...that he used the word 'stuff.' It's such a revolting word (and I'm not even an Englsih major).
Anyway -- yeah, I am usually a fan of Microsoft. But, I have to agree with the general thoughts of Slashdot here at this point. iPods are good. And, when they support both WMA and Apple's format, they're going to be even more formidable.
Windows 98 is done. It's 2004. People who are still running 98 should really consider performing some upgrades to newer (and, in theory, better) operating systems. Whether it's Windows XP or the newest version of Linux, there is newer stuff out there that has more support and better features.
By supporting 98, Microsoft is, in essence, holding back part of the market. When old systems are still being used, new technology must support these systems.
You may be right. I really don't know because I'm not very familiar with the technical differences between the different encodings. But, I know when I look at the file size between the two, WMA tend to be smaller.
Another plus that I like is that WMA's work very well with WMP (which is to be expected). Because WMP is my media player of choice, I do like this. However, as I said, DRM sucks.
AAC format, huh? I haven't ever heard of it. How well is it supported? (I use Windows Media Player for pretty much everything. I hate having to have more players, etc.)
I'll look around online if you don't have time to respond.
Okay. Yes. I realize the guy said that WMA is suprerior. Now, I do have to say that I have recently been playing around with WMA files a bit.
1.) 64-bit WMAs do have a little less quality than 128-bit encodings of MP3's. However, because 64 is half the encoding of 128, this is only to be expected. However, unless you're specifically listening to it, you may never notice it.
2.) The WMAs are smaller in file size (even at the same bit encoding). This is nice. Especially if you plan to put the songs on some sort of MP3 player with limited memory.
3.) Yeah. The DRM thing sucks. I totally agree. This is why I chose not to go with WMAs in the end. (I was considiring converting my MP3s over.)
WMAs are not all bad. In fact, they do even have good qualities. But, the DRM overrides any benefit that they may have.
If not, please don't say they aren't that great. They are invaluable to someone like myself who is taking down notes all day long. Then, I can sync up to my computer and e-mail these notes to other people who were at the meeting/class/etc. It's a wonderful tool.
I do agree with view on the money aspect, though. Why buy a portable video player when you could spend a little more money and get a full blown computer?
Those typical "Joe Users" are the same ones that the open source market needs to get using their systems in order to succeed 'cause those "real users" have "real money."
Secondly, I do blame most of the problems on the user's inexperience. It's not XP for the most part (granted, there have been one or two problems, but this has also happend with every other operating system). The questions I have received from people show they they know very little about the machine they are working with. It's not Microsoft's fault that some person didn't read the warning window when asked if they wanted to let an ActiveX script run. It's not Microsoft's fault that Joe User's kid decided to install Kazaa (which we all know is loaded with spyware).
Linux would have the same problems if Joe User's began using it. They would screw things up just because they didn't know what they were doing.
As for the rest of your message -- it's irrelevent. The reason Apple OS does so well is because it has...oh...3% of the market share. Compared to Windows XP -- that's nothing. (READ: Not enough people use it so nobody is going to write a virus/trojan/spyware/other stupid shit for that operating system. It wouldn't affect enough users.)
Secondly (and in line with the last paragraph) of course Windows ports are scanned all the time. It's because, again, everybody uses Windows. It only makes sense -- unless you are serious about hacking a system (whcih most script kiddies are not) you'll just scan as many ports as possible until you find an easy target just to say you hacked a system. (Rather than specifically target System X which runs operating system XYZ.)
That's just my thoughts on the issue. I see the points you are trying to bring up, but your arguments are flawed.
Please. Shut up. I agree with some of the other posts on this site -- start using software (and hardware for those people who are complaining that XP won't run on their older hardware) that has been created in this century.
Of course Microsoft removed support for 98. They have bigger and better things to move onto. It's business -- something Microsoft does very well.
Microsoft is hanging themselves slowly. If we keep doing what we've been for the last several years and stay vigilant, we'll come out on top.
And...HOW long have people been saying crap like that? Seriously...Microsoft has always been "destroying themselves" or "going under" or whatever.
News flash. They're not.
Yes. I'll agree. Microsoft does some stupid/unsavory/unlikable things, but they have guys there who know business (whether it is the lawyers, the corporate heads or whoever). There seems to always be a reason behind what these folks do. We may not see it at the moment, but something's cooking. Give it some time and before you know it, Slashdotters everywhere will be whining about that.
Mark this as a troll/flamebait if you will, but I hate hearing crap about the most powerful company in the world and how they're "sinking." Give me a break.
First of all, this whole Palladium thing sounds pretty scary in terms of computer use and what kind of control a user has on a system.
Anyway...my point...
"All operating systems sustain these same attacks... it's an industry problem," Manferdelli said. "Microsoft is hit harder simply because we have more systems out in the world."
I have to totally agree with Manferdelli. You hear about Windows problems because that's what people use. Heck, as far as the media is concerned (mainstream, anyway) Windows is the only system of choice out there. Other systems do have bugs. It happens. However, when Windows has a bug, everybody knows about it because it affects just about everybody.
Agreed. Some of the *best* students do the worst things 'cause...of course...no student that receives all A's, is the president of two different clubs and graduates sixth in his class can every do anything bad.
Heh...you can tell the Slashdot crowd has been visiting the site that the article is linked to. How can you tell?
Take a look at the poll on the right hand side of EWeek's site. "If Longhorn really doesn't debut until 2006, you will:" Oddly enough, the biggest vote is cast for "Switching to the Linux desktop"
Not necessarily. Microsoft is forcing its customer base to its new products slowly but surely. Want Office 2003? Windows 2000 or higher is all that will cut it.
I think this will keep happening this way. As time rolls along and the 95/98 machines die out, people will upgrade them with XP and Longhorn machines. Those few people who are still running the older systems will just 'die out.' Darwinism at its finest.:-p
Slashdot Mirror
Heh. Funny how if Google screws up a little (which, honestly, they are working out bugs) they don't get trashed.
Microsoft does it -- well, damn. Watch hell break loose.
Just something I noticed. Rate me how you will. I honestly don't care.
...that he used the word 'stuff.' It's such a revolting word (and I'm not even an Englsih major).
Anyway -- yeah, I am usually a fan of Microsoft. But, I have to agree with the general thoughts of Slashdot here at this point. iPods are good. And, when they support both WMA and Apple's format, they're going to be even more formidable.
In my opinion, this sucks.
Windows 98 is done. It's 2004. People who are still running 98 should really consider performing some upgrades to newer (and, in theory, better) operating systems. Whether it's Windows XP or the newest version of Linux, there is newer stuff out there that has more support and better features.
By supporting 98, Microsoft is, in essence, holding back part of the market. When old systems are still being used, new technology must support these systems.
I hate that.
Okay, I'm done. Rant over.
Yes, but, for some reason (and I never figured out why), I couldn't play some of the WMA songs when I did this. Do you happen to know why?
You may be right. I really don't know because I'm not very familiar with the technical differences between the different encodings. But, I know when I look at the file size between the two, WMA tend to be smaller.
Another plus that I like is that WMA's work very well with WMP (which is to be expected). Because WMP is my media player of choice, I do like this. However, as I said, DRM sucks.
AAC format, huh? I haven't ever heard of it. How well is it supported? (I use Windows Media Player for pretty much everything. I hate having to have more players, etc.)
I'll look around online if you don't have time to respond.
Thanks for the info.
Okay. Yes. I realize the guy said that WMA is suprerior. Now, I do have to say that I have recently been playing around with WMA files a bit.
1.) 64-bit WMAs do have a little less quality than 128-bit encodings of MP3's. However, because 64 is half the encoding of 128, this is only to be expected. However, unless you're specifically listening to it, you may never notice it.
2.) The WMAs are smaller in file size (even at the same bit encoding). This is nice. Especially if you plan to put the songs on some sort of MP3 player with limited memory.
3.) Yeah. The DRM thing sucks. I totally agree. This is why I chose not to go with WMAs in the end. (I was considiring converting my MP3s over.)
WMAs are not all bad. In fact, they do even have good qualities. But, the DRM overrides any benefit that they may have.
I just download mine of Kazaa.
Have you used a Tablet PC?
If not, please don't say they aren't that great. They are invaluable to someone like myself who is taking down notes all day long. Then, I can sync up to my computer and e-mail these notes to other people who were at the meeting/class/etc. It's a wonderful tool.
I do agree with view on the money aspect, though. Why buy a portable video player when you could spend a little more money and get a full blown computer?
Those typical "Joe Users" are the same ones that the open source market needs to get using their systems in order to succeed 'cause those "real users" have "real money."
Secondly, I do blame most of the problems on the user's inexperience. It's not XP for the most part (granted, there have been one or two problems, but this has also happend with every other operating system). The questions I have received from people show they they know very little about the machine they are working with. It's not Microsoft's fault that some person didn't read the warning window when asked if they wanted to let an ActiveX script run. It's not Microsoft's fault that Joe User's kid decided to install Kazaa (which we all know is loaded with spyware).
Linux would have the same problems if Joe User's began using it. They would screw things up just because they didn't know what they were doing.
As for the rest of your message -- it's irrelevent. The reason Apple OS does so well is because it has...oh...3% of the market share. Compared to Windows XP -- that's nothing. (READ: Not enough people use it so nobody is going to write a virus/trojan/spyware/other stupid shit for that operating system. It wouldn't affect enough users.)
Secondly (and in line with the last paragraph) of course Windows ports are scanned all the time. It's because, again, everybody uses Windows. It only makes sense -- unless you are serious about hacking a system (whcih most script kiddies are not) you'll just scan as many ports as possible until you find an easy target just to say you hacked a system. (Rather than specifically target System X which runs operating system XYZ.)
That's just my thoughts on the issue. I see the points you are trying to bring up, but your arguments are flawed.
The Pew Study, huh? Something about this really stinks...
Ba dum tsh.
Ooo...shouldn't have said those bad words...you're about to be trashed... ;-)
Please. Shut up. I agree with some of the other posts on this site -- start using software (and hardware for those people who are complaining that XP won't run on their older hardware) that has been created in this century.
Of course Microsoft removed support for 98. They have bigger and better things to move onto. It's business -- something Microsoft does very well.
...you insensitive clod!
I don't know about you, but I always thought handshakes were shared between two people.
I'll be doing my own handshakin', thank you very much.
Hum. I see an easy solution to this...
Take your foot off the gas and slow down a bit.
Then, you have nothing to worry about.
Ha. Well screw you! I don't have a woman!
Uh...wait a minute...
And...HOW long have people been saying crap like that? Seriously...Microsoft has always been "destroying themselves" or "going under" or whatever.
News flash. They're not.
Yes. I'll agree. Microsoft does some stupid/unsavory/unlikable things, but they have guys there who know business (whether it is the lawyers, the corporate heads or whoever). There seems to always be a reason behind what these folks do. We may not see it at the moment, but something's cooking. Give it some time and before you know it, Slashdotters everywhere will be whining about that.
Mark this as a troll/flamebait if you will, but I hate hearing crap about the most powerful company in the world and how they're "sinking." Give me a break.
And I thought I had trouble staying awake for my one hour class.
Ugh...physics...no thanks.
First of all, this whole Palladium thing sounds pretty scary in terms of computer use and what kind of control a user has on a system.
... it's an industry problem," Manferdelli said. "Microsoft is hit harder simply because we have more systems out in the world."
Anyway...my point...
"All operating systems sustain these same attacks
I have to totally agree with Manferdelli. You hear about Windows problems because that's what people use. Heck, as far as the media is concerned (mainstream, anyway) Windows is the only system of choice out there. Other systems do have bugs. It happens. However, when Windows has a bug, everybody knows about it because it affects just about everybody.
Agreed. Some of the *best* students do the worst things 'cause...of course...no student that receives all A's, is the president of two different clubs and graduates sixth in his class can every do anything bad.
Of course not...I should know.
Heh...you can tell the Slashdot crowd has been visiting the site that the article is linked to. How can you tell?
Take a look at the poll on the right hand side of EWeek's site.
"If Longhorn really doesn't debut until 2006, you will:"
Oddly enough, the biggest vote is cast for "Switching to the Linux desktop"
No shit.
Not necessarily. Microsoft is forcing its customer base to its new products slowly but surely. Want Office 2003? Windows 2000 or higher is all that will cut it.
:-p
I think this will keep happening this way. As time rolls along and the 95/98 machines die out, people will upgrade them with XP and Longhorn machines. Those few people who are still running the older systems will just 'die out.' Darwinism at its finest.