If you go with a server as being something that listens for incoming connections, then Bittorrent is running a server. Or to put it another way, if you have to open ports on your firewall to make it work, it's probably a server.
Windows 3.1 was actually pretty decent. It predated things like the registry, which was the big downfall of Windows 95 in my opinion. The registry was hard to understand, tended to accumulate cruft, and seemed to like to randomly corrupt itself for no reason back in the '95 days, which killed more than a few of my Windows 95 installs. Windows 3.1, on the other hand, used text-based configuration files which made it much easier to troubleshoot and more resilent to corruption and cruft. Windows 3.1 was also very snappy and fast on as little as a 486DX/33 with 4MB of ram, which is not the case with 95.
Windows 95 and 98 are what Windows 1.0-3.11 eventually grew into. Really, there are two Windows lines, the first one is what I call the "dos-based" ones that started with Windows 1.0 and ended with Windows ME. Then there is the "NT-line" which starts with NT 3.1 (you could also call it the "OS/based" line) and currently sits with Vista and will eventually evolve into Windows 7, apparently.
Well, a 2 year old Microsoft operating system is XP SP2 and that'll run, though slowly, on 10 year old hardware without much hassle (a 10 year old PC is going to be some kind of P2). XP will install on as little as a Pentium processor and 64MB of ram, and you could get that back in 1993 if you had the money. XP will even accept a Pentium overdrive processor, meaning you could (in theory) even run XP on an some kind of upgraded 486 machine from 1989 if you really wanted to.
I'm not sure about the minimum Vista will accept. I know it will install on a P3 with enough memory, which means a 8.5 year old PC is within reach as that's the age of the oldest P3's out there. If it will install on a P2 system (plausible, as the P2 and P3 are very similar), then you could install Vista on a PC from 1996, but I'm not sure about that.
So basically, if you're into hacking operating systems to run on old hardware*, you can go pretty far back on the PC side of things too.
*10.3 won't install on a biege G3 without some trickery either.
Fine, he's wrong for the vast majority of channels and programs. And I, personally, have *never* seen this, except for, as I say, toward the end of movies or during sports programs.
I guess it depends on what you count as ads. I haven't watched much TV in the past 4-5 years either, but I have noticed things like running ads while the credits are running (in a small box in the corner) is common now, which seems to net another 1-2 minutes of ads per hour for shows like ST:TNG. Along with color, moving, with sound(!) banner and pop up ads that run during the show. You could even get to near 100% if you wanted to count the ever-present watermark (now with color and animated) that many channels throw up on the screen. And then there is always product placement.
Yes, but did they allow a software failure to cascade to the engine? Have there been recalls because of software that causes the engine to e.g. decrease the fuel mix when it's not supposed to?
It's happened to the Prius, which sounds actually a lot like what is happening with the On-Star system. Overall it seems that engines computers are pretty solid, as it seems that most common computer glitches tend to not kill the car, but rather just mess with the emissions systems or turn on the idiot lights on the dashboard rather than killing the engine.
How did you come to that conclusion? Seems like FUD if you ask me. If anything, OSS companies would try to oversell you on support, keep you on the phone longer, and result in shoddier software which require you to keep calling back. Wouldn't that be a more likely corporate evolution of a company that ONLY obtains revenue from Support contracts??
On the other hand, they are supporting a totally open product. If they dick around with you too much, you could always get support elsewhere or fix it in-house.
That's not too surprising to me, as BMW may make a fun car to drive, but it's also a finicky car that's going to need servicing a lot. Call me when Lincoln is beating Lexus and Acura.
It wouldn't be hard for them to integrate the systems to the point where they are inseperable. Actually, that's probably inevitable as combining the hardware would be a cost saving measure.
Wearing a seatbelt does not make you safer to other cars on the road.
Actually, they do for drivers. With the seatbelt, the driver is more likely to remain behind the wheel of a vehicle (and hence better able to control the vehicle) in the case of an accident/spin/whatever. I really don't see why a passenger should have to wear a seatbelt though.
Why is it that we had our first flight in 1903, 36 years later we exploded our first atomic bomb, 25 yeras after that we had a man in space, and only 8 years after that we had human beings on the moon. In the last 38 years what have we done?
In late 1969, we invented the Internet. I think that about explains it.
The only ways we currently know to simulate decreased gravity are to 1) go where it exists or 2) go to a lesser gravity field and use a centrifuge.
What about being underwater (or in other words, using buoyancy to simulate lower gravity)? I'm pretty sure I rememeber astronauts doing atleast some of their training underwater to simulate this.
Not only that, it was decided that Microsoft was a monopoly in the market of operating for x86-based computer systems, which was done to specifically exclude Mac OS which at the time was selling PPC systems. It may be time to revisit that decision.
I'm not sure that would be good. If you believe Google's findings, you'll kill your hard drive's bearings doing that sort of thing.
If you go back and (re)read Google's study, you'll find that Google has little to say about power cycling harddrives, as they let them run continously. While Google did note a weak correlation, they speculated that this might be caused by already problematic machines that needed to be powered down and repaired more often.
I agree that convential wisdom does say that lots of power cycles is bad though.
Are you so sure that the flash memory in both is the same speed?
Not to mention the same quality. A USB pendrive could get by with the cheap stuff that only has 10,000 writes. I would guess that for a caching operation, Seagate would have to go with the more expensive stuff that gets you 100,000 or 1 million writes.
Start with 'run anti-virus software'. I once explained the rationale behind anti-virus software to a very smart but not very technical person. He replied, 'That's like taking antibiotics because you're too lazy to clean your food!'
That's actually not a terrible analogy. I run anti-virus/anti-spyware on my Windows computers, and they have yet to catch anything (well, anything nastier than a tracking cookie) - in other words I could get by without it, though I feel better with it present. Common sense says not to run random crap off of the internet and to be careful about what you install, and that's what I follow. I would hope that you teach the Mac/Linux users that, because otherwise the only thing protecting them is the fact that the harmful stuff won't run on their systems right now. Don't think that they wouldn't hand over their root password for a spiffy screensaver either.
That's absolutely right. Effectively, Linux and Macs don't get viruses.
Of course not. That's why we never see stories like these.
Look, we can talk till the cows come home about technical details and 'potential' risk. But it all comes down to this: Am I willing to trade potential exposure tomorrow for the certainty of malware infection today? The answer to that is a gimme.
What's all this certainity business? I have no problems keeping crap off of my Windows boxes, and I'm not alone. All it takes is some common sense. Education is the key, if people keep on with their old habits when moving to a Mac or Linux, they'll be one of the first infected should malware start cropping up on those systems and they'll be right back where they started. It's like telling people that they should move out in the country if they can't remember to lock their doors when they leave their house.
I sell computer systems, and my first advice to people is, 'If you don't absolutely need Windows, buy a Mac. If you do absolutely need Windows, try a Mac with Parallels installed.' And I don't even sell Macs.[*] I support only Linux/Unix on the server, period. And none of the non-Windows machines I support gets infected by malware.
Parallels? If you are going to have them dump Windows, then have them dump Windows. Windows on a Mac isn't magically immune to malware and viruses because it's running on a Mac. The only thing I see that you gain is that clean up should be easier as you can do it from the host OS.
So the solution to thinking your protected on Windows but not really is to move to thinking you are magically protected because "Linux and Mac don't get viruses"?
It could be that people who didn't know the filtering was in place just assumed that the internet was bogged down when their favorite sites didn't come up too.
I held off of SP2 on my desktop because of the troubles I heard people having with it when it first came out. I never got around to installing it. Ain't broke, don't fix it.
My laptop which is about a year old runs SP2, it came with it.
The thing is with the iPhone update is that it's all software. It's not like people are rewiring the thing or putting in mod chips to unlock it, in which case it's totally reasonable that an update would brick it. So why does the iPhone with unmodified hardware get bricked by a firmware update? I would expect the update to simply overwrite whatever's there, blowing away any changes I made to the firmware and give me a virgin locked and updated iPhone. All things considered, it's not unreasonable at all to think that Apple did it on purpose.
Slashdot Mirror
If you go with a server as being something that listens for incoming connections, then Bittorrent is running a server. Or to put it another way, if you have to open ports on your firewall to make it work, it's probably a server.
Windows 3.1 was actually pretty decent. It predated things like the registry, which was the big downfall of Windows 95 in my opinion. The registry was hard to understand, tended to accumulate cruft, and seemed to like to randomly corrupt itself for no reason back in the '95 days, which killed more than a few of my Windows 95 installs. Windows 3.1, on the other hand, used text-based configuration files which made it much easier to troubleshoot and more resilent to corruption and cruft. Windows 3.1 was also very snappy and fast on as little as a 486DX/33 with 4MB of ram, which is not the case with 95.
Windows 95 and 98 are what Windows 1.0-3.11 eventually grew into. Really, there are two Windows lines, the first one is what I call the "dos-based" ones that started with Windows 1.0 and ended with Windows ME. Then there is the "NT-line" which starts with NT 3.1 (you could also call it the "OS/based" line) and currently sits with Vista and will eventually evolve into Windows 7, apparently.
Well, a 2 year old Microsoft operating system is XP SP2 and that'll run, though slowly, on 10 year old hardware without much hassle (a 10 year old PC is going to be some kind of P2). XP will install on as little as a Pentium processor and 64MB of ram, and you could get that back in 1993 if you had the money. XP will even accept a Pentium overdrive processor, meaning you could (in theory) even run XP on an some kind of upgraded 486 machine from 1989 if you really wanted to.
I'm not sure about the minimum Vista will accept. I know it will install on a P3 with enough memory, which means a 8.5 year old PC is within reach as that's the age of the oldest P3's out there. If it will install on a P2 system (plausible, as the P2 and P3 are very similar), then you could install Vista on a PC from 1996, but I'm not sure about that.
So basically, if you're into hacking operating systems to run on old hardware*, you can go pretty far back on the PC side of things too.
*10.3 won't install on a biege G3 without some trickery either.
Ok, I'm going to mod myself down. Score: 4 Insightful? Really... come on people... This is the post you mark as Insightful? [shakes head]
Mod down with what, your 5 digit parachute account?
Fine, he's wrong for the vast majority of channels and programs. And I, personally, have *never* seen this, except for, as I say, toward the end of movies or during sports programs.
I guess it depends on what you count as ads. I haven't watched much TV in the past 4-5 years either, but I have noticed things like running ads while the credits are running (in a small box in the corner) is common now, which seems to net another 1-2 minutes of ads per hour for shows like ST:TNG. Along with color, moving, with sound(!) banner and pop up ads that run during the show. You could even get to near 100% if you wanted to count the ever-present watermark (now with color and animated) that many channels throw up on the screen. And then there is always product placement.
IIRC, NTFS has some of its main data structures in the middle of the partition for that reason.
Wouldn't such a scheme be totally defeated by drives with more than one platter?
Yes, but did they allow a software failure to cascade to the engine? Have there been recalls because of software that causes the engine to e.g. decrease the fuel mix when it's not supposed to?
It's happened to the Prius, which sounds actually a lot like what is happening with the On-Star system. Overall it seems that engines computers are pretty solid, as it seems that most common computer glitches tend to not kill the car, but rather just mess with the emissions systems or turn on the idiot lights on the dashboard rather than killing the engine.
Wow, was your sense of humor surgically removed at birth or something?
How did you come to that conclusion? Seems like FUD if you ask me.
If anything, OSS companies would try to oversell you on support, keep you on the phone longer, and result in shoddier software which require you to keep calling back.
Wouldn't that be a more likely corporate evolution of a company that ONLY obtains revenue from Support contracts??
On the other hand, they are supporting a totally open product. If they dick around with you too much, you could always get support elsewhere or fix it in-house.
That's not too surprising to me, as BMW may make a fun car to drive, but it's also a finicky car that's going to need servicing a lot. Call me when Lincoln is beating Lexus and Acura.
It wouldn't be hard for them to integrate the systems to the point where they are inseperable. Actually, that's probably inevitable as combining the hardware would be a cost saving measure.
Wearing a seatbelt does not make you safer to other cars on the road.
Actually, they do for drivers. With the seatbelt, the driver is more likely to remain behind the wheel of a vehicle (and hence better able to control the vehicle) in the case of an accident/spin/whatever. I really don't see why a passenger should have to wear a seatbelt though.
Allowing a software failure to cascade to the engine is just stupid.
What rock have you been living under? Virtually every car sold in the US in the past 25 years has a computer controlled engine.
Why is it that we had our first flight in 1903, 36 years later we exploded our first atomic bomb, 25 yeras after that we had a man in space, and only 8 years after that we had human beings on the moon. In the last 38 years what have we done?
In late 1969, we invented the Internet. I think that about explains it.
The only ways we currently know to simulate decreased gravity are to 1) go where it exists or 2) go to a lesser gravity field and use a centrifuge.
What about being underwater (or in other words, using buoyancy to simulate lower gravity)? I'm pretty sure I rememeber astronauts doing atleast some of their training underwater to simulate this.
Not only that, it was decided that Microsoft was a monopoly in the market of operating for x86-based computer systems, which was done to specifically exclude Mac OS which at the time was selling PPC systems. It may be time to revisit that decision.
I'm not sure that would be good. If you believe Google's findings, you'll kill your hard drive's bearings doing that sort of thing.
If you go back and (re)read Google's study, you'll find that Google has little to say about power cycling harddrives, as they let them run continously. While Google did note a weak correlation, they speculated that this might be caused by already problematic machines that needed to be powered down and repaired more often.
I agree that convential wisdom does say that lots of power cycles is bad though.
Are you so sure that the flash memory in both is the same speed?
Not to mention the same quality. A USB pendrive could get by with the cheap stuff that only has 10,000 writes. I would guess that for a caching operation, Seagate would have to go with the more expensive stuff that gets you 100,000 or 1 million writes.
Start with 'run anti-virus software'. I once explained the rationale behind anti-virus software to a very smart but not very technical person. He replied, 'That's like taking antibiotics because you're too lazy to clean your food!'
That's actually not a terrible analogy. I run anti-virus/anti-spyware on my Windows computers, and they have yet to catch anything (well, anything nastier than a tracking cookie) - in other words I could get by without it, though I feel better with it present. Common sense says not to run random crap off of the internet and to be careful about what you install, and that's what I follow. I would hope that you teach the Mac/Linux users that, because otherwise the only thing protecting them is the fact that the harmful stuff won't run on their systems right now. Don't think that they wouldn't hand over their root password for a spiffy screensaver either.
That's absolutely right. Effectively, Linux and Macs don't get viruses.
Of course not. That's why we never see stories like these.
Look, we can talk till the cows come home about technical details and 'potential' risk. But it all comes down to this: Am I willing to trade potential exposure tomorrow for the certainty of malware infection today? The answer to that is a gimme.
What's all this certainity business? I have no problems keeping crap off of my Windows boxes, and I'm not alone. All it takes is some common sense. Education is the key, if people keep on with their old habits when moving to a Mac or Linux, they'll be one of the first infected should malware start cropping up on those systems and they'll be right back where they started. It's like telling people that they should move out in the country if they can't remember to lock their doors when they leave their house.
I sell computer systems, and my first advice to people is, 'If you don't absolutely need Windows, buy a Mac. If you do absolutely need Windows, try a Mac with Parallels installed.' And I don't even sell Macs.[*] I support only Linux/Unix on the server, period. And none of the non-Windows machines I support gets infected by malware.
Parallels? If you are going to have them dump Windows, then have them dump Windows. Windows on a Mac isn't magically immune to malware and viruses because it's running on a Mac. The only thing I see that you gain is that clean up should be easier as you can do it from the host OS.
Solution #1: Linux.
Solution #2: Mac OS X.
So the solution to thinking your protected on Windows but not really is to move to thinking you are magically protected because "Linux and Mac don't get viruses"?
It could be that people who didn't know the filtering was in place just assumed that the internet was bogged down when their favorite sites didn't come up too.
I held off of SP2 on my desktop because of the troubles I heard people having with it when it first came out. I never got around to installing it. Ain't broke, don't fix it.
My laptop which is about a year old runs SP2, it came with it.
The thing is with the iPhone update is that it's all software. It's not like people are rewiring the thing or putting in mod chips to unlock it, in which case it's totally reasonable that an update would brick it. So why does the iPhone with unmodified hardware get bricked by a firmware update? I would expect the update to simply overwrite whatever's there, blowing away any changes I made to the firmware and give me a virgin locked and updated iPhone. All things considered, it's not unreasonable at all to think that Apple did it on purpose.