I'm not sure it's the most brilliant move to get into Microsoft stock though. This may sound a bit extreme, but I think the release of KDE 3.2 is the beginning of the end for Microsoft's monopoly, though I doubt the company will ever go into the ground.
commenting on the first point, I haven't actually had a total crash in a computer that was due to software since 2000 (I've been counting). I haven't had a crash of a program since early 2001.
lol sorry since I live in Australia I was pretty much just guessing. Of course I live in Pacific time anyways - wrong side of the pacific.
Remember not everyone lives in America.
They begun by ripping off the original makers of IE by bundling IE free with their operating system as opposed to selling the browser which they were contracted to do.
After this they expanded the browser to support most of the HTML standard (though not all) but more importantly providing additional tags, marketing them as features the other browsers didn't have. This was a scam - it was to promote reliance on their browser and promote the rediculous "best viewed with Internet Explorer" messages. It also made it so the other browsers wouldn't render the pages properly which is a basic sabotage, though of course Microsoft were also orchestrating some alternate methods of browser sabotage, which were more direct.
Now they're just sitting pretty on their virtual monopoly on the browser market knowing they don't even need to update their products - they'll regain whatever share lost with the release of longhorn. Why spend the money?
I consider myself lucky to have firefox safely installed on my debian linux system by the way. I insist to all of my friends that they get firefox/mozilla (they trust me being the resident geek). I have no beef with Microsoft, just some of their products.
I'm a "normal" user (or at least more normal then most slashdotters I'm sure) and I use computers for the following things: Games, Music, School/University work, Internet. Perhaps watching the occasional DVD.
Quite frankly, why should I, or any "normal" user, upgrade to a file system that doesn't make a difference to my everyday life? I didn't rush to upgrade to FAT32 or NTFS, and nothing in this article is convincing me that I should upgrade to WinFS. (infact nothing in this artice is saying much about it, but that's for another poster I'm sure)
I had another message about this, and was replied saying "what? There's many differences: in Fat16/32 you're restricted to 2GB/4GB files" etc etc.
My reply to this is that when I was using Fat16 it was with a 1.18 GB hard drive. I used Fat32 for a time with an 8GB (hard drive maker GB) hard drive, but why on earth would I have a file that took up more then half of my hard drive? The first time I ever had a file above 2GB in size was a few months ago with digitalised family videos (promise to mum:)
For upgrading to NTFS, I don't really care about gigantic cluster room. Why should I? I have an 80 GB hard drive filled to about 60 GB, so why should I care about one GB of this being filled with crap allocation tables? Since I can't have any OS before win2000 anywhere near it, say if I want to put my HD in another computer for example, the disadvantages far outweigh the advantages for me. I do have WinXP installed on another NTFS formatted hard drive but I'd prefer to keep the hard drive that has the majority of my important info as compatible as possible.
Now with WinFS, I'm probably going to put that on when I get another hard drive, but not before. There doesn't seem to be any point! I'm sorry to all of the video editors out there, but I really don't want to take the bother.
God - I remember hesitating going up to FAT32 - I had only just gotten win95 and it was nagging me like hell. Then I was nervous about upgrading to NTFS, then discovered how horrible it was not being able to use a drive with anything but WinXP. I have a triple boot with WinXP, linux and win98SE
Really, there's no difference between the file systems for the normal user! Why upgrade when it doesn't make your life any better and it takes alot of bother and reduces compatibility?
The problem with that is that (I read somewhere) Futuremark makes most of it's money from their beta testing, and coorperations pay hundreds of thousands to be part of the beta.
Perhaps without having a BETA there will be no Futurmark.
Why would ATI work with a 24 bit float? I thought that it was pretty much standard that they would use powers of two etc, and I've never used 24 bit floating point ints before (although I've seen cases where it has been used practically). Wouldn't that hold their card at a disadvantage in later games? (OK I understand that it probably wouldn't, as the difference in quality is almost nothing when comparing 16/24/32 bit, but none-the-less people are generally picky about the difference between extremely good and absolutely fantastic)
For that matter, wouldn't that mean that ATI doesn't have a true DX9 graphics card, but DX9 compatible?
It's interesting to see what's almost a disclaimer after the benchmark results saying that it is not a final benchmark result basically because it wasn't using the full capabilities of the chip.
There has been no benchmarks so far except perhaps for a few Linux benchmarks where the Opterion has been nearly as optimised by the software as the Pentium, Athalon or Xeon simply because the software producers and developers haven't caught up to the chip, and it's a big transfer as well.
In my opinion, we won't see any true representative benchmarks for months yet, perhaps when the A64 has been released.
I'm personally waiting for the two major ones being Half Life 2 and Doom 3. Just to see the technology of the graphics would be enough to get me looking.
They definitely wouldn't have dared taking the servers for evidence - not only is it illegal without express permission but it'd disrupt Australian internet. You're talking about the three or four biggest ISPs in Australia holding thousands of websites!
that the ISPs were accessed without prior warning and traffic monitored for a small amount of time, and previous traffic recorded, as well as reviewing all of the websites held on the server. As I understand it it is not unheard of in America either.
Lets say you have a 20GB server that gets updated every minute by people who go on. There's a backup that is connected to the main server (because it has to be if it's going to be backed up whenever it's updated) and lets say you backed up the whole thing a month ago?
So you're not an idiot right?
So what if a "cool" linux script that some hacker wanting to make someone's life just a little bit worse comes in and exploits a hole in the server that deletes the whole thing? If the computer doesn't recognise it straight away the first backup will be deleted as well in time, and you've lost a months data!
"It's so easy to abuse people yet so hard to say thank you"
I can clearly remember who said that - it was a girl I met who devoted hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars to help people, and as she was saying it she was showing me three e-mails she had gotten so far that day abusing her with lots of french.
Really, for anyone who abuses people for not doing a good enough job at doing something for not a cent, just get a life.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure it's the most brilliant move to get into Microsoft stock though. This may sound a bit extreme, but I think the release of KDE 3.2 is the beginning of the end for Microsoft's monopoly, though I doubt the company will ever go into the ground.
commenting on the first point, I haven't actually had a total crash in a computer that was due to software since 2000 (I've been counting). I haven't had a crash of a program since early 2001.
Stop living in the world of Windows 95.
lol sorry since I live in Australia I was pretty much just guessing. Of course I live in Pacific time anyways - wrong side of the pacific. Remember not everyone lives in America.
on that point - if Chess can be broadcast on ESPN (eg Kasparov in Man vs. Machine) then why couldn't maths be?
stargate: 8:30
stargate atlantis: 9:30
both episodes on suprnova.org: 10:30
Microsoft are guilty of more than contempt.
They begun by ripping off the original makers of IE by bundling IE free with their operating system as opposed to selling the browser which they were contracted to do.
After this they expanded the browser to support most of the HTML standard (though not all) but more importantly providing additional tags, marketing them as features the other browsers didn't have. This was a scam - it was to promote reliance on their browser and promote the rediculous "best viewed with Internet Explorer" messages. It also made it so the other browsers wouldn't render the pages properly which is a basic sabotage, though of course Microsoft were also orchestrating some alternate methods of browser sabotage, which were more direct.
Now they're just sitting pretty on their virtual monopoly on the browser market knowing they don't even need to update their products - they'll regain whatever share lost with the release of longhorn. Why spend the money?
I consider myself lucky to have firefox safely installed on my debian linux system by the way. I insist to all of my friends that they get firefox/mozilla (they trust me being the resident geek). I have no beef with Microsoft, just some of their products.
I wonder if the caller ID can appear on the phone bill . . . *thinks about friend's wife finding "porn-are-us"*
nope not sure - I have Mozilla 1.5 as well. Does firebird pass on a different browser info?
Good point!
and may I ask, how many people have 1000 40kb files on a hard drive let alone one that is 500MB in size?
I'm a "normal" user (or at least more normal then most slashdotters I'm sure) and I use computers for the following things: Games, Music, School/University work, Internet. Perhaps watching the occasional DVD.
:)
Quite frankly, why should I, or any "normal" user, upgrade to a file system that doesn't make a difference to my everyday life? I didn't rush to upgrade to FAT32 or NTFS, and nothing in this article is convincing me that I should upgrade to WinFS. (infact nothing in this artice is saying much about it, but that's for another poster I'm sure)
I had another message about this, and was replied saying "what? There's many differences: in Fat16/32 you're restricted to 2GB/4GB files" etc etc.
My reply to this is that when I was using Fat16 it was with a 1.18 GB hard drive. I used Fat32 for a time with an 8GB (hard drive maker GB) hard drive, but why on earth would I have a file that took up more then half of my hard drive? The first time I ever had a file above 2GB in size was a few months ago with digitalised family videos (promise to mum
For upgrading to NTFS, I don't really care about gigantic cluster room. Why should I? I have an 80 GB hard drive filled to about 60 GB, so why should I care about one GB of this being filled with crap allocation tables? Since I can't have any OS before win2000 anywhere near it, say if I want to put my HD in another computer for example, the disadvantages far outweigh the advantages for me. I do have WinXP installed on another NTFS formatted hard drive but I'd prefer to keep the hard drive that has the majority of my important info as compatible as possible.
Now with WinFS, I'm probably going to put that on when I get another hard drive, but not before. There doesn't seem to be any point! I'm sorry to all of the video editors out there, but I really don't want to take the bother.
God - I remember hesitating going up to FAT32 - I had only just gotten win95 and it was nagging me like hell. Then I was nervous about upgrading to NTFS, then discovered how horrible it was not being able to use a drive with anything but WinXP. I have a triple boot with WinXP, linux and win98SE Really, there's no difference between the file systems for the normal user! Why upgrade when it doesn't make your life any better and it takes alot of bother and reduces compatibility?
The problem with that is that (I read somewhere) Futuremark makes most of it's money from their beta testing, and coorperations pay hundreds of thousands to be part of the beta. Perhaps without having a BETA there will be no Futurmark.
Why would ATI work with a 24 bit float? I thought that it was pretty much standard that they would use powers of two etc, and I've never used 24 bit floating point ints before (although I've seen cases where it has been used practically). Wouldn't that hold their card at a disadvantage in later games? (OK I understand that it probably wouldn't, as the difference in quality is almost nothing when comparing 16/24/32 bit, but none-the-less people are generally picky about the difference between extremely good and absolutely fantastic)
For that matter, wouldn't that mean that ATI doesn't have a true DX9 graphics card, but DX9 compatible?
I think that blue is better - a light one, not as harsh on our already depleted eyes
It's interesting to see what's almost a disclaimer after the benchmark results saying that it is not a final benchmark result basically because it wasn't using the full capabilities of the chip.
There has been no benchmarks so far except perhaps for a few Linux benchmarks where the Opterion has been nearly as optimised by the software as the Pentium, Athalon or Xeon simply because the software producers and developers haven't caught up to the chip, and it's a big transfer as well.
In my opinion, we won't see any true representative benchmarks for months yet, perhaps when the A64 has been released.
I'm personally waiting for the two major ones being Half Life 2 and Doom 3. Just to see the technology of the graphics would be enough to get me looking.
Wouldn't that make a cool lan setting?
Does it mean that the Australian authorities are now going to move against now Sydney based Kazaa? I wonder how long it'll take them to do that?
They definitely wouldn't have dared taking the servers for evidence - not only is it illegal without express permission but it'd disrupt Australian internet. You're talking about the three or four biggest ISPs in Australia holding thousands of websites!
that the ISPs were accessed without prior warning and traffic monitored for a small amount of time, and previous traffic recorded, as well as reviewing all of the websites held on the server. As I understand it it is not unheard of in America either.
Probably only if you're on an Australian ISP - lol just call it a backup. *shrug* Kazaa is allowed apparently.
Lets say you have a 20GB server that gets updated every minute by people who go on. There's a backup that is connected to the main server (because it has to be if it's going to be backed up whenever it's updated) and lets say you backed up the whole thing a month ago?
So you're not an idiot right?
So what if a "cool" linux script that some hacker wanting to make someone's life just a little bit worse comes in and exploits a hole in the server that deletes the whole thing? If the computer doesn't recognise it straight away the first backup will be deleted as well in time, and you've lost a months data!
losing internet *shudder*!!!
infact with that note perhaps slashdot should get pinned for crimes against humanity.
"It's so easy to abuse people yet so hard to say thank you"
I can clearly remember who said that - it was a girl I met who devoted hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars to help people, and as she was saying it she was showing me three e-mails she had gotten so far that day abusing her with lots of french.
Really, for anyone who abuses people for not doing a good enough job at doing something for not a cent, just get a life.