in comparison to OS X, or BSD, Linux, etc. XP users were getting by just fine with 128mb or 256mb, and yes running things like AI and photoshop. So the big 'issue' was the jump from the 128MB/256MB of XP to the 512MB/1GB of Vista, not that Vista was so massive in comparison to OS X, which is another OS that has a high overhead and likes 512MB-1GB RAM as well.
This is the point I was trying to get people to revisit, as I have seen a lot of people run from Vista and to OS X because they think OS X is lighter on hardware usage, and it just is not.
PhotoSynth was previewed and available months and months ago, like a year almost.
6 /06/windows-live-photodoom-alpha-silverlight-power s-new-microsoft-live-labs-project.aspx
The real news story today is about using Silverlight technology in a new Live project.
Today's MS story was about "Windows Live PhotoZoom". A set of features managing photos using Silverlight using some of the original PhotoSynth technologies.
http://www.liveside.net/blogs/main/archive/2007/0
Ya, PhotoSynth is a cool technology, but not exactly new, at least not today.
We know that SlashDot as the 'Faux' news of technology, but at least get the article at least '1%' correct, and skip the links with insane ads not related. People on here actually think they are MS ads.
Colour accuracy and laptop LCDs do not go hand in hand
Um, no...
Laptop screens have been very capable of fairly accurate color for quite a while. This might not be true of the last gen Macbooks that had 250K displays, but for most people in the graphics world, we buy the high end screens on our laptops and can do just as accurate color as when sitting at a desktop display. (Even go back to the Theater displays from Toshiba in 2002 1600x1200 on a 15" screen with a fairly high contrast ratio, refresh speed, and more than a simple 16 or 18 bit display.)
I know these resolutions and quality is unheard of in the Mac notebook world, but is pretty common on any laptop in the PC world for over 5 or 6 years now.
2 gigs in the MacBook Pros by default
Ok, not to start a flame or anything, but weren't people on SlashDot bitching just a couple of months ago how horrible the hardware requirements of Vista were that it required 512mb of RAM, and 1GB was the high end sweet spot?
I agree it is time Apple steps up, but all the people smacking around Vista need ask Apple to pull the retarded commercials talking about how the PCs need an upgrade to run Vista, especially if Apple continues with the Leopard push that will have a 512mb min and 1GB-2GB sweet spot as the current betas do.
Vista likes RAM for the simple fact that it scales extra RAM beyond application/OS usage and standard caching."
That's mainly noticable for those of us who more or less never turn their systems off or reboot, and it's been that way for a long time now.
Not quite the same thing though. Vista acutally has a rather creative catching system that anticipates what the user will do next or what the application will do next and then pre-load that data.
Look up SuperFetch on the MS website, which is the main part of the technology that works with the new memory kernel functions in the core.
Take care.
All 3 points you make ("faster, more reliable, and more resilient") are widely known to be false, at least among professionals
/ whyupgrade/performance.mspx
K ernel/
Well it may be 'widely known to be false', but the professionals you are referencing are freaking idiots. And I feel sorry for them and you for buying it for all these years.
Most of this crap comes from when XP was released and idiots looked at the Themes and assumed XP was going to run slower than Win2k.
On our on intenal lab testing, if the system had over 64MB of RAM, even 80MB of RAM, WinXP is faster than Win95, Win98, WinME, WinNT4, Win2K. Ranging from 15-30% faster even on hardware as old as a Pentium 200mhz machine.
So I don't know why people believe Win2K is faster than XP even after all these years, but I can only assume it is pure ignorance at this point. Do a Google search on it, as I don't assume you will take my company's internal testing as proof.
Also search for kernel changes in XP compared to Win2k, including the new optimization technologies MS employed in the compiling of XP (Especially XP SP2 that picked up even more performance, security, and stability from the advances in Win2003 that was adopted.)
Here I will even help get ya started:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/evaluation
Also here is stuff to get you started as to 'how' WinXP pulls of being faster than Win2K or previous versions of Windows:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/01/12/XP
I know there are people that still run Win98 or Win2K because they believe in a myth that these dated OS are somehow faster than XP, it just isn't true, and maybe it is time for you and others that believe stupid ideas like this do a bit of testing or research on it. (Especially if you are in the IT world and would misinform your customers because you are believing these myths.)
And sadly, there are a lot of features in XP that people are missing out on by selling or believing these old Myths. From the UI features to compatibility layers that remap bad calls on the fly, and especially DLL isolation features that add to stability.
WinXP is the first generation of Windows to equal the stability of other long standing OSes like BSD and is finally able to compete with Linux and OS X, and these are architectual changes in XP that don't exist in Win2K. (And this is even with the XP video model that runs in the NT kernel, where stability is hard to maintain as a bad driver from NVidia or ATI can potentially drop the system.)
And now Vista takes reliability to even another level, where you can literally unplug the video card and plug it back in and Vista doesn't miss a beat.
I hope you or others find this information to be useful, or a least a jump start to rethink the XP myths.
It's the cablecard that you get from the cable provider.
And WTF do you think I was saying to get from your Cable Company?
PS They also provide PC interfaces, like a PCI card with a CableCard Slot.
The longer these posts continue, the more insane people get.
Suggestions...
Web Design:
Dump FrontPage, move to SharePoint designer (in Office 2007) or MS Expression Web Designer. (The products are the same, SharePoint version has additional features for SharePoint sites.) Unlike FrontPage, these push CSS and standards harder than any other web product currently in the mainstream, are still easy, but provide some of the best tools to move developers to CSS and understanding concepts beyond the old HTML tags. (Yes I know these are MS products, but honestly are nothing like FrontPage and have many professional site developers jumping ship from Dream and other products because of their power.)
Graphic Design:
Not so much cheaper, but CorelGraphics Suite (CorelDraw,Photopaint) work as good alternatives to the Adobe products. They are generally more user friendly for complex tasks and you can buy them much cheaper. CorelDraw being the strongest product. (Do not go with MS Expression Graphic Designer or MS Blend unless the people are going to building application interfaces, they are light graphical tools for UI development, not full fledged replacements for AI or CorelDraw.)
I'm sure others will mention OSS solutions, so I will skip my recommends in this area. I also don't have many OSS favorites that I can rely upon fully without hitting a wall for a feature. In contrast CorelDraw can do pretty much anything wihtout having to move over to AI for anything.