Oh, and for the love of all that is holy, please provide comic relief by including an Intel video chipset. Pretty please?
(please insert evil grin here)
If you are going to pick on an integrated video solution then you don't have to bother with Intel. None of the integrated chipsets would stack up at all against these top of the line cards.
If you want a comparison, try showing what other things you could have bought for $700+. Perhaps an XBox AND a PS3 plus a mainstream video card? Or maybe just one console, a few games, a mainstream card and a vacuum cleaner to run while playing (to simulate the sound of the high end cards).
They have another system in place to handle certificate revocation. You can enable/disable this in IE in "Internet Options->Advanced->Security". I believe Safari and Chrome also use this OS level certificate handling too.
He creates a universe with deterministic laws which will undoubtedly create a very specific result... and we're the best he could do?
Maybe we are living in the universe that God left in a flask on the shelf without checking on us further. That would mean that God's chosen people are actually living in the other flask He carries around with Him, and which he occasionally gives it the odd shake.
Or maybe we are not the finished product yet. God is still waiting to hear the "ding!" that will sound when the human race is cooked finally.
Or maybe God's plan for the universe is so ingenious that the chosen people will actually evolved from the unchecked flask of Stanley Miller. At least, that was what was supposed to happen before those pesky scientists went back and fiddled with the mixture!
It is true that we are seeing a lot of messages that defy credulity by posting way too early for a non subscriber in a one sided manner. I almost fell into the trap of saying that we have been seeing a lot of posters doing that, but I suspect that it is all the work of one or two individuals with multiple accounts.
In this case however, the pattern of the original message was less like an astroturfer, and more like one of those people who imagines a complicated scenario just for the sake of argument against that imagined point.
It is a rather bizarre thing to do, but it is not one that seems to be restricted to use by any one point of view. The next time it may be Microsoft or Apple in the firing line. It is a style of Internet posting that really irritates me, which might explain why I saw the original posting as an example of that while you saw it as a possible shill.
Thank you so much for illustrating my point. That phrase may be common, but calling people shills and astroturfers is far more common. Perhaps if fewer people resorted to name calling in lieu of making a logical argument then that phrase would not have to be written over and over again.
Tell you what: it won't be hard to figure it out if the EFF ever sells out.
Absolutely! It is crazy (dare I say paranoid) to pre-emptively denigrate an organisation because one day that might turn bad. Judge them by their actions today.
However, I can't completely agree with your next sentence because 1) it is 150 words long, and 2) complaining about FUD by accusing people of being astroturfers or shills is itself FUD. This argument is known as "playing the man, not the ball". Just because somebody has a different opinion than you does not mean that they are being paid to argue against you. It is something that we are seeing around here more and more these days.
You should do the one that is most cost effective first.
I can imagine that your earlier suggestion of being able to open windows would probably be impractical (possible dangerous) to retrofit onto a skyscraper that was not designed to support them (although I am a big fan of using ventilation instead of air conditioning). So what should they have done first, and how do you know that they haven't done it already.
I was just about to hit submit when I came across a post by AvitarX that addresses this. It seems this is just he latest in a series of improvements made to the building. You were too quick to judge without getting all the facts.
The problem is the older 2k/XP OS;s do not support TLS so using HTTPS on multiple sites aka VHOSTS will not work IE errors out with the SSL key not matching sitename violation.
Shame they dont stick to standards ( Yet Again ), this kicked me in the ass a while back after implementing SNI (Server Name Indication) in apache. Everything looked great in Firefox, Chrome and Safari but oh no IE and XP failed.
Actually, Safari works the same as IE. They both use the operating system's TLS implementation, and so both require Mac OS X Leopard or Vista to get SNI to work. Obviously OS X only is used by Safari, and Leopard is the minimum OS version from Safari 5.0. Chrome has the same XP weakness, but Firefox and Opera have better support on older operating systems for this.
It seems strange that neither Microsoft nor Apple backported this protocol to their older operating systems.
And wasn't this one of Bush's rationales for invading Iraq, i.e., humanitarian?
Was there an uprising going on in Iraq when the invasion began? No, was all about the weapons of mass destruction and how they wouldn't allow the weapons inspectors access to the places where those WMDs were stored. Of course, that wasn't helped by the fact that there were no WMDs and that the "evidence" of their existence was doubted by other countries from the beginning. It turns out the French were right.
In this case, there IS a violent uprising going on. I think that it is right to go in now, and that it was right to wait and see how things would progress before taking action. If it had turned out that the popular support in Libia was enough for the military personnel to turn against their leader then having the UN come charging in would have done more damaged that it cured. It may have galvanized support for Gaddafi if people considered an outside military action to be an invasion.
The GP stated that he would not hire a creationist. A creationist, by definition is one who believes in a creator. Pasteur believed in a creator according to his own words. Would this person not hire Pasteur? That is the logical conclusion according to what he said.
First of all, the GP didn't use the term Creationist, but instead spoke of Intelligent Design. ID is a con job to make a religious belief look like science. Is there any evidence to suggest that Pasteur put his religious beliefs ahead of his scientific principles?
Louis Pasteur did not believe that God was the one who made people get sick with disease, but rather that there were real, physical reasons for disease. If he thought that people got sick and died because they were sinners, or because God had some plan for them, then he wouldn't have done experiments to prove the germ theory of disease. He would not have researched immunology for all those years for ways to usurp God's plans.
You would have been using the crappy Opera Mini, which ran on Java. The one on my Nokia was Opera Mobile (I think that was the name) and it was 1000% better than the one you can download from Opera's site as it had a nice mix of a slight zoom and an intelligent reflow that could fit a site in using the same layout that you see on a PC. It helped that the Nokia was a clamshell design that had an internal screen that was 480px wide.
There was no way of getting the better version except to have it preinstalled by the phone manufacturer. When I went to Opera's page for my model of phone, it only showed Mini to be available (which was bizarre to read on the phone via Opera Mobile).
Finally, speaking of annoyances about Safari, my biggest one is that it can't hold many pages in memory at the same time. With my old phone, I could load up 10 Slashdot articles (showing all comments) and the go on a plane and read them all. With Safari, I can only load 7 pages, but it can really only hold 1 or 2 large pages without trying to reload them again as you switch between them. I have lost a number of Slashdot posts in the past when I quickly look up a site in another page only to have the posting form reload when I switch back, losing everything I have typed. Very frustrating!
I agree. Unless you are going to run two phones side by side, people will not notice the difference.
My bigger concern is that Safari on the iPhone makes for a poor user experience (at least compared to Opera on my old Nokia Communicator). Opera did some nice reflowing of HTML elements to fit web pages on a small screen. The iPhone makes the virtual screen size default to 920px across and relies on zooming in and out to be able to read things properly. It is particularly bad when reading text on a page that does not fix the screen size and just flows to the native page width. It is ridiculous that you should have to scroll horizontally to be able to read text that should just wrap to the screen width.
And unlike Opera, there were no configuration settings to change the way it works.
It gets worse when filling in forms (like I am doing now) because when the huge keyboard is on screen, the zoom level resets to a stupidly large size. This means that you cannot see full field as you type.
As a web developer, I can change the way the zooming works, but this relies on changing the HTML just to suit one browser. I had hoped that we saw the end of that madness with the demise if IE6!
Why would you think that? Do you have any particular problems, or do you just assume that Microsoft can't do anything right. Given Microsoft's history on developing software which could not rely on having a mouse, they had a natural tendency to allow for accessibility all the way back to 16 bit Windows. I will say that their latest changes in their accessibility subsystem made things a bit harder to use.
I haven't tried the Mac's features in this regard, but the iPhone was a mixed bag. Some apps are surprisingly easy to navigate as a blind user, but others have obviously not been made with any visual impairment in mind. Not having cursor buttons makes it difficult as you have to randomly touch around the screen in the hope that you will chance upon the user interface elements. With some of the interface having no buttons (eg. strike to delete in mail) then those features can remain hidden (even if you are a sighted user).
The kind of person who litters is hardly likely to look at closely at the composition of the packaging before tossing it over their shoulder. Littering is an act of thoughtlessness, not a carefully considered risk management assessment.
I saw this same argument when they introduced biodegradable plastic bags at supermarkets in my area. The streets were going to be awash with bags. Guess what? It made no difference at all.
IE9 and FF4 aren't really full-release yet, so I can see why someone might include those in their compatibility list.
Internet Explorer 9 has now been released, although it was after the summary was submitted. But Safari was released a long time ago, and it was Safari that gave us WebKit which powers Chrome. It seems bizarre to label it a "Chrome compatible" browser when it should be the other way around.
Anyway, the linked site says "works best in chrome or firefox 4", so not only do they mention Firefox but they also do not use the term "Chrome compatible".
However, I did find an article on this subject from the day before this was submitted here that said:
Google Chrome may have come out of Pwn2Own unscathed, but you can rip through any website it (or another HTML5-compliant browser) displays -- just pull out your handy Katamari Damacy ball and wreak havok on the page. Na NAaaa, na na na na na na na, na na na na na naaaa...
Hmmm... It seems that something got lost in translation.
Perhaps you should have quoted my first point instead if the second point. I said that the mobile games will tend to be played when the user is away from home. The platforms do not necessarily compete for the same playing time.
As for money not being a limiting factor, people have a fine amount of money to spend on their entertainment. Look at what happened to CD sales when DVDs were introduced; they plummeted. The same thing happened when video game sales skyrocketed.
I think that big companies like EA and Ubisoft being uninnovative predates the mobile platforms by many, many years. The growth of casual gaming (which is what suits the small mobile devices) will not cut too deeply into the console market.
Mobile gaming does not compete too much with consoles because:
1) they are played at a time when you are away from home 2) they are priced so low that they don't eat too much into the gaming budget. You do not have to stop buying console games to be able to afford to buy games for your phone.
So according to the posters here, it works in Safari (including on iPhone), IE9, Firefox 4 and Opera. In what way is this something for "Chrome and compatible browsers"?
Let's not go down the old road when people said "Works best in Internet Explorer" only because they did not test anything else.
"Only in America" was a quotation. It has been used many times in movies, musicals and song lyrics. I was inspired by a particular reading from a Latino actress, but I can't remember which movie it was from.
It would be nice to think that Slashdot used ISO standards for everything, but in fact it is colloquial US formats that are use more often than not. When people try to correct instances of this, they are met with howls of "this is a US site so we do things our way".
I don't think that there is an official policy on this, it is just that people post using the spelling and formats with which they are familiar. I do the same thing (in spelling and formats) except where it causes confusion (I usually spell out dates in full) or I do not want to distract the conversation from a complicated or controversial argument just because I spelt colour with a "u".
So did you have a point with this, or is it just to be an asshole?
Wow! You are taking this way more seriously than the subject deserves. Of all the posts where it could be said that I have been even slightly controversial, this was not the one where I thought anyone would swear at me.
How could you possibly think that someone would be "anti-American" because of a date format??? I respectfully suggest that you lighten up.
Only in America!
on
Happy Pi Day
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
It is only Pi Day if you use the date format of mm/dd. In countries that use dd/mm date format, it lands on 22/7. If you think about it, Pi Day makes more sense in that format.
My subject line says "Only in America", but in reality Basque Country, Hungary, Korea, and Mongolia use mm.dd which makes the more ideal 3.14
It is true that we only have a small amount of information about this, and that we can't trust all of it. However, the police have more information than we do, so my point is that we cannot second guess whether charges should have been laid against the girlfriend. The assumptions by the original poster that the girlfriend was innocent and only charged as leverage against the boyfrield is unsustainable.
I love how they charged the girlfriend (even though she's not just innocent but also oblivious)
Why do you think that the girlfriend knew nothing about this. According to the guy's grandmother she was hounding her boyfriend for a ring knowing that he couldn't pay for one. The grandmother said of her, "All the time, 'I want a ring. I want a ring. I want a ring'". She had been at the house where the robbery took place. I could just imagine that she saw the ring, liked it and pointed it out to the boyfriend and said that she wanted THAT ring.
Dare I say that she might have been the ringleader of the gang? No, I dare not!
It was a product, and Microsoft released it. How is that not a released product?
I didn't say that it wasn't a product. I said that I do not consider it to be a released product. I was making a jibe at it being unfinished due to its lack of some basic functionality rather than a statement of fact about the product.
They didn't get Windows 7 right; Windows 7 was really just Vista.1, so the old adage was still true.
Every single release of Windows gets called a service pack or minor update of the previous version by some people around here. If it were true, then Windows 7 would be mostly the same as Windows NT 3.0 (and be called Windows 3.7). But if you compare the two you versions will find that they are substantially different from each other - both visually and behind the scenes. People just pick a couple of obvious improvements and say that the new version is just the old version with those couple of new features. In this case, they would say Windows 7 is just a service pack for Vista plus a copy of the Mac's dock. But in doing so, they completely ignore all the other improvements that were introduced.
Vista was quite usable from Service Pack 1. Perhaps these days, you should just wait for the first service pack in stead of a.1 release.
(Actually, it may have been OK before that, but I never tried the pre service pack Vista because I believed all the bad things that people said about it around here. A lot of what supposedly wrong about the OS turned out to be quite untrue.)
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, and for the love of all that is holy, please provide comic relief by including an Intel video chipset. Pretty please? (please insert evil grin here)
If you are going to pick on an integrated video solution then you don't have to bother with Intel. None of the integrated chipsets would stack up at all against these top of the line cards.
If you want a comparison, try showing what other things you could have bought for $700+. Perhaps an XBox AND a PS3 plus a mainstream video card? Or maybe just one console, a few games, a mainstream card and a vacuum cleaner to run while playing (to simulate the sound of the high end cards).
They have another system in place to handle certificate revocation. You can enable/disable this in IE in "Internet Options->Advanced->Security". I believe Safari and Chrome also use this OS level certificate handling too.
He creates a universe with deterministic laws which will undoubtedly create a very specific result... and we're the best he could do?
Maybe we are living in the universe that God left in a flask on the shelf without checking on us further. That would mean that God's chosen people are actually living in the other flask He carries around with Him, and which he occasionally gives it the odd shake.
Or maybe we are not the finished product yet. God is still waiting to hear the "ding!" that will sound when the human race is cooked finally.
Or maybe God's plan for the universe is so ingenious that the chosen people will actually evolved from the unchecked flask of Stanley Miller. At least, that was what was supposed to happen before those pesky scientists went back and fiddled with the mixture!
It is true that we are seeing a lot of messages that defy credulity by posting way too early for a non subscriber in a one sided manner. I almost fell into the trap of saying that we have been seeing a lot of posters doing that, but I suspect that it is all the work of one or two individuals with multiple accounts.
In this case however, the pattern of the original message was less like an astroturfer, and more like one of those people who imagines a complicated scenario just for the sake of argument against that imagined point.
It is a rather bizarre thing to do, but it is not one that seems to be restricted to use by any one point of view. The next time it may be Microsoft or Apple in the firing line. It is a style of Internet posting that really irritates me, which might explain why I saw the original posting as an example of that while you saw it as a possible shill.
Thank you so much for illustrating my point. That phrase may be common, but calling people shills and astroturfers is far more common. Perhaps if fewer people resorted to name calling in lieu of making a logical argument then that phrase would not have to be written over and over again.
Tell you what: it won't be hard to figure it out if the EFF ever sells out.
Absolutely! It is crazy (dare I say paranoid) to pre-emptively denigrate an organisation because one day that might turn bad. Judge them by their actions today.
However, I can't completely agree with your next sentence because 1) it is 150 words long, and 2) complaining about FUD by accusing people of being astroturfers or shills is itself FUD. This argument is known as "playing the man, not the ball". Just because somebody has a different opinion than you does not mean that they are being paid to argue against you. It is something that we are seeing around here more and more these days.
You should do the one that is most cost effective first.
I can imagine that your earlier suggestion of being able to open windows would probably be impractical (possible dangerous) to retrofit onto a skyscraper that was not designed to support them (although I am a big fan of using ventilation instead of air conditioning). So what should they have done first, and how do you know that they haven't done it already.
I was just about to hit submit when I came across a post by AvitarX that addresses this. It seems this is just he latest in a series of improvements made to the building. You were too quick to judge without getting all the facts.
The problem is the older 2k/XP OS;s do not support TLS so using HTTPS on multiple sites aka VHOSTS will not work IE errors out with the SSL key not matching sitename violation.
Shame they dont stick to standards ( Yet Again ), this kicked me in the ass a while back after implementing SNI (Server Name Indication) in apache. Everything looked great in Firefox, Chrome and Safari but oh no IE and XP failed.
Actually, Safari works the same as IE. They both use the operating system's TLS implementation, and so both require Mac OS X Leopard or Vista to get SNI to work. Obviously OS X only is used by Safari, and Leopard is the minimum OS version from Safari 5.0. Chrome has the same XP weakness, but Firefox and Opera have better support on older operating systems for this.
It seems strange that neither Microsoft nor Apple backported this protocol to their older operating systems.
And wasn't this one of Bush's rationales for invading Iraq, i.e., humanitarian?
Was there an uprising going on in Iraq when the invasion began? No, was all about the weapons of mass destruction and how they wouldn't allow the weapons inspectors access to the places where those WMDs were stored. Of course, that wasn't helped by the fact that there were no WMDs and that the "evidence" of their existence was doubted by other countries from the beginning. It turns out the French were right.
In this case, there IS a violent uprising going on. I think that it is right to go in now, and that it was right to wait and see how things would progress before taking action. If it had turned out that the popular support in Libia was enough for the military personnel to turn against their leader then having the UN come charging in would have done more damaged that it cured. It may have galvanized support for Gaddafi if people considered an outside military action to be an invasion.
The GP stated that he would not hire a creationist. A creationist, by definition is one who believes in a creator. Pasteur believed in a creator according to his own words. Would this person not hire Pasteur? That is the logical conclusion according to what he said.
First of all, the GP didn't use the term Creationist, but instead spoke of Intelligent Design. ID is a con job to make a religious belief look like science. Is there any evidence to suggest that Pasteur put his religious beliefs ahead of his scientific principles?
Louis Pasteur did not believe that God was the one who made people get sick with disease, but rather that there were real, physical reasons for disease. If he thought that people got sick and died because they were sinners, or because God had some plan for them, then he wouldn't have done experiments to prove the germ theory of disease. He would not have researched immunology for all those years for ways to usurp God's plans.
You would have been using the crappy Opera Mini, which ran on Java. The one on my Nokia was Opera Mobile (I think that was the name) and it was 1000% better than the one you can download from Opera's site as it had a nice mix of a slight zoom and an intelligent reflow that could fit a site in using the same layout that you see on a PC. It helped that the Nokia was a clamshell design that had an internal screen that was 480px wide.
There was no way of getting the better version except to have it preinstalled by the phone manufacturer. When I went to Opera's page for my model of phone, it only showed Mini to be available (which was bizarre to read on the phone via Opera Mobile).
Finally, speaking of annoyances about Safari, my biggest one is that it can't hold many pages in memory at the same time. With my old phone, I could load up 10 Slashdot articles (showing all comments) and the go on a plane and read them all. With Safari, I can only load 7 pages, but it can really only hold 1 or 2 large pages without trying to reload them again as you switch between them. I have lost a number of Slashdot posts in the past when I quickly look up a site in another page only to have the posting form reload when I switch back, losing everything I have typed. Very frustrating!
I agree. Unless you are going to run two phones side by side, people will not notice the difference.
My bigger concern is that Safari on the iPhone makes for a poor user experience (at least compared to Opera on my old Nokia Communicator). Opera did some nice reflowing of HTML elements to fit web pages on a small screen. The iPhone makes the virtual screen size default to 920px across and relies on zooming in and out to be able to read things properly. It is particularly bad when reading text on a page that does not fix the screen size and just flows to the native page width. It is ridiculous that you should have to scroll horizontally to be able to read text that should just wrap to the screen width.
And unlike Opera, there were no configuration settings to change the way it works.
It gets worse when filling in forms (like I am doing now) because when the huge keyboard is on screen, the zoom level resets to a stupidly large size. This means that you cannot see full field as you type.
As a web developer, I can change the way the zooming works, but this relies on changing the HTML just to suit one browser. I had hoped that we saw the end of that madness with the demise if IE6!
Why would you think that? Do you have any particular problems, or do you just assume that Microsoft can't do anything right. Given Microsoft's history on developing software which could not rely on having a mouse, they had a natural tendency to allow for accessibility all the way back to 16 bit Windows. I will say that their latest changes in their accessibility subsystem made things a bit harder to use.
I haven't tried the Mac's features in this regard, but the iPhone was a mixed bag. Some apps are surprisingly easy to navigate as a blind user, but others have obviously not been made with any visual impairment in mind. Not having cursor buttons makes it difficult as you have to randomly touch around the screen in the hope that you will chance upon the user interface elements. With some of the interface having no buttons (eg. strike to delete in mail) then those features can remain hidden (even if you are a sighted user).
The kind of person who litters is hardly likely to look at closely at the composition of the packaging before tossing it over their shoulder. Littering is an act of thoughtlessness, not a carefully considered risk management assessment.
I saw this same argument when they introduced biodegradable plastic bags at supermarkets in my area. The streets were going to be awash with bags. Guess what? It made no difference at all.
IE9 and FF4 aren't really full-release yet, so I can see why someone might include those in their compatibility list.
Internet Explorer 9 has now been released, although it was after the summary was submitted. But Safari was released a long time ago, and it was Safari that gave us WebKit which powers Chrome. It seems bizarre to label it a "Chrome compatible" browser when it should be the other way around.
Anyway, the linked site says "works best in chrome or firefox 4", so not only do they mention Firefox but they also do not use the term "Chrome compatible".
However, I did find an article on this subject from the day before this was submitted here that said:
Google Chrome may have come out of Pwn2Own unscathed, but you can rip through any website it (or another HTML5-compliant browser) displays -- just pull out your handy Katamari Damacy ball and wreak havok on the page. Na NAaaa, na na na na na na na, na na na na na naaaa...
Hmmm... It seems that something got lost in translation.
Perhaps you should have quoted my first point instead if the second point. I said that the mobile games will tend to be played when the user is away from home. The platforms do not necessarily compete for the same playing time.
As for money not being a limiting factor, people have a fine amount of money to spend on their entertainment. Look at what happened to CD sales when DVDs were introduced; they plummeted. The same thing happened when video game sales skyrocketed.
I think that big companies like EA and Ubisoft being uninnovative predates the mobile platforms by many, many years. The growth of casual gaming (which is what suits the small mobile devices) will not cut too deeply into the console market.
Mobile gaming does not compete too much with consoles because:
1) they are played at a time when you are away from home
2) they are priced so low that they don't eat too much into the gaming budget. You do not have to stop buying console games to be able to afford to buy games for your phone.
So according to the posters here, it works in Safari (including on iPhone), IE9, Firefox 4 and Opera. In what way is this something for "Chrome and compatible browsers"?
Let's not go down the old road when people said "Works best in Internet Explorer" only because they did not test anything else.
USA != America
"Only in America" was a quotation. It has been used many times in movies, musicals and song lyrics. I was inspired by a particular reading from a Latino actress, but I can't remember which movie it was from.
It would be nice to think that Slashdot used ISO standards for everything, but in fact it is colloquial US formats that are use more often than not. When people try to correct instances of this, they are met with howls of "this is a US site so we do things our way".
I don't think that there is an official policy on this, it is just that people post using the spelling and formats with which they are familiar. I do the same thing (in spelling and formats) except where it causes confusion (I usually spell out dates in full) or I do not want to distract the conversation from a complicated or controversial argument just because I spelt colour with a "u".
So did you have a point with this, or is it just to be an asshole?
Wow! You are taking this way more seriously than the subject deserves. Of all the posts where it could be said that I have been even slightly controversial, this was not the one where I thought anyone would swear at me.
How could you possibly think that someone would be "anti-American" because of a date format??? I respectfully suggest that you lighten up.
It is only Pi Day if you use the date format of mm/dd. In countries that use dd/mm date format, it lands on 22/7. If you think about it, Pi Day makes more sense in that format.
My subject line says "Only in America", but in reality Basque Country, Hungary, Korea, and Mongolia use mm.dd which makes the more ideal 3.14
It is true that we only have a small amount of information about this, and that we can't trust all of it. However, the police have more information than we do, so my point is that we cannot second guess whether charges should have been laid against the girlfriend. The assumptions by the original poster that the girlfriend was innocent and only charged as leverage against the boyfrield is unsustainable.
I love how they charged the girlfriend (even though she's not just innocent but also oblivious)
Why do you think that the girlfriend knew nothing about this. According to the guy's grandmother she was hounding her boyfriend for a ring knowing that he couldn't pay for one. The grandmother said of her, "All the time, 'I want a ring. I want a ring. I want a ring'". She had been at the house where the robbery took place. I could just imagine that she saw the ring, liked it and pointed it out to the boyfriend and said that she wanted THAT ring.
Dare I say that she might have been the ringleader of the gang? No, I dare not!
It was a product, and Microsoft released it. How is that not a released product?
I didn't say that it wasn't a product. I said that I do not consider it to be a released product. I was making a jibe at it being unfinished due to its lack of some basic functionality rather than a statement of fact about the product.
They didn't get Windows 7 right; Windows 7 was really just Vista.1, so the old adage was still true.
Every single release of Windows gets called a service pack or minor update of the previous version by some people around here. If it were true, then Windows 7 would be mostly the same as Windows NT 3.0 (and be called Windows 3.7). But if you compare the two you versions will find that they are substantially different from each other - both visually and behind the scenes. People just pick a couple of obvious improvements and say that the new version is just the old version with those couple of new features. In this case, they would say Windows 7 is just a service pack for Vista plus a copy of the Mac's dock. But in doing so, they completely ignore all the other improvements that were introduced.
Vista was quite usable from Service Pack 1. Perhaps these days, you should just wait for the first service pack in stead of a .1 release.
(Actually, it may have been OK before that, but I never tried the pre service pack Vista because I believed all the bad things that people said about it around here. A lot of what supposedly wrong about the OS turned out to be quite untrue.)