Actually IE7 is being pushed out via Automatic Updates, and I don't think that Microsoft has broken Automatic Updates yet for pirated versions of XP. So I don't think the pirates are going to be protected from this one.
I'll see your mathematical fact and raise you a "try again" Candidate #1 = 60% of the vote Candidate #2 = 20% of the vote Candidate #3 = 20% of the vote
If the winning canidate wins with 50% more votes than the 2nd and 3rd canidate combined, you don't have a viable 3rd canidate or a viable 2nd canidate.
Actually, if I remember right the big complaint about the Mac back then is that you just didn't have enough memory free, you had to have large enough continous block free. Hence, you often couldn't run a large program even if all you had open was a couple of tiny programs and had tons of free ram. Combine that with the fact that multi-tasking didn't work all that well to begin with, and it really was a pain in the ass. Windows didn't suffer from those particular problems, generally the smarter Windows users learned where their system's limit was after taking it down a few times and tried to stay below it.
The real fun with Windows though is when you run out of memory and enough free disk space for the page file. I've taken down Windows 2000 systems that way.
People, including me, love macs because they leave you the fuck alone and let you get your work done. You don't have to make sacrifices. How hard is this for people to understand?
How hard is it to understand that Macs are not the end all of computing? Seriously, there are people out there that do know how to handle "the bullshit" of Windows and Linux, and don't have a problem administering their Windows/Linux boxes and getting them to do what they need to do with a minimum amount of effort on their part. Quite often with significantly less hassle than trying do whatever they do under Mac OS and Apple's own bullshit.
And what's so hard to understand that some people use different tools? So what if you don't like vi or emacs? I don't really care much for either myself - but some people prefer those tools and are very efficient with them. Same with OSes - some people actually do prefer and choose Windows, Linux, or whatever over OSX. Seriously, what's wrong with that?
Could you provide an example of something, here? Because this really makes no sense. Give an example of something people can do on a Dell that they can't on a Mac, that is unavailable because of security restrictions in Mac OS (as opposed to the appropriate application simply not being ported yet).
How about being able to install a program just by visiting a website, or get updates for said program? I'm not just talking about malware here - lots of legit programs like Flash, Java, and Yahoo Messenger can be installed the same way in Windows using IE. I know this behavior makes people like here cringe, but some people are used to it.
What ease of use has OS X given up for security? I can't think of anything. Have you ever used Mac OS, or are you just saying that because you think it sounds plausible?
How about being hassled for a password when you try to install a program or change a system setting or Mac OS, while Windows just lets you do it? Yes, I know there is a good reason for this, but try explaining it to the Joe Averages out there, in particular the ones that don't share their computer with people they don't trust.
I think that's a bad counter example. Palm fell apart for very tangible reasons that had nothing to do with market share--the smartest business & tech leaders left, the OS stood still and they stuck with slower processors for too long.
Hey, that reminds me of a little company called Apple back in the late 90's! Really, things come and go - the iPod is the king today, but someday something else will come up and take the spot the iPod has. Maybe it will be more hip. Maybe it will be cheaper. Maybe it will have some killer feature. Or maybe the iPod will go the way of the Sony Walkman as something else comes in that is better.
While the 52 button remote with the LCD screen may be a bit excessive, I would prefer that to your 7 button remote. In order to get it down to a 7 button remote, you're going to have those buttons do different many things depending on what mode you are in, which can be confusing and cumbersome - in particular to people who aren't as tech savvy and don't really understand why the > buttons don't always rewind and fast forward. An example of where this doesn't work very well is in many newer cars where there is a center console that controls everything, and the various knobs and buttons do different things depending on what mode it is in. Simple changes (like turning down the heat or changing the radio station) often require the driver to look away from the road to a display, put it into the right mode, then perform the action - where as in a simpler car a simple twist of a knob or a single button press would do the same thing.
The DVD player with the 7 button remote would be the same way - instead of a single button press to accomplish something, you've got to open up a menu, navigate to what you want to do, then do it - all while the OSD is covering up what you are trying to watch. This is fine for rarely used items, but why should I have to do this for things like turning on the captions or skipping to the next disk? Why people think this is superior I have no idea.
Lets say that you drive 15000 miles in a car that gets 25MPG at 55mph. You'll burn 600 gallons of gasoline in a year. At 65MPH it would get 17.5MPG at a 30% penalty. You'll burn 857 gallons of gasoline in a year. A difference of 257 gallons times $3/gallon is $771, which is a sizable chunk of change. However, a 30% penalty for increasing your speed from 55 to 65MPH seems pretty steep unless you're driving some behemoth with terrible aerodynamics - I'm guessing the actual additional fuel costs for driving faster is lower for most people.
Well, if you were really concerned about your wife and kids, you wouldn't have some big SUV that's harder to control and more likely to roll over. Fact is, they would be safer in a Volvo than a Suburban.
5 years ago, Americans were paying about half of what we are paying for gas now. In the late nineties, we were paying 1/3 of what we are paying now. If the cost of your gasoline tripled in less than a decade, wouldn't you complain a little too?
I don't see much change in the lower end of the CPU line ups. The last time I checked, AMD's Sempron line offered great bang for the buck on the lower end, especially compared to Intel's outdated P4/Celeron chips in the same price range. AMD is still the ultimate value buy.
What has changed is that for a bit more money, you can get a dual core chip. A lot of people who are now buying new systems or upgrading at the moment feel like they have to have a dual core system (I can't blame them for this). So they only look at the dual core chips, and ignoring chips like the Sempron 64. This is where Intel is beating out AMD. I'm seeing a lot of people who used to always buy in the "best value" category of chips are now moving up the product lines to get a dual core system. I predict that given a few months or a year or so, dual core processors will have trickled down into the value chip range, and some people will shift back over to AMD for their next system.
If Windows 98 was open source, the community could continue to produce security updates, which would help prevent the proliferation of BotNets and enable people who can't afford a new PC or OS to use their computers for a little longer. And Microsoft wouldn't have to worry about people migrating to a competitor.
What would happen is that Microsoft would end up opening up a lot of the Win32 API, and WINE and simular efforts would make huge strides overnight. A fairly large number of fairly recent Windows applications still run fine on Windows 98, including (if I'm not mistaken) IE6SP1, WMP9, DirectX 9, and Office 2000. Switching to Linux would suddenly be a whole lot easier, and Microsoft wouldn't want that to happen.
Also, remember that they would probably end up releasing a large chunk of the Windows XP source too:)
Hooking a Windows 98 machine up to the internet really isn't THAT dangerous. Windows 98 hasn't been a target for most malware for some time now. Some of it works with Windows 98 anyway, but Windows 98 is immune a whole lot of it just because it's so different from the NT line. Hooking up an unpatched Windows 2000/XP machine up to the internet is much more reckless and will get you owned much faster.
To hear Linux supporters talk about how Windows forces you into an upgrade cycle, and how Linux will run fine on 'older hardware' and then it turns out that the major distros won't run on anything less than a couple years old, and still don't run comfortably.
The thing is, you can run one of the kitchen sink distros if you want (and have the hardware to do so), or you can run one of the lightweight distros that run fine on ancient hardware, and still have the benefits of updates and patches to stay current. In the Windows world, there is really only one current version, and if you don't want to crawl along with your older hardware, you've got to upgrade. Sure, you can run an older version of Windows, but unless I am mistaken, the only older version of Windows that is still supported after today is Windows 2000*. And the requirements for Windows 2000 aren't really that much lighter than they are for XP.
*Though it seems you don't get IE6SP2 or WMP10 in Windows 2000, amonst other things.
I agree. I installed Ubuntu on a P3-866 with 384 memory the other day. It took FOREVER to install. On the upside, I was pretty much able to start the installer after booting the CD and do something else for a while.
Then you fucked something up on your XP install. My personal desktop is a 1Ghz machine that runs XP just fine and I regularly play older games (like Quake, QII) on it.
Probably not enough ram, if anything. A 1.4Ghz P4 is a socket 423 system, and probably came with 128MB of rambus memory. Good luck upgrading that. Windows 98 is your only real option if you want Windows other than tossing it out and buying a new computer.
If an application works in Windows 98, but not 2000/XP, it's usually doing something pretty strange in terms of hooking into Windows 98's Win32 API, or is trying to talk to the hardware at a low level which XP/2000 doesn't allow, or it's doing things with the DOS layer under Windows 98 that 2000/XP don't support. You can sometimes get the last category to work in Wine, but good luck with the first two.
Why not? It's essentially a complex fluid dynamics/drag problem. While it may not seem so impressive to you, I'm sure the models they develop while solving this problem will find more useful applications.
I wish other applications acted more like Opera. Little things I miss in other programs or the host operating system are things like being able to click and drag to rearrange the tabs, closing tabs with a middle click, being able to re-open things I have closed with the Undo option, and restarting exactly where I left off when I close the application (or it crashes).
Besides, Opera doe act more like other programs in some ways - compare Opera's "tabs" (which are actually seperate, dragable and resizable windows in the host application) and the way Firefox/Safari/Konquerer/etc do tabs with other programs like MS Word.
In my old school district, being involved in a fight in ANY MANNER, meant suspension. You literally could be walking down the hallway, be attacked by someone (even with a weapon..), you could stand there and let him beat the shit out of you until a teacher or staff member steps in. You would still be suspended.
Sheesh, such a policy would encourage violence, I would think. If I'm going to get suspended no matter what, I might as well beat the crap out my attacker, rather than just sit there and take it.
Reliable? I would think that all but the stupidest criminals would be smart enough to take away a kid's cell phone and disable/ditch it when they kidnap the kid.
Besides, I could argue that the cell phone could make things worse, by providing a easy way for people to contact the kid outside the parent's supervision.
I tried Raid5 once with 5 hard drives but one drive had a failure while I was swapping out one and the whole thing went kaput so I had to do the image all over again.
The problem with RAID 5 is that when you have one drive die, you have to do some pretty intense I/O operations over several hours on the remaining drives in order to rebuild the array. If a drive is going to fail, it will probably fail during this process. Add to the fact that the drives in a RAID 5 are almost always identical models, and quite often have sequential serial numbers, and have been used under the same conditions for the same amount of time - you can pretty much assume that when one drive dies, the rest of them in the array are about to succumb to the same failure. So in other words, be sure to keep backups.
How about making the statement with the word "yuppie" replacing "redneck"? The words redneck and yuppie are both generally used as derogatory terms describing a group of people in a specific social-economic class that tend to be (but not always) white. Does this make the word "yuppie" a racist term?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually IE7 is being pushed out via Automatic Updates, and I don't think that Microsoft has broken Automatic Updates yet for pirated versions of XP. So I don't think the pirates are going to be protected from this one.
I'll see your mathematical fact and raise you a "try again"
Candidate #1 = 60% of the vote
Candidate #2 = 20% of the vote
Candidate #3 = 20% of the vote
If the winning canidate wins with 50% more votes than the 2nd and 3rd canidate combined, you don't have a viable 3rd canidate or a viable 2nd canidate.
Actually, if I remember right the big complaint about the Mac back then is that you just didn't have enough memory free, you had to have large enough continous block free. Hence, you often couldn't run a large program even if all you had open was a couple of tiny programs and had tons of free ram. Combine that with the fact that multi-tasking didn't work all that well to begin with, and it really was a pain in the ass. Windows didn't suffer from those particular problems, generally the smarter Windows users learned where their system's limit was after taking it down a few times and tried to stay below it.
The real fun with Windows though is when you run out of memory and enough free disk space for the page file. I've taken down Windows 2000 systems that way.
People, including me, love macs because they leave you the fuck alone and let you get your work done. You don't have to make sacrifices. How hard is this for people to understand?
How hard is it to understand that Macs are not the end all of computing? Seriously, there are people out there that do know how to handle "the bullshit" of Windows and Linux, and don't have a problem administering their Windows/Linux boxes and getting them to do what they need to do with a minimum amount of effort on their part. Quite often with significantly less hassle than trying do whatever they do under Mac OS and Apple's own bullshit.
And what's so hard to understand that some people use different tools? So what if you don't like vi or emacs? I don't really care much for either myself - but some people prefer those tools and are very efficient with them. Same with OSes - some people actually do prefer and choose Windows, Linux, or whatever over OSX. Seriously, what's wrong with that?
Could you provide an example of something, here? Because this really makes no sense. Give an example of something people can do on a Dell that they can't on a Mac, that is unavailable because of security restrictions in Mac OS (as opposed to the appropriate application simply not being ported yet).
How about being able to install a program just by visiting a website, or get updates for said program? I'm not just talking about malware here - lots of legit programs like Flash, Java, and Yahoo Messenger can be installed the same way in Windows using IE. I know this behavior makes people like here cringe, but some people are used to it.
What ease of use has OS X given up for security? I can't think of anything. Have you ever used Mac OS, or are you just saying that because you think it sounds plausible?
How about being hassled for a password when you try to install a program or change a system setting or Mac OS, while Windows just lets you do it? Yes, I know there is a good reason for this, but try explaining it to the Joe Averages out there, in particular the ones that don't share their computer with people they don't trust.
I think that's a bad counter example. Palm fell apart for very tangible reasons that had nothing to do with market share--the smartest business & tech leaders left, the OS stood still and they stuck with slower processors for too long.
Hey, that reminds me of a little company called Apple back in the late 90's! Really, things come and go - the iPod is the king today, but someday something else will come up and take the spot the iPod has. Maybe it will be more hip. Maybe it will be cheaper. Maybe it will have some killer feature. Or maybe the iPod will go the way of the Sony Walkman as something else comes in that is better.
While the 52 button remote with the LCD screen may be a bit excessive, I would prefer that to your 7 button remote. In order to get it down to a 7 button remote, you're going to have those buttons do different many things depending on what mode you are in, which can be confusing and cumbersome - in particular to people who aren't as tech savvy and don't really understand why the > buttons don't always rewind and fast forward. An example of where this doesn't work very well is in many newer cars where there is a center console that controls everything, and the various knobs and buttons do different things depending on what mode it is in. Simple changes (like turning down the heat or changing the radio station) often require the driver to look away from the road to a display, put it into the right mode, then perform the action - where as in a simpler car a simple twist of a knob or a single button press would do the same thing.
The DVD player with the 7 button remote would be the same way - instead of a single button press to accomplish something, you've got to open up a menu, navigate to what you want to do, then do it - all while the OSD is covering up what you are trying to watch. This is fine for rarely used items, but why should I have to do this for things like turning on the captions or skipping to the next disk? Why people think this is superior I have no idea.
Lets say that you drive 15000 miles in a car that gets 25MPG at 55mph. You'll burn 600 gallons of gasoline in a year. At 65MPH it would get 17.5MPG at a 30% penalty. You'll burn 857 gallons of gasoline in a year. A difference of 257 gallons times $3/gallon is $771, which is a sizable chunk of change. However, a 30% penalty for increasing your speed from 55 to 65MPH seems pretty steep unless you're driving some behemoth with terrible aerodynamics - I'm guessing the actual additional fuel costs for driving faster is lower for most people.
Well, if you were really concerned about your wife and kids, you wouldn't have some big SUV that's harder to control and more likely to roll over. Fact is, they would be safer in a Volvo than a Suburban.
5 years ago, Americans were paying about half of what we are paying for gas now. In the late nineties, we were paying 1/3 of what we are paying now. If the cost of your gasoline tripled in less than a decade, wouldn't you complain a little too?
I don't see much change in the lower end of the CPU line ups. The last time I checked, AMD's Sempron line offered great bang for the buck on the lower end, especially compared to Intel's outdated P4/Celeron chips in the same price range. AMD is still the ultimate value buy.
What has changed is that for a bit more money, you can get a dual core chip. A lot of people who are now buying new systems or upgrading at the moment feel like they have to have a dual core system (I can't blame them for this). So they only look at the dual core chips, and ignoring chips like the Sempron 64. This is where Intel is beating out AMD. I'm seeing a lot of people who used to always buy in the "best value" category of chips are now moving up the product lines to get a dual core system. I predict that given a few months or a year or so, dual core processors will have trickled down into the value chip range, and some people will shift back over to AMD for their next system.
Maybe she wants you to get a new girlfriend?
If Windows 98 was open source, the community could continue to produce security updates, which would help prevent the proliferation of BotNets and enable people who can't afford a new PC or OS to use their computers for a little longer. And Microsoft wouldn't have to worry about people migrating to a competitor.
:)
What would happen is that Microsoft would end up opening up a lot of the Win32 API, and WINE and simular efforts would make huge strides overnight. A fairly large number of fairly recent Windows applications still run fine on Windows 98, including (if I'm not mistaken) IE6SP1, WMP9, DirectX 9, and Office 2000. Switching to Linux would suddenly be a whole lot easier, and Microsoft wouldn't want that to happen.
Also, remember that they would probably end up releasing a large chunk of the Windows XP source too
Hooking a Windows 98 machine up to the internet really isn't THAT dangerous. Windows 98 hasn't been a target for most malware for some time now. Some of it works with Windows 98 anyway, but Windows 98 is immune a whole lot of it just because it's so different from the NT line. Hooking up an unpatched Windows 2000/XP machine up to the internet is much more reckless and will get you owned much faster.
To hear Linux supporters talk about how Windows forces you into an upgrade cycle, and how Linux will run fine on 'older hardware' and then it turns out that the major distros won't run on anything less than a couple years old, and still don't run comfortably.
The thing is, you can run one of the kitchen sink distros if you want (and have the hardware to do so), or you can run one of the lightweight distros that run fine on ancient hardware, and still have the benefits of updates and patches to stay current. In the Windows world, there is really only one current version, and if you don't want to crawl along with your older hardware, you've got to upgrade. Sure, you can run an older version of Windows, but unless I am mistaken, the only older version of Windows that is still supported after today is Windows 2000*. And the requirements for Windows 2000 aren't really that much lighter than they are for XP.
*Though it seems you don't get IE6SP2 or WMP10 in Windows 2000, amonst other things.
I agree. I installed Ubuntu on a P3-866 with 384 memory the other day. It took FOREVER to install. On the upside, I was pretty much able to start the installer after booting the CD and do something else for a while.
Then you fucked something up on your XP install. My personal desktop is a 1Ghz machine that runs XP just fine and I regularly play older games (like Quake, QII) on it.
Probably not enough ram, if anything. A 1.4Ghz P4 is a socket 423 system, and probably came with 128MB of rambus memory. Good luck upgrading that. Windows 98 is your only real option if you want Windows other than tossing it out and buying a new computer.
If an application works in Windows 98, but not 2000/XP, it's usually doing something pretty strange in terms of hooking into Windows 98's Win32 API, or is trying to talk to the hardware at a low level which XP/2000 doesn't allow, or it's doing things with the DOS layer under Windows 98 that 2000/XP don't support. You can sometimes get the last category to work in Wine, but good luck with the first two.
Why not? It's essentially a complex fluid dynamics/drag problem. While it may not seem so impressive to you, I'm sure the models they develop while solving this problem will find more useful applications.
I wish other applications acted more like Opera. Little things I miss in other programs or the host operating system are things like being able to click and drag to rearrange the tabs, closing tabs with a middle click, being able to re-open things I have closed with the Undo option, and restarting exactly where I left off when I close the application (or it crashes).
Besides, Opera doe act more like other programs in some ways - compare Opera's "tabs" (which are actually seperate, dragable and resizable windows in the host application) and the way Firefox/Safari/Konquerer/etc do tabs with other programs like MS Word.
who invented the market for computer operating systems for people too stupid to run and administer a computer.
I thought that was the Mac. Or atleast that's what I have been told here.
In my old school district, being involved in a fight in ANY MANNER, meant suspension. You literally could be walking down the hallway, be attacked by someone (even with a weapon..), you could stand there and let him beat the shit out of you until a teacher or staff member steps in. You would still be suspended.
Sheesh, such a policy would encourage violence, I would think. If I'm going to get suspended no matter what, I might as well beat the crap out my attacker, rather than just sit there and take it.
Reliable? I would think that all but the stupidest criminals would be smart enough to take away a kid's cell phone and disable/ditch it when they kidnap the kid.
Besides, I could argue that the cell phone could make things worse, by providing a easy way for people to contact the kid outside the parent's supervision.
I tried Raid5 once with 5 hard drives but one drive had a failure while I was swapping out one and the whole thing went kaput so I had to do the image all over again.
The problem with RAID 5 is that when you have one drive die, you have to do some pretty intense I/O operations over several hours on the remaining drives in order to rebuild the array. If a drive is going to fail, it will probably fail during this process. Add to the fact that the drives in a RAID 5 are almost always identical models, and quite often have sequential serial numbers, and have been used under the same conditions for the same amount of time - you can pretty much assume that when one drive dies, the rest of them in the array are about to succumb to the same failure. So in other words, be sure to keep backups.
How about making the statement with the word "yuppie" replacing "redneck"? The words redneck and yuppie are both generally used as derogatory terms describing a group of people in a specific social-economic class that tend to be (but not always) white. Does this make the word "yuppie" a racist term?