Heck, even Mac OS Extended (HFS Plus) looks good compared to NTFS
Ok, first you are basing the FS based just on this table, but even in doing that, do you HAVE ANY IDEA what the numbers in the columns mean?
HFS is closer to FAT32 than even coming close to NTFS.
I am not going to knock ZFS, but the features that put it past NTFS are PRETTY NEW in terms of featurs offered. NTFS is OLD, as in 1991 OLD. There were very few FSs back then that inherently did Unicode and also supported 16 Exbibytes of space.
When comparing FS there is more than just bytes and storage limits though, there are things like performance, data reliability, and features like journalling, compression, encryption etc...
You mention several really good FSs, and I'm not going to say NTFS is the world's greatest FS, but it truly isn't something to sneeze at either. You are forgetting it has been doing for many years things many of the FS you mention just started doing in the last couple of years.
So with FUSE ported, Windows users can also enjoy in-filesystem versioning, seamless ssh integration, RAR files as folders and so on.
Why is this such a great goal, when FS developers have been trying to meet the basic features of NTFS already...
NTFS already does journalling, has file versioning (far beyond what any *nix FS does), encyrption, compression, and with Win32, zip and rar integration.
The trick in writing a FS for Windows isn't so much a NT issue, but how Win32 see the FS and what it expects to be there. This can best be demonstrated with the Unix subsystem on Windows, or how NFS is handled.
BTW, this is kind of a baited post to see how well people really do understand NTFS and also what they are trying to accomplish.
You say that there are phones that can do EVERY FEATURE that iPhone can, but you fail to mention that you need EVERY SINGLE ONE of them to achieve the same functionality...
A tiny simple Motorola Razor V3m will match the freaking iPhone with the expection of the touch screen. It also is 3G and can watch live TV from most providers, something the iPhone CANNOT DO.
And this is not even compariing the iPhone to a PocketPC phone that is a true computer that you can develop applications for, in addition to all the multimedia features.
You also can buy songs from NON Apple providers for these phones and movies from places that are NON Apple stores.
Lets be real for a minute. What IS good about the iPhone is the multi-touch display interface, beyond that, they are offering NOTHING beyond what everyone and their dog already offers, and many that offer more features.
Why would I buy an iPhone when I can't even get high speed content, that I CAN get with a $50 Motorola Razor V3m?
However, what people want the iPhone for is the style
If your idea of style and ease of use only comes from Apple, you are already brainwashed...
Why do people see Apple as the providers of ease and luxury or innovative in these areas?
Apple fought to adapt to color in the 80s, stereo speakers in their laptops in the 90s, and even two button mice, when everyone else is using 5 button mice...
As for style, sure some of their computers are cute, but there were PC manufacturers that were providing stylish comptuers long before Apple started the iMac fad.
As for ease of use, this is highly subjective. MS spends 10x the money on testing people and finding the easiest ways to piece together simple tasks. Sure there are some things on a Mac that are easier if you are already a Mac user, but if you are not, they are just as esoteric as starting with Windows. 99.9% of Windows is all GUI driven and fully accessible with a keyboard or a Mouse, OSX can't even claim either of these simple usuability tests.
In OSX if you want advanced features you are opening a terminal shell since the GUI doesn't offer a way to change several of the more technical settings of the OS, and certainly the keyboard/mouse issue still plagues Macs to this day. Even the freaking Delete/Backspace key not being consistent in Apple's own apps drives people insane.
Apple has awesome marketing, but technically they are behind the gap, and the only style they have is in ripping off users by pretending to be upper class computers and devices, when they are middle of the road to what the rest of the industry offers.
BTW. I do own Macs, and have since 1985, but they lost their graphical edge around 1991 when things like the IBM 8514 come on to the market and floundered the 90s with an OS that was in the same class as Windows 3.1.
OSX still has a lot of catching up to do, and until they can get the graphical performance to match a cheap Windows comptuer, they will NOT BE the definition of Style, Luxury, or Ease of Use...
So, wow, Pocket PC Phones are so revolutionary, they can display bitmaps stolen from the iPhone? LOL
Actually, they can DO EVERY feature an iPhone advertises as revolutionary with the exception of the multi-touch display that Apple patented.
They can also run third party applications, run real applets like MS Word, and even run remote tools where you can open your desktop PC. Oh they also have 3G capabilities, can watch TV, Download Videos, have a full Media experience and MP3 capabitlites, display photos and even watch movies.
They also can be SMALLER and have a LONGER battery life than the iPhone.
Apple has NO NEW FEATURES in this device, they just are brainwashing people like you to believe it does something that hasn't already been done for YEARS...
Good luck and stop drinking the Apple kool-aid before they give you a free trip to Jonestown.
don't own an iPod, but as far as I know (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the the iPod itself is not DRMed, it's iTunes (or at least the iTunes Music Store) that has the DRM
But the trick you are missing is that you HAVE TO USE iTUNES to put the Music on your iPod. You also cannot put music on your iPod in ANY other format than AAC that Apple allows, even though the decoder in the iPod supports other media formats. (Apple actually disabled the chip's ability to decode Windows Media that they use in the iPod, since the chip inherently supported it.)
Sure there are hacks out there, but 99.9% of the users, just load up iTunes and fill their iPod, not realizing they are being DRMed in the process...
If you read the article carefully it hardly implies that bloggers were threatened with legal action for simply reporting about the skins.
Can you NOT read, or did Apple pay you to post this clueless response?
FTA: Apple's lawyers also sent letters to journalists who simply reported on the fact that the skins were available.....
"If Apple wants to go after the guy that made the Windows Mobile skin that looks like the iPhone, fine. But to bully bloggers who are simply reporting on this is another matter."
#1. Myself and many others already stated that Windows Pocket PC Phones were just as capable as anything advertised by the iPhone, and have been around for YEARS now. In addition, have full developer support and tools for writing applications for them.
#2. Apple suing? How novel... Oh wait, that is their motto now, right? Mess with our reality distortion and we will sue you...
I don't care WHAT *nix runs under OSX, it is still shocking that/. has bent over for Apple left and right, and Apple is far more closed and arrogant than MS ever could have been. Apple is becoming the new Sun/Oracle, instead of actually innovating good products, they use PR spin and attack anyone that sheds light on their lies.
So go buy your iPhone, and Windows Pocket PC phone users will be saying, welcome to the 21st century, we have been here for a while.
Also keep supporting OSX and Apple like they are an OSS *nix company, when they have dismantled, stolen, and CLOSED more *nix code than any other company in history. Just look at the closing of Darwin for Intel, even though closing it is on shaky ground regarding the BSD interface to the kernel that they have also closed.
So, wow, iPhone so revolutionary, it can be mimicked on old Pocket PC Phones... LOL
(BTW you can get more than 8gb on a Pocket PC Phone and better Media support as you are not even locked into Windows Media on the device - you know, third party development helps keeping users from being locked in to the vendor's software...)
If I wanted a closed OS Phone, I would buy a Razor, they do as much as the iPhone as well, have 3G, can watch TV on them, browse the net or access the office at DSL speeds, all things far beyond the iPhone...
I see thousands of posts when someone mentions DRM, how much it is misunderstood by the mainstream users, and how evil it is always assumed to be.
And then I see the SAME people post how they love their iPod and fill it with DRM Apple songs that are not only lock them into Apple, but lock them into iTunes and lock them into an iPod for the rest of their life since they can't put the music they have bought on any other device.
What I don't understand, is how the same people can scream about DRM and then fall into one of the biggest DRM traps that ever existed.
DRM truly isn't a big deal, consumers have a choice and there are also places that DRM works because it is handled in a reputable way. One example of DRM that doesn't jump on users is audible.com.
Again the biggest problem with DRM is the misunderstanding of it by the non-geeks. I have had people read an article on DRM in Vista, and then say things like they would never buy Vista because they couldn't download movies anymore or get files off a torrent - all which is not true, as the Vista DRM is not any different than the Windows Media DRM in all previous versions of Windows.
If people here truly hate DRM for the right reasons, then they should protest Apple and demand that users do not buy iPods or OSX, the two most DRMed products currently in existence.
It is not like anyone can develop anything for it. This is like debating the OS of a closed source DVD player, it means nothing to anyone.
I could care if it was running System 9, or CPM, since we have no access to develop or it past what Apple tells us we can use on it, then this is all an exercise that is meaningless.
Here, lets debate something with more relevance. The XBox 360's core OS. Why? Because you can at least develop for it.
While everyone here argues the OSX issue, I'm going back to develop a Windows Pocket PC app for my phone (that is 2 years old, and does everything the iPhone can do and more, including 3G and realtime Video).
What next? We going to debate real Star Trek Language dialects too? They are as relevant or real as running anything on the iPhone that Apple doesn't control the DRM on and jam down our throats.
Once again, Apple is pushing this thing like it is the first of its kind. The only thing somewhat 'unique' is the mult-touch display.
Beyond that everything this phone does is ALREADY in widestream use and available on tons of phones already on the market. Feature for feature, it barely is above a low end Razor, and doesn't even come close to a Windows Mobile Phone that not only does everything the iPhone does ALREADY, but also allows third party application development, and can run applications like remote desktop where I can remote into my home or office computer from my phone.
This doesn't even begin to start on the multimedia features, Windows Mobile doesn't lock you into iTunes, it doesn't even lock you in Windows Media that is included with Windows Mobile. Next take office applications and realize that there are versions of Word and Excel and Outlook I can run on a Windows Mobile phone, and iPhone won't be compatible with Office, that would be ok, but Apple WILL NOT allow any third party development, so unless Apple provides a Wordprocessor or a tool, you WILL NOT be able to use it on the iPhone.
This is one of the most closed software/hardware devices in history, so I am very shocked that any good Slashdot person would see this as good in any way. If you want somewhat open, you would be better off with a Windows Mobile phone that you can already buy, as you can at least develop your own applications and tools for it.
Apple, I am tired of your marketing and 'innovations' that are old concepts to the computer tech mainstream. The iPod was not innovative, Creative had models almost 5 years before that were doing the same thing the iPod did, just not in a cute case, the Mac was NOT the first 64bit personal computer (by 10 years even), and the Mac was not the first computer to have CDR burning abilities, and the iPhone is not anything new that I can't go buy a Windows Pocket PC Phone and do today.
Just because Steve'o Jobs says so doesn't not make it reality...
Under Vista, it's tricky, because Vista uses undocumented heuristics to recognise install programs and ask for admin privileges anyway
I'm sorry, but this is simply not true. Don't defend the ignorance of people that never took time to consider security when developing applications.
I can assure you from my own companies demo products, Vista very easily allows applications to install and run from the User's folder or the User's ProgramApp folder. All without UAC or administrative access, just like our applications run on OSX, and Linux.
Trust me, there is no difference here, the only story is a Windows Developer that is too stupid to understand standard OS security. PERIOD.
#1. All MS has done is move the Vista security up to what every other major OS does. Does this developer NOT realize that a game on OSX or Linux would require the same 'privledges' if written as the developer suggests?
#2. If the person is pushing this argument based on 'demos' or download games, then they can code the freaking game with security in mind, so that it installs in the 'USER' area of the OS, and it WOULD NOT NEED to elevate privledges. This is pretty easy to do, as anyone that develops simples applications and demos for Windows with security in mind, or OSX or *nix with security in mind.
#3. This is one of the stupidest arguments I have seen in a long time. So what does the author of the article suggest? Have MS make Vista less secure so he doesn't have to learn about security and how to write an appliation that doesn't need administrative level access to run?
Maybe we should all go together and get this idiot a book on NT security so he can code his 'demos/games' so they don't install into an administrator area of the OS and then any Limited User Account can easily install or use them.
My mouth literally dropped open when I read this article, all the while I was thinking, nah, this has to be a gag, he can't really be this stupid about writing an application with NT security in mind.
No wonder MS left XP security open for program compatibility if this is the type of idiots that are STILL programming applications after Windows has moved over to NT for over 5 years now. Oh my gawd the horror, he might have to learn security APIs or learn what areas of the OS are off limits to idiot programmers...
The problem is consoles do not have high end hardware by the time they make it to the shelves
This may be true of the PS3, as the Video in it is more in line with a Geforce 7800 according to the specifications.
However, the XBox 360's Video is still ahead of any PC Video Card, as it compares more closely to the new ATI R600, which is based on the XBox 360 technology ATI used in collaboration with MS. The R600 takes the XBox 360's design, adds in more pipelines but it doesn't have the 10MB cache for anti-aliasing.
So for a console being over a year old, this is pretty good in regard to the market. Also generaly speaking a tri-core processor is still not common on the desktop as we are just now hitting the Quad core releases from Intel.
Do not know where to start. You seem to be unfamiliar with basic OS architecture. Least with security.
Oh, the irony... I won't even go into this troll comment.
That's physically impossible: the part of OS which grants privileges automatically has the ultimate privilege. IOW we are coming back to good ol' root account. Different color of it - but it is all the same. Unix does it the same way: user info given to specially privileged program (mark to run as root) and it decides to give or not to give request privilege to application about run.
Actually it is NOT impossible, and yet very simple. In Vista you cannot log in as what would be the ROOT level equivalent at all. Even if you open a command shell with administrative privileges, you will STILL NOT BE the TOP LEVEL SECURITY.
In contrast both OSX and *nix you can RUN AS ROOT, in both the shell and command on *nix and the command line on OSX.
You need to read up on the NT security model a bit more before you post again. It would also help if you understood how Vista isolates the NT User security model with a system wide UAC check that happens been the Security Token handler and all processes.
My point is precisely reverse of what you try to describe. What I'm trying to say is that UAC confirmation thing is much weaker compared to password prompt. Lots of confirmations Vista throws at its users (my friends during RC2 piloting complained about that - you can't leave batch overnight installation anymore) would lead only to overall weaker security. For many it wouldn't change a thing.
Again this would assume that a user would be RUNNING AS ADMINISTRATOR... Most users WILL NOT BE RUNNING as administrator and will GET THE PASSWORD PROMPT. Just like any *nix wanting root or OSX. Get it yet?
You need to learn how OSs works - and who things like UAC - do integrate with rest of system. Otherwise it is impossible to talk with you. Better half of your parent post is plainly wrong, just because you do not understand completely how account/groups/privileges work - and what role UAC may play/plays here. It is not omnipotent.
The UAC is just a component in the Vista technology, but it is the moniker that most people see the new Vista security implemented under. Yes there are a lot of aspects to what vista is doing that are actually outside just the UAC, but for generality describing this under the UAC umbrella makes the most sense for people. Even MS themselves DO THIS in their documentation, and I would bet they have a good understanding of how their OS ACTUALLY handles security.
If you can't accept this, then maybe you should email their security engineers and tell them how they also don't understand OS security or Vista's security. Maybe you can 'set them straight' since you think you are the deciding expert here.
It seems you have a deficiency when it comes to understanding security, authentication and how Vista works differently than previous versions of Windows and especially how it operates UNLIKE any *nix.
It is just common sense on Apple's part: any admin would tell you that having any task with excessive privileges poses threat. Mac OS X reuses the concept from Unix world: run with fewest possible privileges and request them if need arises. (Okay, Mac OS runs with tons of excessive privileges - compared to normal Unices.)
Ok, first this was discussing Vista, not XP or previous versions of NT, as the subject was specifically about the UAC in Vista.
Vista even goes a step further than OSX or any *nix, as it REMOVES completely the concept of a root level account. The administrator account no longer is a root equivalent account, as it must ask to elevate privledges when doing 'root' type of administration on the computer, this is what the UAC is all about, and is one of the smartest moves MS has made since Networking and Windows first mixed.
If MS would have forced developers to adhere to NT security rules, we would not have the problems on Windows, however, since most of the software still running on XP, was written either for or with a Win9x mindset that did not have NT security, all the NT security got shuffled aside in WindowsXP, therefore going for compatibility over security. A bad move on MS's part, as a UAC concept should have been incorporated into XP instead of letting applications run unfettered.
Vista does something that OSX and *nix and XP have never done, fully enforce security, but yet allow elevation in a elegant manner even for outdated software that has no concept of Security. It is like the big key holder of the OS that will allow even older unsecure applications to run, but keeps them in a tidy virtualized box (see Registry and Directory Virturalization Security of the UAC).
So Vista has basically killed the concept of a user level account with unfettered root access, and thereby killing any process to have unfettered root level access to the system. People are quick to dismiss Vista and UAC, but considering the AMOUNT of OLD applications it has to deal with that have no concepts of protected areas/security, etc, it is quite impressive that MS was able to not only add this level of user security but ALSO keep the level of compatibility they had with WindowsXP.
You see OSX had this easy, they never incorporated OS9 into OSX, it ran virtualized, so older applications NEVER had to deal with the security of OSX, only the OS9 virtualization did, which got a LOT of acces. Additionally, as you also point out in comparison to most *nixes, Apples 'prompt' for root password is far less secure as it allows portions of the interface (finder for example) to run with higher priveldges than it should under ANY users. Vista on the other hand, forces Explorer to run at the User level and has no magic bypass of security at any time no MATTER what.
MS didn't have to virtualize XP and all previous Win32 applications to get their security to work as Apple did, instead the UAC is very smart and very comprehensive and one of the biggest reasons for the massive delays in Vista's development as it extends throughout the OS, and takes orders from the Security Token system of NT directly and delegates this to all applications and processes, and can prompt or deny or virtualize the application based on what is needed to keep it secure and yet still compatible on the OS.
People should really look into UAC and Vista more before they try to write an article and compare it to OSX's Prompt for Root password, especially when they are writing ONLY based on the Interface they see and not how well the security and compatibility is actually handled.
In practice, this means that if the two of us are sitting side by side, you on a Vista box where only you know the admin password, me on a Mac where only I know the admin password, I can change the settings of your machine while you step away for coffee, but you can't change the settings on my machine while I step away for coffee
Actually if I was logged in as an administrator I would hit WindowsKey+L to lock the computer before I ever walked away.
However, more importantly, I would probably NOT be running as an administrator, and would be in normal user mode, so each prompt would require a password just like on OSX.
MS seems to trust an administrator in Vista to give them Approval authenication, Apple apparently doesn't think their users should be able to control their own computer and forces a password everytime.
Also there are many aspects to the UAC that go beyond the Approval/Authenication and using the method of access password, etc is comparing the security interface and not the logistics of the security provided by the UAC.
There are a lot more things to what UAC is than just requiring a password to elevate privledges. However, sadly, these concepts are beyond most Mac users, especially the author of the article that sparked this thread.
Reading this article would be like reading an article by the head of the Republican Party on 'Democrat vs Republican Ideology'. There is no way you are going to get an unbiased view, nor are you going to get perspecitve of things the Mac user has NO CONCEPT of because they have so little understanding of OS technologies/theory beyond what they have worked with in OSX.
This is the same type of article that 7 years ago the author would have called OpenBSD a crap OS in comparison to System9 - somethings are just beyond a person's ability to see unless they are forced to experience it.
Ok, you like the person that wrote the article are missing the key point of the specifications the article specifically talks about.
Go back and find 'If applications wish to match this behavior' from the specification. This IS the key point the article clearly seems to overlook.
There is NO reason for any application to PROVIDE Word95 support if they do not want to do so.
Sure the OpenXML has ALL the guts of how WORD works and stores its files, but if MS ommited this from the specification everyone here would be SCREAMING that MS didn't disclose portions of the OpenXML format that WORD USES.
By providing this information, even though MOST companies will NEVER use it or NEED to use it, MS has provided people with the tools if they do choose to support legacy Word 'concepts', they can do so, just as Word 2007 does.
This DOES NOT EVEN MEAN Word 2007 uses these formats in saving a 'native' document, it just means that they are there for OpenXML add-on Readers for previous versions of Word that MS is/will be releasing for Word95-Word2003.
Again, how this relates to the MAIN standardize portions of OpenXML is NOT RELEVANT, these are ONLY details of how OLDER WORD APPLICATIONS will handle OpenXML, but MS has fully disclosed even those portions knowing that the need for anyone to implement them would probably never happen.
Further example, look at how few Word Processors fully handle Asian Characters in the first place, so they would NEVER even need to touch the Word95 Asian Character specification that isn't even used. Besides the fact that Word97-Word2007 won't even use these specifications when SAVING an OpenXML document, so why would anyone be so stupid to assume that MS wants all companies using OpenXML to use this specification?
The entire specification has two major parts, the standard that is OpenXML that is used by Word2007, and ALL the legacy features of previous versions of Word that can also be used if a vendor wants to code for it. Basically the first part is the specification, and the second part is FULL DISCLOSURE of how Word Internally handles features going back to all previous versions of Word, something that is good information, but NOT SOMETHING THAT IS IMPORTANT OR REQUIRED BY ANYONE.
For once MS has provided full disclosure of how Word works and has worked, and people are complaining still because they provided TOO much information about how Word USE TO WORK.
The behavior of years-old proprietary word processing software is included by reference into OOXML. How is any spec that includes by reference the behavior of proprietary software exactly "open"? True, implementors could produce a partial implementation of the spec that degrades away the legacy baggage (more or less) gracefully, but some standards' patent licensors forbid implementors to publish a partial implementation. I don't know if this applies to OOXML's license.
And so you are saying OpenXML isn't open because it supports legacy documents, yet if someone were to use only ODF, they ALSO would not have any legacy support for older specifications?
How can you logically argue this based on an assumption of what is REQUIRED, when there is nothing required for usage of the format.
If someone doesn't want to support legacy documents, don't implement the older legacy portions of the specification, then it can be just as broken and open as ODF with regard to legacy features.
Microsoft is NOT in any way MANDATING what features of OpenXML a company uses, they could use the specifications for bold and regular type and nothing else in their document format if they want, and it would at least be readable by other OpenXML capable wordprocessors. And they would at least be able to open the text from other OpenXML wordprocessors and display the regular and bold text from them if that is all their product IS DESIGNED TO DO AND SUPPORT.
Job and Gates are both good people when it comes to money outside their business; however it has no reflection on their business or the quality of the products they produce.
Cult mindsets like to link non-correlative ideas to form reasoning when there is no basis.
Also worth noting, the "bit locker" drive encryption thing requires one to buy a "TPM" USB 2.0 key or have a system with the "trusted" chip integrated. So, no drive encryption for your machine with only USB 1 support.
Do you even understand what you are typing? Go look up the Boot USB requirements. That is why what USB is supported and what USB is not supported. All Vista takes is a bootable USB device. Now go look up why so you don't sound silly.
"A Windows Vista Premium Ready PC includes at least:
This is for NEW OEM manufactuers to get the Vista LOGO. This is not about legacy hardware. Quit trying to distort this.
Vista will run well on any system with a P3 processor or newer, and 512mb of RAM.
Also all it takes to get AERO effects is a PS2.0 Video card and Geforce 5200FX does this just fine, and costs about $20 bucks (go look it up).
Even if your Video card does not have PS 2.0, Vista will STILL use the 3D Portions of the card to accelerate the UI, as it goes back to Direct7 Support for WPF and GDI acceleration through the 3D GPU.
Yes I go agree 1GB of RAM will run better on Vista, as Vista uses systems memory for more things than XP or most OSes do. Thinks like virtualizing GPU RAM, and a quite advanced precatch system. So YES more RAM is always better!
But none of this means that people with only 512mb of RAM, an old Video Card and a PIII processor will not run Vista just fine. On lower end systems Vista turns down loaded services intelligently, and will perform equally with WindowsXP. The reason it will perform as well as XP is because of the new video subsystem and other features that accelerate portions of the display and the caching/paging changes in the system, and this is even with all the 'extra' features Vista is running that XP just doesn't have.
So back to my original post. Vista's requirements are NOT EXTREME in any regard, and will even take advantage of 1999 DirectX7 Video cards to speed up normal display operations.
Geez - it's not as if Steve Jobs is God or anything (zealots' assertions to the contrary, of course. IMHO the only reason Jobs' return to Apple was hailed so highly in the first place was because the people he replaced were as incompetent as Hell).
The sad part is so many people put him above reproach and the good guy in contrast to Gates in the great computer wars. Yet in comparing personal lives, Gates gives away more money than Jobs makes, and Jobs is not poor, yet he does very little as a philanthropist short of giving Apple computer discounts to schools to get more market share.
Jobs is just another greedy business person, I see him more like Ballmer from MS. Gates has been removed from a lot of MS for years, and personally I would trust him to do the right thing when it comes to society, Jobs and Ballmer I wouldn't trust to manage a bucket at xmas time in front of a KMart.
(I'm not saying Jobs isn't smart, or good at what he does, or anything like that. He has had good ideas, especialy the graphic design concepts he pushes on hardware, Macs look cool. I just think Gates doesn't get credit for the good he does do in the world, and he doesn't squeak very loud about it, so a lot of it goes under the radar.)
Given Vista's steep hardware requirements, I doubt if just sending out CDs would have done much good
Ya, a 1ghz processor, 512mb of RAM and a Video Card that costs $20 (Geforce 5200) is really steep. How in the world can normal people afford such lavish computers.
(Oh and these are HUGE requirements that enable all the Glass and Aero effects.)
For the love of God, OSX wants 512mb of RAM, running a modern XWindows WM on a *nix easily likes the overhead of 512mb of RAM as well. (And should we even discuss the graphic performance of the OSX interface to Vista, Mac users would be screaming at the Vast difference Vista has over OSX even on non-Aero capable 3D Cards.)
The 512mb of RAM is the only 'hard' and 'high' requirement to run Vista. Are people this mis-informed, or is everyone trying to run their desktops with a Pentium 200mhz system with 32mb of RAM?
Argh, I'm so sick of the FUD/Ignorance and having to defend freaking Vista, it is what it is, stop making crap up!!!!
Blenders interface cetainly is contextual. As for 'intelligent', to me that sounds either like marketing speak for contextual or a clippy-like system second guessing the user.
Use them BOTH, then you might understand the differences.
And this is a good idea why? Good menus enable exploring available options through a textual interface (having to browse tooltips is not a good alternative), save screen space (think 16:9 on a laptop) and keep less used options out the way
#1 It is hard to show a palette of graphical options in a MENU.
#2 It is obvious you haven't even used Office 2007, but are quick to reply, the Ribbon has an option to completely hide when not being used, which is how a lot of people are running it, so it gives the old clean screen days of Wordperfect. Hence, no wasted screen space.
#3 Menus are an outdated concept, and even if the Ribbon bar isn't the replacement, it is time someone started exploring new concepts in UIs to get past a LIST OF WORDS to operate a graphical interface metaphor. So even if it isn't the final grand UI, it is at least a step ahead of lists of TERMS that Novice Users have NO IDEA WTF they do. And instead replaced by actual pictures of what the functions do with a palette of options demonstrating the feature. Which is much easier for people to learn than train them new TERMS to reference that they have no need to add to their lexicon.
I get tired of geeks that want to hold on to the hold days so hard they end up killing innovative moves by anyone. This is a graphical world, why constrict usage with terminology when there are less abstract ways to allow access to the same concepts. Shall I reference Linguistic studies so you can understand this better?
Slashdot Mirror
Heck, even Mac OS Extended (HFS Plus) looks good compared to NTFS
Ok, first you are basing the FS based just on this table, but even in doing that, do you HAVE ANY IDEA what the numbers in the columns mean?
HFS is closer to FAT32 than even coming close to NTFS.
I am not going to knock ZFS, but the features that put it past NTFS are PRETTY NEW in terms of featurs offered. NTFS is OLD, as in 1991 OLD. There were very few FSs back then that inherently did Unicode and also supported 16 Exbibytes of space.
When comparing FS there is more than just bytes and storage limits though, there are things like performance, data reliability, and features like journalling, compression, encryption etc...
You mention several really good FSs, and I'm not going to say NTFS is the world's greatest FS, but it truly isn't something to sneeze at either. You are forgetting it has been doing for many years things many of the FS you mention just started doing in the last couple of years.
So with FUSE ported, Windows users can also enjoy in-filesystem versioning, seamless ssh integration, RAR files as folders and so on.
. CFM?list=NTFSD
Why is this such a great goal, when FS developers have been trying to meet the basic features of NTFS already...
NTFS already does journalling, has file versioning (far beyond what any *nix FS does), encyrption, compression, and with Win32, zip and rar integration.
The trick in writing a FS for Windows isn't so much a NT issue, but how Win32 see the FS and what it expects to be there. This can best be demonstrated with the Unix subsystem on Windows, or how NFS is handled.
BTW, this is kind of a baited post to see how well people really do understand NTFS and also what they are trying to accomplish.
For developers interested there are some good resources and help on writing FS for NT, like at: http://www.osronline.com/cf.cfm?PageURL=showlists
Take Care...
You say that there are phones that can do EVERY FEATURE that iPhone can, but you fail to mention that you need EVERY SINGLE ONE of them to achieve the same functionality...
A tiny simple Motorola Razor V3m will match the freaking iPhone with the expection of the touch screen. It also is 3G and can watch live TV from most providers, something the iPhone CANNOT DO.
And this is not even compariing the iPhone to a PocketPC phone that is a true computer that you can develop applications for, in addition to all the multimedia features.
You also can buy songs from NON Apple providers for these phones and movies from places that are NON Apple stores.
Lets be real for a minute. What IS good about the iPhone is the multi-touch display interface, beyond that, they are offering NOTHING beyond what everyone and their dog already offers, and many that offer more features.
Why would I buy an iPhone when I can't even get high speed content, that I CAN get with a $50 Motorola Razor V3m?
but there is no 3G network in the USA so I understand why they made this decision
It was a long time coming, but there is starting to be a substantial 3G offering in the US in most major cities.
I have had a 3G PCMCIA card for 3 years from Verizon that originally worked in San Diego and Washington DC, and now works most places.
3G phones with multimedia and TV are pretty common in the US today, it is just not a national coverage service.
However, what people want the iPhone for is the style
If your idea of style and ease of use only comes from Apple, you are already brainwashed...
Why do people see Apple as the providers of ease and luxury or innovative in these areas?
Apple fought to adapt to color in the 80s, stereo speakers in their laptops in the 90s, and even two button mice, when everyone else is using 5 button mice...
As for style, sure some of their computers are cute, but there were PC manufacturers that were providing stylish comptuers long before Apple started the iMac fad.
As for ease of use, this is highly subjective. MS spends 10x the money on testing people and finding the easiest ways to piece together simple tasks. Sure there are some things on a Mac that are easier if you are already a Mac user, but if you are not, they are just as esoteric as starting with Windows. 99.9% of Windows is all GUI driven and fully accessible with a keyboard or a Mouse, OSX can't even claim either of these simple usuability tests.
In OSX if you want advanced features you are opening a terminal shell since the GUI doesn't offer a way to change several of the more technical settings of the OS, and certainly the keyboard/mouse issue still plagues Macs to this day. Even the freaking Delete/Backspace key not being consistent in Apple's own apps drives people insane.
Apple has awesome marketing, but technically they are behind the gap, and the only style they have is in ripping off users by pretending to be upper class computers and devices, when they are middle of the road to what the rest of the industry offers.
BTW. I do own Macs, and have since 1985, but they lost their graphical edge around 1991 when things like the IBM 8514 come on to the market and floundered the 90s with an OS that was in the same class as Windows 3.1.
OSX still has a lot of catching up to do, and until they can get the graphical performance to match a cheap Windows comptuer, they will NOT BE the definition of Style, Luxury, or Ease of Use...
So, wow, Pocket PC Phones are so revolutionary, they can display bitmaps stolen from the iPhone?
LOL
Actually, they can DO EVERY feature an iPhone advertises as revolutionary with the exception of the multi-touch display that Apple patented.
They can also run third party applications, run real applets like MS Word, and even run remote tools where you can open your desktop PC. Oh they also have 3G capabilities, can watch TV, Download Videos, have a full Media experience and MP3 capabitlites, display photos and even watch movies.
They also can be SMALLER and have a LONGER battery life than the iPhone.
Apple has NO NEW FEATURES in this device, they just are brainwashing people like you to believe it does something that hasn't already been done for YEARS...
Good luck and stop drinking the Apple kool-aid before they give you a free trip to Jonestown.
don't own an iPod, but as far as I know (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the the iPod itself is not DRMed, it's iTunes (or at least the iTunes Music Store) that has the DRM
But the trick you are missing is that you HAVE TO USE iTUNES to put the Music on your iPod. You also cannot put music on your iPod in ANY other format than AAC that Apple allows, even though the decoder in the iPod supports other media formats. (Apple actually disabled the chip's ability to decode Windows Media that they use in the iPod, since the chip inherently supported it.)
Sure there are hacks out there, but 99.9% of the users, just load up iTunes and fill their iPod, not realizing they are being DRMed in the process...
If you read the article carefully it hardly implies that bloggers were threatened with legal action for simply reporting about the skins.
....
Can you NOT read, or did Apple pay you to post this clueless response?
FTA:
Apple's lawyers also sent letters to journalists who simply reported on the fact that the skins were available.
"If Apple wants to go after the guy that made the Windows Mobile skin that looks like the iPhone, fine. But to bully bloggers who are simply reporting on this is another matter."
Wow, looks like an iPhone, and wow Apple suing?
/. has bent over for Apple left and right, and Apple is far more closed and arrogant than MS ever could have been. Apple is becoming the new Sun/Oracle, instead of actually innovating good products, they use PR spin and attack anyone that sheds light on their lies.
#1. Myself and many others already stated that Windows Pocket PC Phones were just as capable as anything advertised by the iPhone, and have been around for YEARS now. In addition, have full developer support and tools for writing applications for them.
#2. Apple suing? How novel... Oh wait, that is their motto now, right? Mess with our reality distortion and we will sue you...
I don't care WHAT *nix runs under OSX, it is still shocking that
So go buy your iPhone, and Windows Pocket PC phone users will be saying, welcome to the 21st century, we have been here for a while.
Also keep supporting OSX and Apple like they are an OSS *nix company, when they have dismantled, stolen, and CLOSED more *nix code than any other company in history. Just look at the closing of Darwin for Intel, even though closing it is on shaky ground regarding the BSD interface to the kernel that they have also closed.
So, wow, iPhone so revolutionary, it can be mimicked on old Pocket PC Phones...
LOL
(BTW you can get more than 8gb on a Pocket PC Phone and better Media support as you are not even locked into Windows Media on the device - you know, third party development helps keeping users from being locked in to the vendor's software...)
If I wanted a closed OS Phone, I would buy a Razor, they do as much as the iPhone as well, have 3G, can watch TV on them, browse the net or access the office at DSL speeds, all things far beyond the iPhone...
Maybe he is right...
I see thousands of posts when someone mentions DRM, how much it is misunderstood by the mainstream users, and how evil it is always assumed to be.
And then I see the SAME people post how they love their iPod and fill it with DRM Apple songs that are not only lock them into Apple, but lock them into iTunes and lock them into an iPod for the rest of their life since they can't put the music they have bought on any other device.
What I don't understand, is how the same people can scream about DRM and then fall into one of the biggest DRM traps that ever existed.
DRM truly isn't a big deal, consumers have a choice and there are also places that DRM works because it is handled in a reputable way. One example of DRM that doesn't jump on users is audible.com.
Again the biggest problem with DRM is the misunderstanding of it by the non-geeks. I have had people read an article on DRM in Vista, and then say things like they would never buy Vista because they couldn't download movies anymore or get files off a torrent - all which is not true, as the Vista DRM is not any different than the Windows Media DRM in all previous versions of Windows.
If people here truly hate DRM for the right reasons, then they should protest Apple and demand that users do not buy iPods or OSX, the two most DRMed products currently in existence.
Who cares what freaking OS it is running.
It is not like anyone can develop anything for it. This is like debating the OS of a closed source DVD player, it means nothing to anyone.
I could care if it was running System 9, or CPM, since we have no access to develop or it past what Apple tells us we can use on it, then this is all an exercise that is meaningless.
Here, lets debate something with more relevance. The XBox 360's core OS. Why? Because you can at least develop for it.
While everyone here argues the OSX issue, I'm going back to develop a Windows Pocket PC app for my phone (that is 2 years old, and does everything the iPhone can do and more, including 3G and realtime Video).
What next? We going to debate real Star Trek Language dialects too? They are as relevant or real as running anything on the iPhone that Apple doesn't control the DRM on and jam down our throats.
Paint up an old Concept and call it innovation...
Once again, Apple is pushing this thing like it is the first of its kind. The only thing somewhat 'unique' is the mult-touch display.
Beyond that everything this phone does is ALREADY in widestream use and available on tons of phones already on the market. Feature for feature, it barely is above a low end Razor, and doesn't even come close to a Windows Mobile Phone that not only does everything the iPhone does ALREADY, but also allows third party application development, and can run applications like remote desktop where I can remote into my home or office computer from my phone.
This doesn't even begin to start on the multimedia features, Windows Mobile doesn't lock you into iTunes, it doesn't even lock you in Windows Media that is included with Windows Mobile. Next take office applications and realize that there are versions of Word and Excel and Outlook I can run on a Windows Mobile phone, and iPhone won't be compatible with Office, that would be ok, but Apple WILL NOT allow any third party development, so unless Apple provides a Wordprocessor or a tool, you WILL NOT be able to use it on the iPhone.
This is one of the most closed software/hardware devices in history, so I am very shocked that any good Slashdot person would see this as good in any way. If you want somewhat open, you would be better off with a Windows Mobile phone that you can already buy, as you can at least develop your own applications and tools for it.
Apple, I am tired of your marketing and 'innovations' that are old concepts to the computer tech mainstream. The iPod was not innovative, Creative had models almost 5 years before that were doing the same thing the iPod did, just not in a cute case, the Mac was NOT the first 64bit personal computer (by 10 years even), and the Mac was not the first computer to have CDR burning abilities, and the iPhone is not anything new that I can't go buy a Windows Pocket PC Phone and do today.
Just because Steve'o Jobs says so doesn't not make it reality...
Under Vista, it's tricky, because Vista uses undocumented heuristics to recognise install programs and ask for admin privileges anyway
I'm sorry, but this is simply not true. Don't defend the ignorance of people that never took time to consider security when developing applications.
I can assure you from my own companies demo products, Vista very easily allows applications to install and run from the User's folder or the User's ProgramApp folder. All without UAC or administrative access, just like our applications run on OSX, and Linux.
Trust me, there is no difference here, the only story is a Windows Developer that is too stupid to understand standard OS security. PERIOD.
Scares me that a developer is this stupid...
#1. All MS has done is move the Vista security up to what every other major OS does. Does this developer NOT realize that a game on OSX or Linux would require the same 'privledges' if written as the developer suggests?
#2. If the person is pushing this argument based on 'demos' or download games, then they can code the freaking game with security in mind, so that it installs in the 'USER' area of the OS, and it WOULD NOT NEED to elevate privledges. This is pretty easy to do, as anyone that develops simples applications and demos for Windows with security in mind, or OSX or *nix with security in mind.
#3. This is one of the stupidest arguments I have seen in a long time. So what does the author of the article suggest? Have MS make Vista less secure so he doesn't have to learn about security and how to write an appliation that doesn't need administrative level access to run?
Maybe we should all go together and get this idiot a book on NT security so he can code his 'demos/games' so they don't install into an administrator area of the OS and then any Limited User Account can easily install or use them.
My mouth literally dropped open when I read this article, all the while I was thinking, nah, this has to be a gag, he can't really be this stupid about writing an application with NT security in mind.
No wonder MS left XP security open for program compatibility if this is the type of idiots that are STILL programming applications after Windows has moved over to NT for over 5 years now. Oh my gawd the horror, he might have to learn security APIs or learn what areas of the OS are off limits to idiot programmers...
Geesh....
The problem is consoles do not have high end hardware by the time they make it to the shelves
This may be true of the PS3, as the Video in it is more in line with a Geforce 7800 according to the specifications.
However, the XBox 360's Video is still ahead of any PC Video Card, as it compares more closely to the new ATI R600, which is based on the XBox 360 technology ATI used in collaboration with MS. The R600 takes the XBox 360's design, adds in more pipelines but it doesn't have the 10MB cache for anti-aliasing.
So for a console being over a year old, this is pretty good in regard to the market. Also generaly speaking a tri-core processor is still not common on the desktop as we are just now hitting the Quad core releases from Intel.
Do not know where to start. You seem to be unfamiliar with basic OS architecture. Least with security.
Oh, the irony... I won't even go into this troll comment.
That's physically impossible: the part of OS which grants privileges automatically has the ultimate privilege. IOW we are coming back to good ol' root account. Different color of it - but it is all the same. Unix does it the same way: user info given to specially privileged program (mark to run as root) and it decides to give or not to give request privilege to application about run.
Actually it is NOT impossible, and yet very simple. In Vista you cannot log in as what would be the ROOT level equivalent at all. Even if you open a command shell with administrative privileges, you will STILL NOT BE the TOP LEVEL SECURITY.
In contrast both OSX and *nix you can RUN AS ROOT, in both the shell and command on *nix and the command line on OSX.
You need to read up on the NT security model a bit more before you post again. It would also help if you understood how Vista isolates the NT User security model with a system wide UAC check that happens been the Security Token handler and all processes.
My point is precisely reverse of what you try to describe. What I'm trying to say is that UAC confirmation thing is much weaker compared to password prompt. Lots of confirmations Vista throws at its users (my friends during RC2 piloting complained about that - you can't leave batch overnight installation anymore) would lead only to overall weaker security. For many it wouldn't change a thing.
Again this would assume that a user would be RUNNING AS ADMINISTRATOR... Most users WILL NOT BE RUNNING as administrator and will GET THE PASSWORD PROMPT. Just like any *nix wanting root or OSX. Get it yet?
You need to learn how OSs works - and who things like UAC - do integrate with rest of system. Otherwise it is impossible to talk with you. Better half of your parent post is plainly wrong, just because you do not understand completely how account/groups/privileges work - and what role UAC may play/plays here. It is not omnipotent.
The UAC is just a component in the Vista technology, but it is the moniker that most people see the new Vista security implemented under. Yes there are a lot of aspects to what vista is doing that are actually outside just the UAC, but for generality describing this under the UAC umbrella makes the most sense for people. Even MS themselves DO THIS in their documentation, and I would bet they have a good understanding of how their OS ACTUALLY handles security.
If you can't accept this, then maybe you should email their security engineers and tell them how they also don't understand OS security or Vista's security. Maybe you can 'set them straight' since you think you are the deciding expert here.
It seems you have a deficiency when it comes to understanding security, authentication and how Vista works differently than previous versions of Windows and especially how it operates UNLIKE any *nix.
It is just common sense on Apple's part: any admin would tell you that having any task with excessive privileges poses threat. Mac OS X reuses the concept from Unix world: run with fewest possible privileges and request them if need arises. (Okay, Mac OS runs with tons of excessive privileges - compared to normal Unices.)
Ok, first this was discussing Vista, not XP or previous versions of NT, as the subject was specifically about the UAC in Vista.
Vista even goes a step further than OSX or any *nix, as it REMOVES completely the concept of a root level account. The administrator account no longer is a root equivalent account, as it must ask to elevate privledges when doing 'root' type of administration on the computer, this is what the UAC is all about, and is one of the smartest moves MS has made since Networking and Windows first mixed.
If MS would have forced developers to adhere to NT security rules, we would not have the problems on Windows, however, since most of the software still running on XP, was written either for or with a Win9x mindset that did not have NT security, all the NT security got shuffled aside in WindowsXP, therefore going for compatibility over security. A bad move on MS's part, as a UAC concept should have been incorporated into XP instead of letting applications run unfettered.
Vista does something that OSX and *nix and XP have never done, fully enforce security, but yet allow elevation in a elegant manner even for outdated software that has no concept of Security. It is like the big key holder of the OS that will allow even older unsecure applications to run, but keeps them in a tidy virtualized box (see Registry and Directory Virturalization Security of the UAC).
So Vista has basically killed the concept of a user level account with unfettered root access, and thereby killing any process to have unfettered root level access to the system. People are quick to dismiss Vista and UAC, but considering the AMOUNT of OLD applications it has to deal with that have no concepts of protected areas/security, etc, it is quite impressive that MS was able to not only add this level of user security but ALSO keep the level of compatibility they had with WindowsXP.
You see OSX had this easy, they never incorporated OS9 into OSX, it ran virtualized, so older applications NEVER had to deal with the security of OSX, only the OS9 virtualization did, which got a LOT of acces. Additionally, as you also point out in comparison to most *nixes, Apples 'prompt' for root password is far less secure as it allows portions of the interface (finder for example) to run with higher priveldges than it should under ANY users. Vista on the other hand, forces Explorer to run at the User level and has no magic bypass of security at any time no MATTER what.
MS didn't have to virtualize XP and all previous Win32 applications to get their security to work as Apple did, instead the UAC is very smart and very comprehensive and one of the biggest reasons for the massive delays in Vista's development as it extends throughout the OS, and takes orders from the Security Token system of NT directly and delegates this to all applications and processes, and can prompt or deny or virtualize the application based on what is needed to keep it secure and yet still compatible on the OS.
People should really look into UAC and Vista more before they try to write an article and compare it to OSX's Prompt for Root password, especially when they are writing ONLY based on the Interface they see and not how well the security and compatibility is actually handled.
In practice, this means that if the two of us are sitting side by side, you on a Vista box where only you know the admin password, me on a Mac where only I know the admin password, I can change the settings of your machine while you step away for coffee, but you can't change the settings on my machine while I step away for coffee
Actually if I was logged in as an administrator I would hit WindowsKey+L to lock the computer before I ever walked away.
However, more importantly, I would probably NOT be running as an administrator, and would be in normal user mode, so each prompt would require a password just like on OSX.
MS seems to trust an administrator in Vista to give them Approval authenication, Apple apparently doesn't think their users should be able to control their own computer and forces a password everytime.
Also there are many aspects to the UAC that go beyond the Approval/Authenication and using the method of access password, etc is comparing the security interface and not the logistics of the security provided by the UAC.
There are a lot more things to what UAC is than just requiring a password to elevate privledges. However, sadly, these concepts are beyond most Mac users, especially the author of the article that sparked this thread.
Reading this article would be like reading an article by the head of the Republican Party on 'Democrat vs Republican Ideology'. There is no way you are going to get an unbiased view, nor are you going to get perspecitve of things the Mac user has NO CONCEPT of because they have so little understanding of OS technologies/theory beyond what they have worked with in OSX.
This is the same type of article that 7 years ago the author would have called OpenBSD a crap OS in comparison to System9 - somethings are just beyond a person's ability to see unless they are forced to experience it.
Ok, you like the person that wrote the article are missing the key point of the specifications the article specifically talks about.
Go back and find 'If applications wish to match this behavior' from the specification. This IS the key point the article clearly seems to overlook.
There is NO reason for any application to PROVIDE Word95 support if they do not want to do so.
Sure the OpenXML has ALL the guts of how WORD works and stores its files, but if MS ommited this from the specification everyone here would be SCREAMING that MS didn't disclose portions of the OpenXML format that WORD USES.
By providing this information, even though MOST companies will NEVER use it or NEED to use it, MS has provided people with the tools if they do choose to support legacy Word 'concepts', they can do so, just as Word 2007 does.
This DOES NOT EVEN MEAN Word 2007 uses these formats in saving a 'native' document, it just means that they are there for OpenXML add-on Readers for previous versions of Word that MS is/will be releasing for Word95-Word2003.
Again, how this relates to the MAIN standardize portions of OpenXML is NOT RELEVANT, these are ONLY details of how OLDER WORD APPLICATIONS will handle OpenXML, but MS has fully disclosed even those portions knowing that the need for anyone to implement them would probably never happen.
Further example, look at how few Word Processors fully handle Asian Characters in the first place, so they would NEVER even need to touch the Word95 Asian Character specification that isn't even used. Besides the fact that Word97-Word2007 won't even use these specifications when SAVING an OpenXML document, so why would anyone be so stupid to assume that MS wants all companies using OpenXML to use this specification?
The entire specification has two major parts, the standard that is OpenXML that is used by Word2007, and ALL the legacy features of previous versions of Word that can also be used if a vendor wants to code for it. Basically the first part is the specification, and the second part is FULL DISCLOSURE of how Word Internally handles features going back to all previous versions of Word, something that is good information, but NOT SOMETHING THAT IS IMPORTANT OR REQUIRED BY ANYONE.
For once MS has provided full disclosure of how Word works and has worked, and people are complaining still because they provided TOO much information about how Word USE TO WORK.
GEESH!!!!
Are you actually reading what you typed?
The behavior of years-old proprietary word processing software is included by reference into OOXML. How is any spec that includes by reference the behavior of proprietary software exactly "open"? True, implementors could produce a partial implementation of the spec that degrades away the legacy baggage (more or less) gracefully, but some standards' patent licensors forbid implementors to publish a partial implementation. I don't know if this applies to OOXML's license.
And so you are saying OpenXML isn't open because it supports legacy documents, yet if someone were to use only ODF, they ALSO would not have any legacy support for older specifications?
How can you logically argue this based on an assumption of what is REQUIRED, when there is nothing required for usage of the format.
If someone doesn't want to support legacy documents, don't implement the older legacy portions of the specification, then it can be just as broken and open as ODF with regard to legacy features.
Microsoft is NOT in any way MANDATING what features of OpenXML a company uses, they could use the specifications for bold and regular type and nothing else in their document format if they want, and it would at least be readable by other OpenXML capable wordprocessors. And they would at least be able to open the text from other OpenXML wordprocessors and display the regular and bold text from them if that is all their product IS DESIGNED TO DO AND SUPPORT.
Does this make sense yet?
And every response took the bait...
Job and Gates are both good people when it comes to money outside their business; however it has no reflection on their business or the quality of the products they produce.
Cult mindsets like to link non-correlative ideas to form reasoning when there is no basis.
Also worth noting, the "bit locker" drive encryption thing requires one to buy a "TPM" USB 2.0 key or have a system with the "trusted" chip integrated. So, no drive encryption for your machine with only USB 1 support.
Do you even understand what you are typing? Go look up the Boot USB requirements. That is why what USB is supported and what USB is not supported. All Vista takes is a bootable USB device. Now go look up why so you don't sound silly.
"A Windows Vista Premium Ready PC includes at least:
This is for NEW OEM manufactuers to get the Vista LOGO. This is not about legacy hardware. Quit trying to distort this.
Vista will run well on any system with a P3 processor or newer, and 512mb of RAM.
Also all it takes to get AERO effects is a PS2.0 Video card and Geforce 5200FX does this just fine, and costs about $20 bucks (go look it up).
Even if your Video card does not have PS 2.0, Vista will STILL use the 3D Portions of the card to accelerate the UI, as it goes back to Direct7 Support for WPF and GDI acceleration through the 3D GPU.
Yes I go agree 1GB of RAM will run better on Vista, as Vista uses systems memory for more things than XP or most OSes do. Thinks like virtualizing GPU RAM, and a quite advanced precatch system. So YES more RAM is always better!
But none of this means that people with only 512mb of RAM, an old Video Card and a PIII processor will not run Vista just fine. On lower end systems Vista turns down loaded services intelligently, and will perform equally with WindowsXP. The reason it will perform as well as XP is because of the new video subsystem and other features that accelerate portions of the display and the caching/paging changes in the system, and this is even with all the 'extra' features Vista is running that XP just doesn't have.
So back to my original post. Vista's requirements are NOT EXTREME in any regard, and will even take advantage of 1999 DirectX7 Video cards to speed up normal display operations.
Geez - it's not as if Steve Jobs is God or anything (zealots' assertions to the contrary, of course. IMHO the only reason Jobs' return to Apple was hailed so highly in the first place was because the people he replaced were as incompetent as Hell).
The sad part is so many people put him above reproach and the good guy in contrast to Gates in the great computer wars. Yet in comparing personal lives, Gates gives away more money than Jobs makes, and Jobs is not poor, yet he does very little as a philanthropist short of giving Apple computer discounts to schools to get more market share.
Jobs is just another greedy business person, I see him more like Ballmer from MS. Gates has been removed from a lot of MS for years, and personally I would trust him to do the right thing when it comes to society, Jobs and Ballmer I wouldn't trust to manage a bucket at xmas time in front of a KMart.
(I'm not saying Jobs isn't smart, or good at what he does, or anything like that. He has had good ideas, especialy the graphic design concepts he pushes on hardware, Macs look cool. I just think Gates doesn't get credit for the good he does do in the world, and he doesn't squeak very loud about it, so a lot of it goes under the radar.)
Given Vista's steep hardware requirements, I doubt if just sending out CDs would have done much good
Ya, a 1ghz processor, 512mb of RAM and a Video Card that costs $20 (Geforce 5200) is really steep. How in the world can normal people afford such lavish computers.
(Oh and these are HUGE requirements that enable all the Glass and Aero effects.)
For the love of God, OSX wants 512mb of RAM, running a modern XWindows WM on a *nix easily likes the overhead of 512mb of RAM as well. (And should we even discuss the graphic performance of the OSX interface to Vista, Mac users would be screaming at the Vast difference Vista has over OSX even on non-Aero capable 3D Cards.)
The 512mb of RAM is the only 'hard' and 'high' requirement to run Vista. Are people this mis-informed, or is everyone trying to run their desktops with a Pentium 200mhz system with 32mb of RAM?
Argh, I'm so sick of the FUD/Ignorance and having to defend freaking Vista, it is what it is, stop making crap up!!!!
Blenders interface cetainly is contextual. As for 'intelligent', to me that sounds either like marketing speak for contextual or a clippy-like system second guessing the user.
Use them BOTH, then you might understand the differences.
And this is a good idea why? Good menus enable exploring available options through a textual interface (having to browse tooltips is not a good alternative), save screen space (think 16:9 on a laptop) and keep less used options out the way
#1 It is hard to show a palette of graphical options in a MENU.
#2 It is obvious you haven't even used Office 2007, but are quick to reply, the Ribbon has an option to completely hide when not being used, which is how a lot of people are running it, so it gives the old clean screen days of Wordperfect. Hence, no wasted screen space.
#3 Menus are an outdated concept, and even if the Ribbon bar isn't the replacement, it is time someone started exploring new concepts in UIs to get past a LIST OF WORDS to operate a graphical interface metaphor. So even if it isn't the final grand UI, it is at least a step ahead of lists of TERMS that Novice Users have NO IDEA WTF they do. And instead replaced by actual pictures of what the functions do with a palette of options demonstrating the feature. Which is much easier for people to learn than train them new TERMS to reference that they have no need to add to their lexicon.
I get tired of geeks that want to hold on to the hold days so hard they end up killing innovative moves by anyone. This is a graphical world, why constrict usage with terminology when there are less abstract ways to allow access to the same concepts. Shall I reference Linguistic studies so you can understand this better?