Heh heh. That freeedom thing is a real bitch, ain't it?
Na, I think more people are just shocked it still exists in various places in the United States after 4 years of King George.:)
But hey don't worry, he just established 'anther governement program' for a religious department in the Govt.
Love the conservative Republican Ideals King George has, which are to 'stick his nose into everyone's lives, even circumventing states rights, and the ability to keep spending and increasing the size of the Government to the biggest in history.'
Clinton's administration was at least being good Republicans, by reducing the size of government to the lowest it had been since the Kennedy Administration, and keeping their nose out of State's rights.
I know this is a big sidetrack, and a bit tongue in cheeck, but can anyone define themselves anymore by a party?
The Repulbicans are spending us to death, sticking their noses into state and persoanl rights, and the recent Democratic leaders did the opposite and are currently fighting the massive pork barrel projects in congress that Bush NEVER vetos. Strange...
When I hear that the democrats don't have clear vision, I realize the republicans don't either, but they are more loyal to just walk in line with the party leaders for the sake of the party instead of having real internal debate. Both parties are screwed up right now, but it seems the Repulicans don't realize it or just go with the top down direction of the party to at least appear cohesive.
I have people on both sides in congress I love, but they never reflect what their party tries to say they are.
I'm really worried now! It seems like almost every feature boasted in Vista has been pulled. Database filesystem and all that? What will be left that isn't essentially Windows XP with a much larger greed for memory and other hardware requirements?
Ya I agree the other four or five hundred changes and new features don't mean anything, is it all about the 4 or 5 features that were removed or speculated on that won't make it in the shipping version.
The difference between Vista and XP is as vast as the jump from Win3.1 to NT. Developers are still trying to get a grip on the new technologies the platform offers. Everything from a new API on every level to a graphics subsystem that is doing things others haven't even thought of yet.
Is everyone really this jaded? Even if you hate MS, then you won't be running Vista anyway, so why in the hell are you wasting your time commenting on something that really doesn't concern you.
Now here is my RANT on EFI, and I am sticking it in this post...
EFI support is also a big 'secret' crap. There have already been EFI based WindowsXP computers shipped, all it takes is a XP compatibile boot extender added to the EFI firmware. After the freaking HD boots, XP handles all the hardware anyway, it doesn't need BIOS and it certainly doesn't need EFI managing drivers.
This is the dirty secret people don't get, it isn't that XP or Vista can't do EFI, it is the Apple/Intel system are not going to drop in extra code in the firmware for the XP boot extender as other manufacturer that have already shipped EFI based XP machines did.
What is great about EFI? It is going to help Apple for locking in of hardware and driver stability, but for OSes like Linux or Windows, it is pretty much crap. The only thing EFI does better than BIOS is that is will do the initial startup faster, as BIOS is slower enumerating the devices, etc, even a fast BIOS with this crap turned off. That is the big wow of EFI for non-Mac world people.
EFI is supposed to replace BIOS, but when you look at what it is doing, it is actually a step back in technology, as instead of just turning on the system and handing over all operations to the OS, it actually steps in and tries to do more in place of the OS. This is what OSes have fought to get past for years and have done so, and now we are back to a standard that is wanting to do this again. What are people thinking?
The OS should handle this stuff, and that has been a purposeful shift to make the technological jump from platforms like DOS and Win3.1 that depended on BIOS operations to OSes like NT that don't give a crap about the BIOS other than it initializing the boot sector, and from there, it is the OSes responsibility.
Yes I understand BIOS, and how many features like Timings etc have moved into the BIOS as they became dynamic, but that doesn't mean we need to move drivers or other non-needed functions into EFI.
Look at the problems with ACPI even, and yet there are features of ACPI that are quite cool and yet still not even used on most PCs.
Sorry for the rant, but I find this all so foolish.
#1) Why do Mac users care? Windows users are not licking their chops over Mac/Intels that are performing below the average Windows PC currently sold.
#2) XP and Vista can run on EFI machinies, all it takes is the boot to be in the EFI firmware to hand off to XP or Vista.
#3) There are already XP machines that are BIOS free and are EFI already on the market.
#4) EFI has some real issues in moving things out of the OS that just shouldn't be so hardware specific.
#5) Mac and Intel are the ones with the buzz on this, and it is Mac that is not going to put a loader in their firmware for XP or Vista.
#6) Vista actually does FULLY support EFI even without the extra boot extender, but only in the 64bit version, but the reason this doesn't help, there are no 64bit Intel Macs.
(Which is quite laughable, as Mac/Intel systems are ONLY 32bit, even though Apple t
Better resolution? The 770 already has a DPI-value of somewhere around 220... I doubt you can find anything higher than that at anywhere near acceptable prices
Yep, I stand corrected on the display resolution.
However as interesting as the Nokia 770 is, it doesn't do much more than some of our phones, which is sad considering it is capable of being more that it is, as hackers are finding out.
Nokia needs to pop up the specs on the 770, and then it will be worth a look, but sadly even with the new devices shipping with XP on them, they have pretty good specs even in the inital versions, like ample RAM, Large HDs, better GPU, etc.
Right now for open source compact devices, it will be interesting to see how long it takes for people to install Linux or a *nix on one of the new devices. The devices are fully x86 compatible, which means the door of available devices and compatibility from the Linux world is even more vast. (And no I'm not saying that XP couldn't run on non x86, as it does, but these devices are x86 based, and designed to be so for 3rd party software compatibility)
The Nokia ia nice device, but when my Motorola Cell phone has more storage, it kind of makes you go hmm, what are they thinking...
I agree, just give me a 40gb hard drive, better resolution and graphics abilities, and I would be set...
I even love my M V710, and it is phone with an 8gb transflash device I use for my music collection and movies at a cell phone resolution.
However, these new devices look promising, and should at the very least be the stepping stone to replace crap PDA OS technology, and we will eventually have a full computer with us at all times with some serious hardware in it, even if it is to use RDP or XWindows to access our main computer in the office or the house.
(PS. It is amazing some of the features in even the basic cheap phones now. This is one reason I was so, "you have to freaking kidding me," when the Mac iTunes 100 song limit phone actually got marketing buzz. When I was reading the Apple buzz I actually had in my pocket my V710 with 512mb of RAM in it with 300-400 songs on it.)
Lets hope these devices are doing what they should, and not making MS money, but pushing manufacturers to put more powerful and even somewhat standard hardware in smaller devices for the intent of running full OSes if needed.
I think there are ways to have a user-level access XP remotely with other tools so a better comparison still could have been made.
There are, but the default remote access tools of XP is RDP technology in the GUI, sure you can do PC Anywhere or other tools. And there is built in Telnet, and you can also download the free Unix subsystem, and access and the system via SSH.
You are right about OSX, but I know this also gets said by both sides of the issue a lot. NT was in the same area OSX is now, we didn't need Virus checkers for NT 3.1-3.51. Viruses failed on NT due to security. It wasn't until NT admins got cocky and NT got popular that Virues were even written for NT.
So don't for a second think OSX couldn't have the same road if Apple doesn't stay on top of things. Apple does have an advantage, as NT was a network OS in a world of a lot of closed systems. Where OSX and Apple were able to watch the Internet and the problems of exposure that they watched all OSes be subjected to, even some of the 'robust security' *nixes.
Also, don't discount MS, they haven't given up, nor are they stupid, they should find the balance, even XP now with SP2 and MS Anti-Spyware is quite free from problems or any security issues, and is freaky stable. Vista will be were MS makes or breaks their name in pulling off security by shifting the balance fully the other direction. So the next year will at the very least be interesting.
Take care and again sorry for the long posts... The Net Avenger
Ok, I don't agree with the 'counter' article on why Vista will suck, as we have also been using it, and there are some rough edges, but even at this beta point it is more stable and mature than some other 'full scale' shipping OSes.
However, I had to go WTH when I read the article. How can anyone here in the/. community truly use this article as a 'definitive' answer of what Vista will or won't do.
#1) The person writing the article doesn't even have a video card that does Vista Glass, that means, they don't have a video Card made in the last 4 years, all it takes is a Pixel Shader 2.0 on the card, that NVidia debuted years ago at Comdex with the GeforceFX 5200 for 80 bucks.
#2) Did anyone else catch this line about his reference to the Vista video requirements, " would only add that if you expect to see the fancy desktop, you need to invest in, say, an ATI Radeon XPress 200, an Nvidia nForce4, or a high-end graphics card."
Ok, hold your hand up if you know the difference between Video and Mainboard chipsets? nForce/Geforce anyone? I know 10 year olds that would laugh at this. And the ATI Radeon Xpress 200 as a base line? An integrated ATI Chipset that debuted last year? That is even crazy.
How about an NVidia PCI 5200 Graphics card made several years ago as the baseline, and Vista does Glass quite well on it even. Even generic notebooks baseline for Video anymore is ATI or Nvidia chipsets that include Pixel Shader 2.0 technology or basically hardware DirectX 9 support as others would call it.
I don't fully disagree with this person's article either, but really, is this/. quality? And yes, that is kind of a loaded question as some of the stuff we see is questionable anyway.
Make your own judgements on this, even as the article says, Vista seems to be better than XP, and who knows for sure how it will turn out...
VB is pretty good at teaching programming or getting people started in programming. Being a modern 'basic' it can allow people to get the initial concepts of variables, and put them to use in a syntax that reads like common english language, yet not leave them making a turtle follow lines around a screen.
The simplicity is also good to find the 'clicks' or points where people get it. When not teaching this stuff you forget these clicks, even explaining concepts as variables is something that is hard for some people to catch, even if they understand algebra.
VB also can do some fairly advanced things now, especially with the current.NET incarnation, in upper level application development.
A person could start with no programming background, do the hello world, and stick with VB and make a career from it producing ok software.
Pascal is also another easy to understand language (designed to be a learning language even), and it with Borland's support can be almost as powerful as C/C++. So it is another good starter language that a career can be made from - especially Europe, Delphi does quite well there in comparison to the US.
I have taken a couple of roads with people, using either VB or Pascal as the 'get it' starting language.
Then I progress them to some advanced levels in each language, and along the way contrast in another language, C is the poster child here for the contrast. It can show complexity and also levels of creativity not normally used in the other languages. Useful comparisons to stuff they are currently learning as well as 'wows' like a line of C code that is very complex and recursive, but performs as much as an advanced program.
This lets them 'click' along the way, and will hopefully keep perspective and the certain 'creative' element that syntax complexity of C draws out of people.
The 'creative' complexity has to be nurtured, even if you are keeping people in Pascal or VB for their career (or they are not going past that). It was the creative of 'how to make it work' concepts that are so dominate in C that define 'good programmers', because in the old days, we had to make it work.
Yes it is nice to drag a button on the screen and have the IDE do the work for you, but without some of the 'creative' what ifs, and 'how can we' questions, programmers won't be more than glorified form designers, and that is sad for them to invest time in learning something and not fully getting it from both angles. (The logical syntax and function and the creative inspiration of thinking outside the box.)
Programming is one area of expertise that definately benefits from bridge-brain individuals. Creative Logic at its finest...
And sadly if the person you are teaching don't fully click in either direction (logic or creative) then you lead them down the road they are good at, and let them pair with a person or team that fills in the other side...
First, my head isn't up anyone's ass. You should really calm down. I responded in spirit in which it was given. Your entire rant mentioned only server OS's. I realize that it's UNIX base makes OSX more like a server but that's really beside the point. How many XP boxen are on the Net with TS opened? AND of all of those TS servers you mentioned, how many are in a DMZ scenerio? How many were hardened? This test was spun in such a way to make it appear that someone could merely put their machine on the Net and have it hacked. The truth was, there was a remote login opened for the hacker. Was there still an exploit? Absolutely! Should Apple address it? Definitely. But was it a fair and open test? Wait, was the COVERAGE fair and clear? No.
Ok, I actually apologize, as my initial response was to be directed at your comments, but went more into a general rant directed at all the people that don't realize this is more common than they realize and not a biased test of OSX.
So I do apologize for it seemingly be directed at you, when it wasn't after I was done writing.
As for the Unix/OSX debate, this is something you have to give and take on. Mac OSX is not Unix, but a Unix type OS. However, it common in the 'new' Mac world to see OSX in the same class as other standard classic and new Unix OSes. Mac users can't have it both ways, and use this as an excuse when OSX fails to live up to hype that Apple actually generated.
But with that said, WindowsXP (non-server) does not allow a non-administrative level user to use RDP(Remote Desktop), so there is no way to compare WindowsXP in the same scenario, the only commonality here is Windows 2003 server is the 'same code base' as WindowsXP, but does allow guest (TS/RDP) logins, and is something used quite a bit. In the Windows world SSH and Telnet type of technologies are not predominate, so there is not a good comparison here, even though a WindowsXP or Windows Server can be fully administrated using this type of technology.
Oddly, Windows has actually surpassed the 'non-command line' model, and 99% of all remote access and administration is done using a GUI and GUI based tools. (Which is strange as the ease of administration has passed XWindows technologies and even the inherent Mac world technologies for use and management.) - For example, in Windows you don't ever have to drop to a *nix type terminal (or Command Prompt) to change settings or do things locally or remotely, which we are now finding advanced Mac OSX users doing, and are still common in most of the other *nix OSes. XWindows was originally the poster child of a GUI protocol to leave command line usage and administration in the past, and 20 years later, it has been fragmented by its openness to still not deliver this. (Not that openness is a bad thing, but when some standards are left a bit loose, they don't ever get tightened by any leaders.)
You are right about the ZD article being jaded, and I do get it. However, what is being missed here is the article is basically demonstrating OSX is not any better than any other OS, which a lot of Mac and OSX users are finding a slap in the face. Even with OSX abstracting the root from the basic level of user operations, it is not 100%, even though it 'appears' to be, and Apple would love for people to believe it is. Other *nixes do a better job of abstracting User Login levels from root than OSX does.
OSX does well, but it is not perfect, not better than other OSes in this regard and certainly NOT 100% safe, even if permissions have been reduced to nothing. Policy management on Windows can do the same, but it still isn't 100% either.
(And no I am not arguing Windows is one of the OSes that does the root abstraction right, in fact they are the poster child of being the opposite, and this is also the evil double edge sword for MS. Their OS is built upon years of 3rd party application compatibility that allows programs to run unfettered on NT without regard to the NT security system. If Microsoft would have forgone t
Exactly. If you wanted to truly compare OS X to Windows in this scenerio, put a PC on the Net with TS opened and give out the user account information
Not to be an ass, but there are 100s of open accounts all of the internet with TS enabled and client and guest logins allowed for companies to showcase their software.
This is one of the things people actually do with TS is use it for software demonstration purposes, and people are 'encouraged' and 'allowed' to sign into Windows 2003 servers to test software or concepts the companies are selling or demonstrating.
If you think that there are no Windows Servers on the Internet that meet the exact same setup criteria as the MacOSX orginal test had, you really need to get your head out of Steve Job's butt and see what the real world is doing and not just what he wants you to see.
And BTW the same is true for many different OSes and *nix variations, there are 'guest' and local account access for public use, this has been around a LONG time, I don't understand how Mac Users think this is unfair or even unique? What do you freaking think XWindows was designed for? Do you realize that it is used for 'guest' accounts and distributed applications all the time?
As for SSH not 'usually' being open, you would be surprised of the number of people that DO run with either SSH, an XServer or even MS's RDP type of technologies on and enabled, like for example 99% of the Web with headless servers.
If it weren't common or safe, you wouldn't see different OSes have remote 'guest' accounts for customers all over the place.
Here just to demonstrate I'm not making up the remote access account senerio and how predominate it is, do a search on on like Web Hosting, SSH, XServer, RDP(Remote Desktop/Terminal Services) access...
I know of several examples of companies that use Remote Desktop type of technologies (not just SSH) to allow ANY customer to have full login access via (TS/RDP) to Windows Servers to testdrive their software. Do a search on these for yourself to see they exist, I won't post links to watch these companies get/.ed or become a target for attempted hacking.
Even if it is a closed system using redundant biometrics authentication, it CAN be hacked, I don't care how much faith you have in your closed-source redudndant (sic, with 'redudndant' "D"s) biometric-authenication (sic, and needed a 'redudndant' "T") OS on the market, period.
Yes it can, I was using an illustrative concept we put together in the early 90s for the pentagon to set the bar for what is in the close to non-hackable range and how far that is from a consumer OS with barely even C2 level security.
Besides we have all seen McGyver do the sheet rock thing with a piece of paper to bypass the handprint scanners...:)
So now can we just go back to the subject, or you have another item you want to point out that the rest of us already realize?
Face facts, whethere you like it or not, this statement is pretty much true if you compare Office 97 to the current Open Office.
Open Office is still trying to catch up on things, and that is a bad thing in the development world and cycle. They are not setting the stage of the 'next' generation or showing the way of making these products better or easier.
Instead they are still trying to get squiggle red underline misspelling to work, and grammar, etc etc. They are still try to find an interface to be consistent for themselves within their own product suite.
They need to get off of chasing Microsoft's tail and pull in people with 'vision' and re-define what word processing and other business applications are from the bottom up. From a simple notepad to a full fledged tool for writing the next great novel, to a tool for submitting columns and school work or legal briefs.
Everything is following Microsoft's lead, a lead they pioneered in the 80s on the Mac (you see, instead of immitating Word Perfect, they took word processing to the next level, but yet made it easy for the old time WordPerfect crowd to adapt).
Here is one for starters, why are word processors limited to 'typewritter' rules of typsetting... Here is something Open Office could be a leader in, support and do full character justification and do it well. Currently all Word processors only do word justification, which is ugly and consider products like Pagemaker were doing this in the 80s, quite surprising it hasn't moved to the word processor level after all these years.
Define the standards, don't scramble to keep up with the status quo.
This isn't about MS, this is about companies like Sun and others tyring to 'maintain' instead of getting what they need to do and just putting the money into the research and doing it.
Even MS isn't stupid in this regard, Office 2007 breaks the UI norm for business applications, again not following the sheep, or even their own sheep, but trying to set the next level of what is easier for users. (Whether it is a good innovation on MS's part is left to be seen, but at least they are trying and not just recycling the same old crap. Heck even Office 2003 and the Sidebar and Web integration was quite a leap for people doing research or multi-language work - at least it was new and useful to many people.)
How is this 'Open' or even beneficial. You could write a wrapper around the exising AIM Client and strip or add features as you wanted, just not with AOLs blessing.
IE is more 'open' than this, as you can at least write an HTML rendering applicaiton around the system DLLs, and not have to license crap, or 'conform' to not integrating with other services.
Give me a freaking break. Everyone here that thinks AOL has done something good, needs to be slapped up side the head.
My mother is a lawyer and I convinced her to move from MSOffice to OpenOffice exactly for the same reason. Many of their documents got corrupted by different versions of Word, or by anti-virus software trying to repair macro-virii infected files.
I'd like to point out that several of her files that Word couldn't open anymore were opened flawless by OpenOffice.
She was so glad that now she refuses to use anything but OpenOffice.
Great story, but the funny part here isn't MS Office, but whatever crap Anti-Virus/Spyware tools you or your mother installed to mess with MS Office was what was causing her the problems.
I'm sure she sees you as the brilliant hero and guru, but if you were really doing your job, you would have removed the problem in the first place, instead of going. "Weird, I don't know, and then having her use another product not screwed up by the Anti-Virus software screwing with her documents."
BTW you do realize MS Office for the past 6 years has been pretty immune to viruses, as the user is prevented from allowing scripts or code to execute...
Ok Rule #1, DO NOT TRUST legal Advice on Slashdot...
This is a good place for the debate of such a topic, but don't screw with your life based on the post of other Slashdotters, even myself.
#1 Seek legal advice #2 Then proceed by probably making 'reasonable' inquires to the company expressing that if they don't support linux would they be willing to support 3rd party work that does. (After getting legal advice to help with the inquiry.)
See, here is the problem, many have correctly stated things like certain types of reverse engineering is 'acceptable', but there are reasons most products EULAs and such prohibit reverse engineering.
Lets take your senerio for example, maybe there are 'other' reason the company doesn't support Linux, it could be something they deem a secuirty risk, or other threat, or even a threat to their intellectual property.
Don't get fooled by any post here telling you it is ok or benign, they don't know enough and you don't even know enough.
Protect yourself, and you might find you could talk the company into supporting or paying you for your time in developing a reasonable Linux solution for their product. But have legal advice along the way.
"Let the flood of *I challenge you to hack me* ip posts begin...
You can start with this one: XX.XX.XXX.XXX.
I think tihs is a quite amusing... If anyone with any OS is so sure about their OSes security they are willing to come on Slashdot and make claims like OSX is not hackable, or OS (Generic) is safe from exploits and hackers...
Then they should also have the nerve to add their machines IPs in their post to prove theit point of how much they trust their OS.
Although OSX is not my OS of security choice, I don't belive any OS could hold to the claims I see Mac users throwing around in here. I understand the nature of OSes, and hacking from a security perspective.
Unless it is a closed system using redudndant biometrics authenication, it CAN be hacked, I don't care how much faith you have in Apple, Linux, BSD, Windows or any other OS on the market, period.
This is just something you 'accept' and design around, but I find it amazing people come on SlashDot with the ignorance and arrogance that their OS is better than the rest. This does not exist in consumer OSes, no matter how much you believe or how many times you click your heels together.
So I say, great idea, everyone that is running a perfect OS, be the first to start leaving their local and Server IPs in their signature, and maybe a line like, "My OS is the most secure in the world, I dare you."
Then when they are hacked in a few hours they at least won't be on the boards selling the religion of their 'perfect' OS.
BTW thanks for the sideline and laugh your post inspired, brilliant actually.
This is laughable at best. Just look at Blu-ray Disc Association website and the long list of the members, far longer than that of HD DVD. http://www.blu-raydisc.com/general_information/Sec tion-14009/Index.html
Maybe you should actually read the page. This is a list of Supporting Companies, not Companies that are PART of or EVEN ALLOWED to participate in the technology.
These are just SUPPORTERS, not participents in developing, adding to or even allowed to question Sony about the Technology.
Here I will illustrate for the slow swimmers.. HP is listed on the page you provided us the nice link to, now read this... "Here's more on the reason for HP's decision to also back the competing HD-DVD format. It appears that HP wasn't too happy that Sony decided to turn its back on iHD support. Hewlett-Packard was pushing hard for iHD which allows for more interactive features to be included on the disc" http://www.anandtech.com/news/shownews.aspx?i=2545 3
Ubuntu is a modern operating system; its last release was in October, 2005. In contrast, Windows XP is almost five years old -- legacy software by any definition. I'd expect Ubuntu to require modern computing resources. Running it on a 266 MHz/112 MB system is impressive.
You are kidding right? You are basing how impressive this is on the OS compile and release date?
Well if you are going to do that, then WindowsXP is running SP2 where more than 80% of the OS was replaced, so that moves it up a few years.
Then add in the continual updates, upgrades to applicaitons like Movie Maker, Media Player, etc, that adds another year.
Now add in performance updates as well as security updates, and you are in the same timeframe...
See how silly this gets already?
Let base it on this. What major performance 'dropping' feature is in Ubuntu that wasn't in Ubuntu or Debian 5 years ago? Why should it run slower than it would have in 2001?
It is optimized versions of Linux and the same basic OS that existed in 2001, in fact it should run faster than a 2001 Linux, not slower, and certainly not because it is a 'modern OS' because of its last update/release date. It is running some of the simplest and tightest feature sets of most Linux builds even. Only ships with GNOME, basic FS support, etc etc...
Let me guess, if MS would release a vanilla MSDOS 9.0 now, then it would be the OS to test on old hardware, as it would be the 'modern OS' because of the date it was released?
This I would fully believe... System 9 was kind of a Dog in the Apple realm, especially by not taking advantage of the hardware, no real pre-emptive multi-tasking, bad memory management, etc.
In comparison to System 9, OSX definately rocks...
XP isn't faster then 2000. It apears faster in some situations but thats really a smoke screen(one you can benefit form though).
Both XP and 2000 are comparible in speed with 2000 being slightly faster at most things. Also you won't have to fix 2000 as much as XP when XP's smoke screens go bad.
(literaly i mean smokescreens. XP uses tricks to let you use the computer before it is completly booted and sometime it bites you.)
I appreciate your zest, but you are really off the game here.
I can assure you that the techs in my company's lab is very good at performance testing, and from a personal perspective, I can assure you XP is faster, although I should add a qualifier here. XP with SP2 is faster, RTM XP is only slightly faster than Win2k is some areas.
I know about the 'smoke' screens you are refering to, about the binding of the network after the Video intializes etc.
There are some true changes that are more of perception than actual performance, but rest assured this is NOT what I was talking about. (Also with SP2 & XP the binding orders changed again for security reasons, and a couple of the faster boot 'smoke' screens were removed.)
SP2 is more of a fork off the NT code branch after Windows 2003 Server, that is why it has better security as Windows 2003 was delayed for a major security shift at Microsoft. However, more importantly, code was further optimized in this process as well, and new compiler technology by Microsoft etc.
That is why when Windows 2003 Server shipped, a lot of geeks that had MSDN free access to it were running it on their desktops, it was faster than XP, even with all the extra Server 'services' running.
Then SP2 added in many of the changes of Windows 2003 to XP, and the performance honors went back to XP.
What makes XP faster has a lot to do with the timeline and SP2, but there are also a lot of kernel changes, allowing better caching, larger allocations of space in registry, better performance of loading in and out the registry, etc.
I don't have the links in front of me, but goto http://www.microsoft.com/ and do a search on: Mark Kernel WinXP
You will find the Microsoft documentation of the kernel changes between XP and Win2k, but you will also find an article written by Mark from SysInternals as well, that goes over the kernel differences from a non-Microsoft perspective.
These are part of the 'boost' XP has in running applications faster than Win2k. Also factor in the extra precautions for stability, the further optimizations in the Win32 subsystem and you get a faster OS, with more features.
Like I said before, our lab has 200mhz Pentium Laptops with 80mb of RAM and standard 4Gb Hard Drives. Swapping the drives with various OSes it is quick to see that WindowsXP is the fastext OS produced by Microsoft - it is even faster than Win98 that originally shipped on these laptops. (And no, these are not the only test systems our lab used to benchmark XP, but they are good example being low end hardware.)
I was also from the crowd that was, "No way, the themes, shadows, system restore, etc - XP just has to be slower." But it truly isn't...
I was blown away that the RTM version of XP was running neck and neck with Win2k, and SP2 just pulled further ahead. (I was amazed that Windows 2003 server was running faster as well before SP2 was released.)
I urge you to go do a bit of self research on this, and look past the articles that only focus on the smoke and mirror items, sure they are there, and MS fully admits they are there, but past them, there is some serious facts and basis to XP being faster.
As I look through the posts I see some good information, the usual tinfoil hat stuff, and some flat out misperceptions or bad assumptions.
As I usually say, everyone here needs to go read about technology more in detail before they decide for themselves.
Here is what I know, and I admit I am not an expert by any means.
1) Both technologies have a lot in common, the main distinction physically is the type of material used in the Discs, and how many layers you can pack into a Disc. Blu-Ray has the seemingly advantage with 'possibly' putting more layers into the Disc; however, HD-DVD has the advantage with a bit more reliable encasing of the layers, not as prone to damage.
2) Sony and Toshiba are the companies behind each product. However Sony is intent on keeping Blu-ray 100% to themselves, Toshiba is more willing to license out the technology.
3) HD-DVD started to slump in popularity, as Sony was in the process of upping the bar of more data, etc etc. This started to make Toshiba more flexible with the format, and Sony a bit more arrogant with their format. Strangly, this is also what set the stage for the shift in functions and popularity.
4) As new proposals or needs were expressed to Toshiba for built-in interface elements, adding more codec support, etc, as more ideas were added to the table, Toshiba was willing to work with them. Sony on the other hand rejected a lot of outside input, the arrogance was working against them.
5) Microsoft decides a key element of media of the future (especially in relation to their plans for consumer features), is that the content is allowed to be moved from the Media to a storage device, with or without the content protection. (i.e. the protection would stay with the data, not with the Media)
6) Toshiba was flexible and was willing to allow copying to an alternative storage device, Sony was very much against it. Sony's idea was that the content had to stay on their media, no no to copying it.
7) So 5 and 6 is where Microsoft said, HD-DVD is the one we will support, and this made a bit of press, it also made the rest of the industry re-evaluate both technologies, and in doing so, a lot of early Blu-Ray supporters found that Sony wasn't willing to give the features a lot of people wanted.
8) This brings us to the move by other companies. HP is a prime example, as they directly approached Sony, and said, Blu-ray needs to support some important features, Sony said no, and HP said, ok, we can't do an exclusive backing anymore.
Sony had the technology and should of owned this medium and emerging format war, but they got arrogant, as they did with BetaMax and many other products in their history, and basically lost the game not in technology, but in playing nice with others.
I don't remember the specifics of the features HP requested from Sony, but it is worth a search for people interested.
Also for everyone that is saying this war is only about Protection technology, etc. They are a bit right, but Sony is the one screwing the consumer more than Toshiba - and if you don't believe that, 1) Look it up & 2) Remember Sony has a big film division, Toshiba doesn't.
One of the main features that MS felt was important in the format about copying from the media was actually a pretty smart move on MS's part, and it will benefit consumers (even if you hate MS).
Microsoft sees a future where all your movies are also in a Jukebox on your computer/server as Audio files are in many people's homes now. You may own the CD, but most people listen to them from a digital archive. Microsoft believes Movies, DVD and HD-DVD content will also evolve to this level, even if not immediately. So the ability to move the movie off the media to a server is pretty important in creating a digital jukebox.
Microsoft did have an agenda, just not one that is so underhanded, they see Vista as offering Movie storage and Movie servers in homes, a good selling point for
I still manage to get all my work done, and don't have a compelling reason to upgrade to Windows XP. As much as Microsoft would like me to think, AOE3 isn't enough justification.
If cost is the reason, then I have no argument with your reasoning.
If cost is not the reason, you are cheating yourself by not moving to XP, even on older hardware, as well as new hardware, XP is faster, and offers a lot of little things that are nice.
There is also significant differences in compatibility, the kernel, and how things are managed in the system that you would benefit from.
Track some of my recent posts on this for links to the Kernel changes, etc.
I have ubuntu running on a dell inspiron 3200 w/ a 266 Mhz processor and 112 MB Ram
Wow, that really puts our Pentium 200mhz Laptops with 80mb of Ram and 4Gb Hard Drives running WindowsXP to shame... (Themes enabled, OfficeXP, and development tools as well. We actually make our developers use these laptops, not only during testing cycles, but in day to day use to ensure the code they are writing meets this baseline.)
The fun point about these laptops, is that they benchmark and do run 20% faster than when they did with the Win98 that shipped on them. (As you might guess, we have a bunch of identical drives we can swap in and out to test various OSes on them.) XP is the fastest, even faster than Win2k and Win95.
I don't mean any disrepect, to you or ubuntu, and it is cool you are getting good performance out of your setup, just don't assume it is groundbreaking.
In fact both Vista and these X things are abandoning any idea of having "both" 2D and 3D. This does not mean they are "combining" them as you claim, instead they are simply using 3D at all times. Rendering a rectangle that is parallel to the screen surface is a "3D" operation but it looks 2D.
Go reread what I posted, please...
Windows Vista even in Glass mode is a hybrid of 2D and 3D abilities, as the display is not turned over 100% to the 3D engine, but is a part of it. It is NOT a 3D interface, but a 2D plane that can tap into 3D GPU acceleration and offer 3D spaces for applications.
Vista is combining this BY MAKING A FULL 3D Environment AND a 2D Environment, but with either model what is different is the LDDM/WDDM (drivers) and they are the key difference.
Not all users are going to run 'Glass' or have video capable of running Glass, so this hybrid holds true, as the WPF and DirectX applications that utilize 3D GPU functions within the applicaiton will still get the multi-tasking and GPU memory virtualization scaled down to even software levels of rendering based on the available video in the computer.
I think you seriously do not understand either what I said, or what the differences and implications of this are.
Very simply: Buy Microsoft, no IP troubles (hint hint we might make trouble, as the case with anyone using MONO, for example).
Where have you been? If this were true, it would be more of a buy Microsoft or Redhat. Redhat will gain from this type of information making press as it is providing this legality protection for its customers. So Redhat has more to gain than Microsoft in establishing itself as the new Linux Standard of choice.
If Redhat and other OS venders didn't provide protections, then I would be 100% with you, but all that is being brought to light is that by using a non-backed software technology, you are putting yourself at risk. Which is something any reasonable person would have already known.
Slashdot Mirror
Heh heh. That freeedom thing is a real bitch, ain't it?
:)
Na, I think more people are just shocked it still exists in various places in the United States after 4 years of King George.
But hey don't worry, he just established 'anther governement program' for a religious department in the Govt.
Love the conservative Republican Ideals King George has, which are to 'stick his nose into everyone's lives, even circumventing states rights, and the ability to keep spending and increasing the size of the Government to the biggest in history.'
Clinton's administration was at least being good Republicans, by reducing the size of government to the lowest it had been since the Kennedy Administration, and keeping their nose out of State's rights.
I know this is a big sidetrack, and a bit tongue in cheeck, but can anyone define themselves anymore by a party?
The Repulbicans are spending us to death, sticking their noses into state and persoanl rights, and the recent Democratic leaders did the opposite and are currently fighting the massive pork barrel projects in congress that Bush NEVER vetos. Strange...
When I hear that the democrats don't have clear vision, I realize the republicans don't either, but they are more loyal to just walk in line with the party leaders for the sake of the party instead of having real internal debate. Both parties are screwed up right now, but it seems the Repulicans don't realize it or just go with the top down direction of the party to at least appear cohesive.
I have people on both sides in congress I love, but they never reflect what their party tries to say they are.
I'm really worried now! It seems like almost every feature boasted in Vista has been pulled. Database filesystem and all that? What will be left that isn't essentially Windows XP with a much larger greed for memory and other hardware requirements?
Ya I agree the other four or five hundred changes and new features don't mean anything, is it all about the 4 or 5 features that were removed or speculated on that won't make it in the shipping version.
The difference between Vista and XP is as vast as the jump from Win3.1 to NT. Developers are still trying to get a grip on the new technologies the platform offers. Everything from a new API on every level to a graphics subsystem that is doing things others haven't even thought of yet.
Is everyone really this jaded? Even if you hate MS, then you won't be running Vista anyway, so why in the hell are you wasting your time commenting on something that really doesn't concern you.
Now here is my RANT on EFI, and I am sticking it in this post...
EFI support is also a big 'secret' crap. There have already been EFI based WindowsXP computers shipped, all it takes is a XP compatibile boot extender added to the EFI firmware. After the freaking HD boots, XP handles all the hardware anyway, it doesn't need BIOS and it certainly doesn't need EFI managing drivers.
This is the dirty secret people don't get, it isn't that XP or Vista can't do EFI, it is the Apple/Intel system are not going to drop in extra code in the firmware for the XP boot extender as other manufacturer that have already shipped EFI based XP machines did.
What is great about EFI? It is going to help Apple for locking in of hardware and driver stability, but for OSes like Linux or Windows, it is pretty much crap. The only thing EFI does better than BIOS is that is will do the initial startup faster, as BIOS is slower enumerating the devices, etc, even a fast BIOS with this crap turned off. That is the big wow of EFI for non-Mac world people.
EFI is supposed to replace BIOS, but when you look at what it is doing, it is actually a step back in technology, as instead of just turning on the system and handing over all operations to the OS, it actually steps in and tries to do more in place of the OS. This is what OSes have fought to get past for years and have done so, and now we are back to a standard that is wanting to do this again. What are people thinking?
The OS should handle this stuff, and that has been a purposeful shift to make the technological jump from platforms like DOS and Win3.1 that depended on BIOS operations to OSes like NT that don't give a crap about the BIOS other than it initializing the boot sector, and from there, it is the OSes responsibility.
Yes I understand BIOS, and how many features like Timings etc have moved into the BIOS as they became dynamic, but that doesn't mean we need to move drivers or other non-needed functions into EFI.
Look at the problems with ACPI even, and yet there are features of ACPI that are quite cool and yet still not even used on most PCs.
Sorry for the rant, but I find this all so foolish.
#1) Why do Mac users care? Windows users are not licking their chops over Mac/Intels that are performing below the average Windows PC currently sold.
#2) XP and Vista can run on EFI machinies, all it takes is the boot to be in the EFI firmware to hand off to XP or Vista.
#3) There are already XP machines that are BIOS free and are EFI already on the market.
#4) EFI has some real issues in moving things out of the OS that just shouldn't be so hardware specific.
#5) Mac and Intel are the ones with the buzz on this, and it is Mac that is not going to put a loader in their firmware for XP or Vista.
#6) Vista actually does FULLY support EFI even without the extra boot extender, but only in the 64bit version, but the reason this doesn't help, there are no 64bit Intel Macs.
(Which is quite laughable, as Mac/Intel systems are ONLY 32bit, even though Apple t
Better resolution? The 770 already has a DPI-value of somewhere around 220... I doubt you can find anything higher than that at anywhere near acceptable prices
Yep, I stand corrected on the display resolution.
However as interesting as the Nokia 770 is, it doesn't do much more than some of our phones, which is sad considering it is capable of being more that it is, as hackers are finding out.
Nokia needs to pop up the specs on the 770, and then it will be worth a look, but sadly even with the new devices shipping with XP on them, they have pretty good specs even in the inital versions, like ample RAM, Large HDs, better GPU, etc.
Right now for open source compact devices, it will be interesting to see how long it takes for people to install Linux or a *nix on one of the new devices. The devices are fully x86 compatible, which means the door of available devices and compatibility from the Linux world is even more vast. (And no I'm not saying that XP couldn't run on non x86, as it does, but these devices are x86 based, and designed to be so for 3rd party software compatibility)
The Nokia ia nice device, but when my Motorola Cell phone has more storage, it kind of makes you go hmm, what are they thinking...
I agree, just give me a 40gb hard drive, better resolution and graphics abilities, and I would be set...
I even love my M V710, and it is phone with an 8gb transflash device I use for my music collection and movies at a cell phone resolution.
However, these new devices look promising, and should at the very least be the stepping stone to replace crap PDA OS technology, and we will eventually have a full computer with us at all times with some serious hardware in it, even if it is to use RDP or XWindows to access our main computer in the office or the house.
(PS. It is amazing some of the features in even the basic cheap phones now. This is one reason I was so, "you have to freaking kidding me," when the Mac iTunes 100 song limit phone actually got marketing buzz. When I was reading the Apple buzz I actually had in my pocket my V710 with 512mb of RAM in it with 300-400 songs on it.)
Lets hope these devices are doing what they should, and not making MS money, but pushing manufacturers to put more powerful and even somewhat standard hardware in smaller devices for the intent of running full OSes if needed.
I think there are ways to have a user-level access XP remotely with other tools so a better comparison still could have been made.
There are, but the default remote access tools of XP is RDP technology in the GUI, sure you can do PC Anywhere or other tools. And there is built in Telnet, and you can also download the free Unix subsystem, and access and the system via SSH.
You are right about OSX, but I know this also gets said by both sides of the issue a lot. NT was in the same area OSX is now, we didn't need Virus checkers for NT 3.1-3.51. Viruses failed on NT due to security. It wasn't until NT admins got cocky and NT got popular that Virues were even written for NT.
So don't for a second think OSX couldn't have the same road if Apple doesn't stay on top of things. Apple does have an advantage, as NT was a network OS in a world of a lot of closed systems. Where OSX and Apple were able to watch the Internet and the problems of exposure that they watched all OSes be subjected to, even some of the 'robust security' *nixes.
Also, don't discount MS, they haven't given up, nor are they stupid, they should find the balance, even XP now with SP2 and MS Anti-Spyware is quite free from problems or any security issues, and is freaky stable. Vista will be were MS makes or breaks their name in pulling off security by shifting the balance fully the other direction. So the next year will at the very least be interesting.
Take care and again sorry for the long posts...
The Net Avenger
Ok, I don't agree with the 'counter' article on why Vista will suck, as we have also been using it, and there are some rough edges, but even at this beta point it is more stable and mature than some other 'full scale' shipping OSes.
/. community truly use this article as a 'definitive' answer of what Vista will or won't do.
/. quality? And yes, that is kind of a loaded question as some of the stuff we see is questionable anyway.
However, I had to go WTH when I read the article. How can anyone here in the
#1) The person writing the article doesn't even have a video card that does Vista Glass, that means, they don't have a video Card made in the last 4 years, all it takes is a Pixel Shader 2.0 on the card, that NVidia debuted years ago at Comdex with the GeforceFX 5200 for 80 bucks.
#2) Did anyone else catch this line about his reference to the Vista video requirements, " would only add that if you expect to see the fancy desktop, you need to invest in, say, an ATI Radeon XPress 200, an Nvidia nForce4, or a high-end graphics card."
Ok, hold your hand up if you know the difference between Video and Mainboard chipsets? nForce/Geforce anyone? I know 10 year olds that would laugh at this. And the ATI Radeon Xpress 200 as a base line? An integrated ATI Chipset that debuted last year? That is even crazy.
How about an NVidia PCI 5200 Graphics card made several years ago as the baseline, and Vista does Glass quite well on it even. Even generic notebooks baseline for Video anymore is ATI or Nvidia chipsets that include Pixel Shader 2.0 technology or basically hardware DirectX 9 support as others would call it.
I don't fully disagree with this person's article either, but really, is this
Make your own judgements on this, even as the article says, Vista seems to be better than XP, and who knows for sure how it will turn out...
Personal Experience Speaking...
.NET incarnation, in upper level application development.
VB is pretty good at teaching programming or getting people started in programming. Being a modern 'basic' it can allow people to get the initial concepts of variables, and put them to use in a syntax that reads like common english language, yet not leave them making a turtle follow lines around a screen.
The simplicity is also good to find the 'clicks' or points where people get it. When not teaching this stuff you forget these clicks, even explaining concepts as variables is something that is hard for some people to catch, even if they understand algebra.
VB also can do some fairly advanced things now, especially with the current
A person could start with no programming background, do the hello world, and stick with VB and make a career from it producing ok software.
Pascal is also another easy to understand language (designed to be a learning language even), and it with Borland's support can be almost as powerful as C/C++. So it is another good starter language that a career can be made from - especially Europe, Delphi does quite well there in comparison to the US.
I have taken a couple of roads with people, using either VB or Pascal as the 'get it' starting language.
Then I progress them to some advanced levels in each language, and along the way contrast in another language, C is the poster child here for the contrast. It can show complexity and also levels of creativity not normally used in the other languages. Useful comparisons to stuff they are currently learning as well as 'wows' like a line of C code that is very complex and recursive, but performs as much as an advanced program.
This lets them 'click' along the way, and will hopefully keep perspective and the certain 'creative' element that syntax complexity of C draws out of people.
The 'creative' complexity has to be nurtured, even if you are keeping people in Pascal or VB for their career (or they are not going past that). It was the creative of 'how to make it work' concepts that are so dominate in C that define 'good programmers', because in the old days, we had to make it work.
Yes it is nice to drag a button on the screen and have the IDE do the work for you, but without some of the 'creative' what ifs, and 'how can we' questions, programmers won't be more than glorified form designers, and that is sad for them to invest time in learning something and not fully getting it from both angles. (The logical syntax and function and the creative inspiration of thinking outside the box.)
Programming is one area of expertise that definately benefits from bridge-brain individuals. Creative Logic at its finest...
And sadly if the person you are teaching don't fully click in either direction (logic or creative) then you lead them down the road they are good at, and let them pair with a person or team that fills in the other side...
First, my head isn't up anyone's ass. You should really calm down. I responded in spirit in which it was given. Your entire rant mentioned only server OS's. I realize that it's UNIX base makes OSX more like a server but that's really beside the point. How many XP boxen are on the Net with TS opened? AND of all of those TS servers you mentioned, how many are in a DMZ scenerio? How many were hardened?
This test was spun in such a way to make it appear that someone could merely put their machine on the Net and have it hacked. The truth was, there was a remote login opened for the hacker. Was there still an exploit? Absolutely! Should Apple address it? Definitely. But was it a fair and open test? Wait, was the COVERAGE fair and clear? No.
Ok, I actually apologize, as my initial response was to be directed at your comments, but went more into a general rant directed at all the people that don't realize this is more common than they realize and not a biased test of OSX.
So I do apologize for it seemingly be directed at you, when it wasn't after I was done writing.
As for the Unix/OSX debate, this is something you have to give and take on. Mac OSX is not Unix, but a Unix type OS. However, it common in the 'new' Mac world to see OSX in the same class as other standard classic and new Unix OSes. Mac users can't have it both ways, and use this as an excuse when OSX fails to live up to hype that Apple actually generated.
But with that said, WindowsXP (non-server) does not allow a non-administrative level user to use RDP(Remote Desktop), so there is no way to compare WindowsXP in the same scenario, the only commonality here is Windows 2003 server is the 'same code base' as WindowsXP, but does allow guest (TS/RDP) logins, and is something used quite a bit. In the Windows world SSH and Telnet type of technologies are not predominate, so there is not a good comparison here, even though a WindowsXP or Windows Server can be fully administrated using this type of technology.
Oddly, Windows has actually surpassed the 'non-command line' model, and 99% of all remote access and administration is done using a GUI and GUI based tools. (Which is strange as the ease of administration has passed XWindows technologies and even the inherent Mac world technologies for use and management.) - For example, in Windows you don't ever have to drop to a *nix type terminal (or Command Prompt) to change settings or do things locally or remotely, which we are now finding advanced Mac OSX users doing, and are still common in most of the other *nix OSes. XWindows was originally the poster child of a GUI protocol to leave command line usage and administration in the past, and 20 years later, it has been fragmented by its openness to still not deliver this. (Not that openness is a bad thing, but when some standards are left a bit loose, they don't ever get tightened by any leaders.)
You are right about the ZD article being jaded, and I do get it. However, what is being missed here is the article is basically demonstrating OSX is not any better than any other OS, which a lot of Mac and OSX users are finding a slap in the face. Even with OSX abstracting the root from the basic level of user operations, it is not 100%, even though it 'appears' to be, and Apple would love for people to believe it is. Other *nixes do a better job of abstracting User Login levels from root than OSX does.
OSX does well, but it is not perfect, not better than other OSes in this regard and certainly NOT 100% safe, even if permissions have been reduced to nothing. Policy management on Windows can do the same, but it still isn't 100% either.
(And no I am not arguing Windows is one of the OSes that does the root abstraction right, in fact they are the poster child of being the opposite, and this is also the evil double edge sword for MS. Their OS is built upon years of 3rd party application compatibility that allows programs to run unfettered on NT without regard to the NT security system. If Microsoft would have forgone t
Exactly. If you wanted to truly compare OS X to Windows in this scenerio, put a PC on the Net with TS opened and give out the user account information
/.ed or become a target for attempted hacking.
Not to be an ass, but there are 100s of open accounts all of the internet with TS enabled and client and guest logins allowed for companies to showcase their software.
This is one of the things people actually do with TS is use it for software demonstration purposes, and people are 'encouraged' and 'allowed' to sign into Windows 2003 servers to test software or concepts the companies are selling or demonstrating.
If you think that there are no Windows Servers on the Internet that meet the exact same setup criteria as the MacOSX orginal test had, you really need to get your head out of Steve Job's butt and see what the real world is doing and not just what he wants you to see.
And BTW the same is true for many different OSes and *nix variations, there are 'guest' and local account access for public use, this has been around a LONG time, I don't understand how Mac Users think this is unfair or even unique? What do you freaking think XWindows was designed for? Do you realize that it is used for 'guest' accounts and distributed applications all the time?
As for SSH not 'usually' being open, you would be surprised of the number of people that DO run with either SSH, an XServer or even MS's RDP type of technologies on and enabled, like for example 99% of the Web with headless servers.
If it weren't common or safe, you wouldn't see different OSes have remote 'guest' accounts for customers all over the place.
Here just to demonstrate I'm not making up the remote access account senerio and how predominate it is, do a search on on like Web Hosting, SSH, XServer, RDP(Remote Desktop/Terminal Services) access...
I know of several examples of companies that use Remote Desktop type of technologies (not just SSH) to allow ANY customer to have full login access via (TS/RDP) to Windows Servers to testdrive their software. Do a search on these for yourself to see they exist, I won't post links to watch these companies get
Even if it is a closed system using redundant biometrics authentication, it CAN be hacked, I don't care how much faith you have in your closed-source redudndant (sic, with 'redudndant' "D"s) biometric-authenication (sic, and needed a 'redudndant' "T") OS on the market, period.
:)
Yes it can, I was using an illustrative concept we put together in the early 90s for the pentagon to set the bar for what is in the close to non-hackable range and how far that is from a consumer OS with barely even C2 level security.
Besides we have all seen McGyver do the sheet rock thing with a piece of paper to bypass the handprint scanners...
So now can we just go back to the subject, or you have another item you want to point out that the rest of us already realize?
Argue about what I mean as a wrapper and what you mean as a wrapper, and in the end, it is still a freaking client wrapper...
Do you people worship AOL because of their 'exclusionary' concepts and lack of innovation or do you really just not know any better?
Face facts, whethere you like it or not, this statement is pretty much true if you compare Office 97 to the current Open Office.
Open Office is still trying to catch up on things, and that is a bad thing in the development world and cycle. They are not setting the stage of the 'next' generation or showing the way of making these products better or easier.
Instead they are still trying to get squiggle red underline misspelling to work, and grammar, etc etc. They are still try to find an interface to be consistent for themselves within their own product suite.
They need to get off of chasing Microsoft's tail and pull in people with 'vision' and re-define what word processing and other business applications are from the bottom up. From a simple notepad to a full fledged tool for writing the next great novel, to a tool for submitting columns and school work or legal briefs.
Everything is following Microsoft's lead, a lead they pioneered in the 80s on the Mac (you see, instead of immitating Word Perfect, they took word processing to the next level, but yet made it easy for the old time WordPerfect crowd to adapt).
Here is one for starters, why are word processors limited to 'typewritter' rules of typsetting... Here is something Open Office could be a leader in, support and do full character justification and do it well. Currently all Word processors only do word justification, which is ugly and consider products like Pagemaker were doing this in the 80s, quite surprising it hasn't moved to the word processor level after all these years.
Define the standards, don't scramble to keep up with the status quo.
This isn't about MS, this is about companies like Sun and others tyring to 'maintain' instead of getting what they need to do and just putting the money into the research and doing it.
Even MS isn't stupid in this regard, Office 2007 breaks the UI norm for business applications, again not following the sheep, or even their own sheep, but trying to set the next level of what is easier for users. (Whether it is a good innovation on MS's part is left to be seen, but at least they are trying and not just recycling the same old crap. Heck even Office 2003 and the Sidebar and Web integration was quite a leap for people doing research or multi-language work - at least it was new and useful to many people.)
Ok so this is a wrapper for the AIM Client...
How is this 'Open' or even beneficial. You could write a wrapper around the exising AIM Client and strip or add features as you wanted, just not with AOLs blessing.
IE is more 'open' than this, as you can at least write an HTML rendering applicaiton around the system DLLs, and not have to license crap, or 'conform' to not integrating with other services.
Give me a freaking break. Everyone here that thinks AOL has done something good, needs to be slapped up side the head.
My mother is a lawyer and I convinced her to move from MSOffice to OpenOffice exactly for the same reason. Many of their documents got corrupted by different versions of Word, or by anti-virus software trying to repair macro-virii infected files.
I'd like to point out that several of her files that Word couldn't open anymore were opened flawless by OpenOffice.
She was so glad that now she refuses to use anything but OpenOffice.
Great story, but the funny part here isn't MS Office, but whatever crap Anti-Virus/Spyware tools you or your mother installed to mess with MS Office was what was causing her the problems.
I'm sure she sees you as the brilliant hero and guru, but if you were really doing your job, you would have removed the problem in the first place, instead of going. "Weird, I don't know, and then having her use another product not screwed up by the Anti-Virus software screwing with her documents."
BTW you do realize MS Office for the past 6 years has been pretty immune to viruses, as the user is prevented from allowing scripts or code to execute...
Ok Rule #1, DO NOT TRUST legal Advice on Slashdot...
This is a good place for the debate of such a topic, but don't screw with your life based on the post of other Slashdotters, even myself.
#1 Seek legal advice
#2 Then proceed by probably making 'reasonable' inquires to the company expressing that if they don't support linux would they be willing to support 3rd party work that does. (After getting legal advice to help with the inquiry.)
See, here is the problem, many have correctly stated things like certain types of reverse engineering is 'acceptable', but there are reasons most products EULAs and such prohibit reverse engineering.
Lets take your senerio for example, maybe there are 'other' reason the company doesn't support Linux, it could be something they deem a secuirty risk, or other threat, or even a threat to their intellectual property.
Don't get fooled by any post here telling you it is ok or benign, they don't know enough and you don't even know enough.
Protect yourself, and you might find you could talk the company into supporting or paying you for your time in developing a reasonable Linux solution for their product. But have legal advice along the way.
"Let the flood of *I challenge you to hack me* ip posts begin...
You can start with this one: XX.XX.XXX.XXX.
I think tihs is a quite amusing... If anyone with any OS is so sure about their OSes security they are willing to come on Slashdot and make claims like OSX is not hackable, or OS (Generic) is safe from exploits and hackers...
Then they should also have the nerve to add their machines IPs in their post to prove theit point of how much they trust their OS.
Although OSX is not my OS of security choice, I don't belive any OS could hold to the claims I see Mac users throwing around in here. I understand the nature of OSes, and hacking from a security perspective.
Unless it is a closed system using redudndant biometrics authenication, it CAN be hacked, I don't care how much faith you have in Apple, Linux, BSD, Windows or any other OS on the market, period.
This is just something you 'accept' and design around, but I find it amazing people come on SlashDot with the ignorance and arrogance that their OS is better than the rest. This does not exist in consumer OSes, no matter how much you believe or how many times you click your heels together.
So I say, great idea, everyone that is running a perfect OS, be the first to start leaving their local and Server IPs in their signature, and maybe a line like, "My OS is the most secure in the world, I dare you."
Then when they are hacked in a few hours they at least won't be on the boards selling the religion of their 'perfect' OS.
BTW thanks for the sideline and laugh your post inspired, brilliant actually.
This is laughable at best. Just look at Blu-ray Disc Association website and the long list of the members, far longer than that of HD DVD.c tion-14009/Index.html
5 3
http://www.blu-raydisc.com/general_information/Se
Maybe you should actually read the page. This is a list of Supporting Companies, not Companies that are PART of or EVEN ALLOWED to participate in the technology.
These are just SUPPORTERS, not participents in developing, adding to or even allowed to question Sony about the Technology.
Here I will illustrate for the slow swimmers.. HP is listed on the page you provided us the nice link to, now read this...
"Here's more on the reason for HP's decision to also back the competing HD-DVD format. It appears that HP wasn't too happy that Sony decided to turn its back on iHD support. Hewlett-Packard was pushing hard for iHD which allows for more interactive features to be included on the disc"
http://www.anandtech.com/news/shownews.aspx?i=254
Get it?
Ubuntu is a modern operating system; its last release was in October, 2005. In contrast, Windows XP is almost five years old -- legacy software by any definition. I'd expect Ubuntu to require modern computing resources. Running it on a 266 MHz/112 MB system is impressive.
You are kidding right? You are basing how impressive this is on the OS compile and release date?
Well if you are going to do that, then WindowsXP is running SP2 where more than 80% of the OS was replaced, so that moves it up a few years.
Then add in the continual updates, upgrades to applicaitons like Movie Maker, Media Player, etc, that adds another year.
Now add in performance updates as well as security updates, and you are in the same timeframe...
See how silly this gets already?
Let base it on this. What major performance 'dropping' feature is in Ubuntu that wasn't in Ubuntu or Debian 5 years ago? Why should it run slower than it would have in 2001?
It is optimized versions of Linux and the same basic OS that existed in 2001, in fact it should run faster than a 2001 Linux, not slower, and certainly not because it is a 'modern OS' because of its last update/release date. It is running some of the simplest and tightest feature sets of most Linux builds even. Only ships with GNOME, basic FS support, etc etc...
Let me guess, if MS would release a vanilla MSDOS 9.0 now, then it would be the OS to test on old hardware, as it would be the 'modern OS' because of the date it was released?
For the love of God... Geesh
This I would fully believe... System 9 was kind of a Dog in the Apple realm, especially by not taking advantage of the hardware, no real pre-emptive multi-tasking, bad memory management, etc.
In comparison to System 9, OSX definately rocks...
XP isn't faster then 2000. It apears faster in some situations but thats really a smoke screen(one you can benefit form though).
Both XP and 2000 are comparible in speed with 2000 being slightly faster at most things. Also you won't have to fix 2000 as much as XP when XP's smoke screens go bad.
(literaly i mean smokescreens. XP uses tricks to let you use the computer before it is completly booted and sometime it bites you.)
I appreciate your zest, but you are really off the game here.
I can assure you that the techs in my company's lab is very good at performance testing, and from a personal perspective, I can assure you XP is faster, although I should add a qualifier here. XP with SP2 is faster, RTM XP is only slightly faster than Win2k is some areas.
I know about the 'smoke' screens you are refering to, about the binding of the network after the Video intializes etc.
There are some true changes that are more of perception than actual performance, but rest assured this is NOT what I was talking about. (Also with SP2 & XP the binding orders changed again for security reasons, and a couple of the faster boot 'smoke' screens were removed.)
SP2 is more of a fork off the NT code branch after Windows 2003 Server, that is why it has better security as Windows 2003 was delayed for a major security shift at Microsoft. However, more importantly, code was further optimized in this process as well, and new compiler technology by Microsoft etc.
That is why when Windows 2003 Server shipped, a lot of geeks that had MSDN free access to it were running it on their desktops, it was faster than XP, even with all the extra Server 'services' running.
Then SP2 added in many of the changes of Windows 2003 to XP, and the performance honors went back to XP.
What makes XP faster has a lot to do with the timeline and SP2, but there are also a lot of kernel changes, allowing better caching, larger allocations of space in registry, better performance of loading in and out the registry, etc.
I don't have the links in front of me, but goto http://www.microsoft.com/ and do a search on: Mark Kernel WinXP
You will find the Microsoft documentation of the kernel changes between XP and Win2k, but you will also find an article written by Mark from SysInternals as well, that goes over the kernel differences from a non-Microsoft perspective.
These are part of the 'boost' XP has in running applications faster than Win2k. Also factor in the extra precautions for stability, the further optimizations in the Win32 subsystem and you get a faster OS, with more features.
Like I said before, our lab has 200mhz Pentium Laptops with 80mb of RAM and standard 4Gb Hard Drives. Swapping the drives with various OSes it is quick to see that WindowsXP is the fastext OS produced by Microsoft - it is even faster than Win98 that originally shipped on these laptops. (And no, these are not the only test systems our lab used to benchmark XP, but they are good example being low end hardware.)
I was also from the crowd that was, "No way, the themes, shadows, system restore, etc - XP just has to be slower." But it truly isn't...
I was blown away that the RTM version of XP was running neck and neck with Win2k, and SP2 just pulled further ahead. (I was amazed that Windows 2003 server was running faster as well before SP2 was released.)
I urge you to go do a bit of self research on this, and look past the articles that only focus on the smoke and mirror items, sure they are there, and MS fully admits they are there, but past them, there is some serious facts and basis to XP being faster.
Take Care...
Let's try to be realistic here....
As I look through the posts I see some good information, the usual tinfoil hat stuff, and some flat out misperceptions or bad assumptions.
As I usually say, everyone here needs to go read about technology more in detail before they decide for themselves.
Here is what I know, and I admit I am not an expert by any means.
1) Both technologies have a lot in common, the main distinction physically is the type of material used in the Discs, and how many layers you can pack into a Disc. Blu-Ray has the seemingly advantage with 'possibly' putting more layers into the Disc; however, HD-DVD has the advantage with a bit more reliable encasing of the layers, not as prone to damage.
2) Sony and Toshiba are the companies behind each product. However Sony is intent on keeping Blu-ray 100% to themselves, Toshiba is more willing to license out the technology.
3) HD-DVD started to slump in popularity, as Sony was in the process of upping the bar of more data, etc etc. This started to make Toshiba more flexible with the format, and Sony a bit more arrogant with their format. Strangly, this is also what set the stage for the shift in functions and popularity.
4) As new proposals or needs were expressed to Toshiba for built-in interface elements, adding more codec support, etc, as more ideas were added to the table, Toshiba was willing to work with them. Sony on the other hand rejected a lot of outside input, the arrogance was working against them.
5) Microsoft decides a key element of media of the future (especially in relation to their plans for consumer features), is that the content is allowed to be moved from the Media to a storage device, with or without the content protection. (i.e. the protection would stay with the data, not with the Media)
6) Toshiba was flexible and was willing to allow copying to an alternative storage device, Sony was very much against it. Sony's idea was that the content had to stay on their media, no no to copying it.
7) So 5 and 6 is where Microsoft said, HD-DVD is the one we will support, and this made a bit of press, it also made the rest of the industry re-evaluate both technologies, and in doing so, a lot of early Blu-Ray supporters found that Sony wasn't willing to give the features a lot of people wanted.
8) This brings us to the move by other companies. HP is a prime example, as they directly approached Sony, and said, Blu-ray needs to support some important features, Sony said no, and HP said, ok, we can't do an exclusive backing anymore.
Sony had the technology and should of owned this medium and emerging format war, but they got arrogant, as they did with BetaMax and many other products in their history, and basically lost the game not in technology, but in playing nice with others.
I don't remember the specifics of the features HP requested from Sony, but it is worth a search for people interested.
Also for everyone that is saying this war is only about Protection technology, etc. They are a bit right, but Sony is the one screwing the consumer more than Toshiba - and if you don't believe that, 1) Look it up & 2) Remember Sony has a big film division, Toshiba doesn't.
One of the main features that MS felt was important in the format about copying from the media was actually a pretty smart move on MS's part, and it will benefit consumers (even if you hate MS).
Microsoft sees a future where all your movies are also in a Jukebox on your computer/server as Audio files are in many people's homes now. You may own the CD, but most people listen to them from a digital archive. Microsoft believes Movies, DVD and HD-DVD content will also evolve to this level, even if not immediately. So the ability to move the movie off the media to a server is pretty important in creating a digital jukebox.
Microsoft did have an agenda, just not one that is so underhanded, they see Vista as offering Movie storage and Movie servers in homes, a good selling point for
I still manage to get all my work done, and don't have a compelling reason to upgrade to Windows XP. As much as Microsoft would like me to think, AOE3 isn't enough justification.
If cost is the reason, then I have no argument with your reasoning.
If cost is not the reason, you are cheating yourself by not moving to XP, even on older hardware, as well as new hardware, XP is faster, and offers a lot of little things that are nice.
There is also significant differences in compatibility, the kernel, and how things are managed in the system that you would benefit from.
Track some of my recent posts on this for links to the Kernel changes, etc.
Take Care...
I have ubuntu running on a dell inspiron 3200 w/ a 266 Mhz processor and 112 MB Ram
Wow, that really puts our Pentium 200mhz Laptops with 80mb of Ram and 4Gb Hard Drives running WindowsXP to shame... (Themes enabled, OfficeXP, and development tools as well. We actually make our developers use these laptops, not only during testing cycles, but in day to day use to ensure the code they are writing meets this baseline.)
The fun point about these laptops, is that they benchmark and do run 20% faster than when they did with the Win98 that shipped on them. (As you might guess, we have a bunch of identical drives we can swap in and out to test various OSes on them.) XP is the fastest, even faster than Win2k and Win95.
I don't mean any disrepect, to you or ubuntu, and it is cool you are getting good performance out of your setup, just don't assume it is groundbreaking.
In fact both Vista and these X things are abandoning any idea of having "both" 2D and 3D. This does not mean they are "combining" them as you claim, instead they are simply using 3D at all times. Rendering a rectangle that is parallel to the screen surface is a "3D" operation but it looks 2D.
Go reread what I posted, please...
Windows Vista even in Glass mode is a hybrid of 2D and 3D abilities, as the display is not turned over 100% to the 3D engine, but is a part of it. It is NOT a 3D interface, but a 2D plane that can tap into 3D GPU acceleration and offer 3D spaces for applications.
Vista is combining this BY MAKING A FULL 3D Environment AND a 2D Environment, but with either model what is different is the LDDM/WDDM (drivers) and they are the key difference.
Not all users are going to run 'Glass' or have video capable of running Glass, so this hybrid holds true, as the WPF and DirectX applications that utilize 3D GPU functions within the applicaiton will still get the multi-tasking and GPU memory virtualization scaled down to even software levels of rendering based on the available video in the computer.
I think you seriously do not understand either what I said, or what the differences and implications of this are.
Very simply: Buy Microsoft, no IP troubles (hint hint we might make trouble, as the case with anyone using MONO, for example).
Where have you been? If this were true, it would be more of a buy Microsoft or Redhat. Redhat will gain from this type of information making press as it is providing this legality protection for its customers. So Redhat has more to gain than Microsoft in establishing itself as the new Linux Standard of choice.
If Redhat and other OS venders didn't provide protections, then I would be 100% with you, but all that is being brought to light is that by using a non-backed software technology, you are putting yourself at risk. Which is something any reasonable person would have already known.