How will that become less important over time? If I go to PC World and buy a computer, and it has vista (well, it does), then I'm pretty much stuck with it. It's not going to become less important to me - I'm stuck with a computer that could have had better performance but doesn't, and it wasn't through a choice of mine.
And this is different than when XP first came out how?
I doubt people plop down 250 for something, use it for a week, then let it sit. Even casual gamers.
That said, I like the new controls. The standard controlers just add more and more buttons, and really pushing 10 buttons in hunderds of different sequences is just irritating. The wii controller allows me to use motion as well as button pushing to control the game.
As far as game library goes.. are there anything but sports games and FPS' on the PS3 or 360? I hate sports games, and am tired of the FPSes.
A FreeBSD jail allows a program to do administrative things within the jail without affecting other programs on the system. It's halfway between the limited user privileges of the traditional NT and UNIX models and a virtual machine such as VMware Server.
I see, not quite the same, but still an improvement (and very similar to what Linux does).
There wasn't a Windows operating system that supported both DirectX and limited user privileges until Windows 2000 came out. So how could video game developers test their DirectX games in a limited user account before the release of Windows 2000?
First, there is a beta program so you can do testing before the OS is actually released. Its not difficult to get into. Second, if they had been following best practices, there'd be not much reason to test. Things should have been stored in places like My Documents for other reasons as well. MS knew where they were going, and the best practices were there to help you go along that path easily.
The situation is similar to configuration files being stored in/etc on Linux. If LSB said that you should store config files there, and you store yours in/var, its your own fault when LSB now says Linux should enforce that config files ONLY be in/etc.
Heh.. I know I am still waiting for games I'm interested in. For now though, I've been picking up gamecube games to hold me over. The Wii is a great game system, its just that game studios didn't think it would take off, so most of the games are the Mario varity.
That said, it looks like some good ones are coming up; manhunt, tomb raider: aniv., RE: chronicals, etc. hopefully RE: 5 will appear on the wii as well.
You're right, except that we joined the WTO and entered into a contract, which DOES give the WTO a place in all of this. Unless you think we should just abandon the idea of contracts all together.
OH, and we're the biggest pushers of the WTO there is. May want to re-examine some of your facts..
There exist operating systems where a user can be an administrator within a sandbox, but not an administrator outside the sandbox. Such sandboxes include FreeBSD jails [freebsd.org].
Which sounds like what UAC does; the process (admin program) is isolated and has admin privledges, but its just that application... even if you're running as an administrator, you're really not anymore. Unless I'm misunderstanding what the jail is.
Did Microsoft provide an affordable way at the time for application developers to test whether their apps followed Microsoft's guidelines? For example, video games published between the release of August 1995 (Windows 95 street date) and February 2000 (Windows 2000 street date) couldn't be tested on Windows NT 4 because Windows NT 4 had only token support for an old version of DirectX.
Its irrelevent whether or not the games worked on NT 4; as you say, it didn't support DirectX. Its not DX BTW that is the problem with most programs. Most programs are misbehaving by writing in \Program Files or \Windows during usage. Its pretty trivial to configure where a program stores its documents and settings. The proper method is to ask the OS the location of the special folder (my documents, for example) and use that. Instead, many apps write their user configuration in program files.
This worked, because earlier versions of windows didn't have security, but now that MS is tighting security in their OS, things are starting to break. But if you correctly used the APIs to figure out the location of the user's special folders, your application is fine.
Not trolling. The changes in Vista were to increase the security of the platform. Oddly, much of the new behavior is similar to what many here consider the more secure OS. People here bash MS for an insecure OS, then turn around and bash them again when they do take steps to make the system more secure.
It's remarkable how, by just illustrating a point, all the bad or stupid trolls come out. Give it up, or learn to troll better, fanboy.
I don't expect a stupid anonymous fuck to know any better, but I'm not fanboy. I had a linux server for almost 10 years. Desktop linux for four.
My point, because you obvioiusly missed it, was that these changes were to increase security at the price of some usability (more mouse clicks). But also that those increased mouse clicks don't really matter, because you don't sit there changing the time on your computer all day. Unless you'd like to dispute that? Don't bother... your stupidity convienced me I was right to have all AC modded to oblivion, where i never see them.
Perhaps the problem comes from the realization that so many tasks were unnecessarily deemed administrative
But those same tasks require admin privileges on Linux as well, do they not? I seem to recall that was the case... if there even WAS a GUI way to change a setting.
so many apps had not had a significant refactor since Windows 98 or Me was the latest home OS.
That's a problem on the heads of the application developers. Of course, even then if they HAD followed MS guidelines, the apps would have moved painlessly (or, less painfully) to XP and later to Vista.
Remember, Windows / DOS started as a single user, non-networked OS. The internet came along, and MS couldn't just change things overnight, people DO expect their apps to work after an upgrade. The problem now is that many application developers STILL don't make their apps play nicely on even XP.. and that came out in 2001.
Personally I'm glad for UAC, and I hope it finally forces application develops to make the minor changes needed to get things done the right way.
No, Microsoft have re-arranged the places for many options and it generally takes more mouse clicks to get something done under Vistan than XP. Vista has a new 'Network and Sharing Center', the interface is confusing and difficult to utilise.
Yes, I'll give you the Network and Sharing center makes it harder to get to some of the screens it did before. Other options though.. I don't recall any that are harder to get to than with XP. Of course, if you expect things to never change I guess you'll have a hard time, but much of the re-arranging does make a lot more sense.
UAC is incredibly annoying and not a real safety feature as the average user will become so frustrated by the popups' frequency those warnings will not be read, the end user will simply click 'continue' so he or she can use the damn thing. UAC isnt about improved security, its about Microsoft being able to say 'oh, well its' the user's fault for clicking continue'.
How is it much different than Linux prompting for a root password in Gnome or KDE to perform an administrative task? To be fair, its the applications that are misbehaving, by requiring admin access when they don't really need it. As new versions of software are released, this problem should subside. In the mean time, it does get one thinking about what is going on. Certainly, such prompts shouldn't appear just by visiting a web page.
I give you an example of Vista's 'improved' interface design - changing the date and/or time. Under XP its simple - double click the clock in the lower right hand corner of the screen and presto! you can change the date-time.
Under Vista, you need to click on the clock, then click on a lick 'change date and time'. Which opens up another dialog box.... which has a button labeled 'change date/time'.... clicking on this button.... brings up a UAC dialog. Click continue. Hurray! I can change the date and time!.
I'm sorry, its been a couple of years, but is changing the system time not an administrative function in Linux? Can you just willy nilly change the clock there as well? IIRC, I had to dive into a command prompt to adjust the time, there wasn't any kind of GUI at all to do it. Seriously though, what requires you to change the clock setting so often? So yes, its more clicks.. but do you really spend that much time changing the clock or looking at your network settings?
XP to Vista - a double click to 4 mouse clicks. Nuff said.
So your argument is that when you do need to change the clock, it takes more clicks now. I have to wonder... how often are you changing the clock that this matters at all?
Hmm.. I happen to have Vista Ultimate, and Office 2007. I just clicked a link in Outlook and it opened FF just fine even though FF wasn't already open. How do you reproduce the error you describe?
Huh? The fastest data transfers are still over wires, and unless you want every single company out there to run wires (which they'll still have to pay the telco to do, to use the existing poles), there's no way to make this fair. They'll go under, because running lines is expesive.
The only real solution is for the state / cities to take ownership of the lines themselves and allow companies to offer services over those lines. This is similar to what my city is doing; rolling out their own fiber lines and they plan to allow competitors to offer services on them in the future.
Wrong wrong wrong. You are factually incorrect, I'm sorry.
Both you (and the moderator who modded you Informative) should read all the posts about "wear leveling", or research elsewhere then rejoin the topic so that misinformation is not spread.
Sorry, you are wrong. Unless you're going to claim that solid state drives are constantly moving data around WHICH HAS NOT CHANGED.
So file A is written somewhere, AND NEVER GETS CHANGED AGAIN. Are you going to claim that the contents of file A will be moved to another area? That sounds like a big performance hit, and leads to MORE writing of sectors which don't need to be written.
I'm sure the daughter's friend had a good install of Vista, though it was likely due to purchasing a new computer, not upgrading an old one. Seems Vista sucks on anything not brand new. Contrast that with my Linux box here, running on an old Pentium 4 with an outdated video card. Runs blazingly fast, even with Beryl installed and running. I guarantee I couldn't turn on the flashy effects in Vista if I could get it to install on this same machine.
No, I don't think that's true. The newest component of my first Vista install was two years old (apparently already outdated for games) is the MB and processor. My video card is about three years old, sound card is an Audigy 2 ZS (not the video one)... what five years old or so at least?
See, I don't get this. Its not more difficult; the start menu is largely the same. The Documents folder is layed out differently, which Pictures and Movies and such becoming peers to documents... but its not really that different. Is it UAC that everyone is saying is so different they can't figure out how to use the computer? Aside from clicking a dialog when i try to do an administrative task, nothing substancial changed from how I used Windows.
Unfortunately I couldn't really find anything specific that caused the switch back. Was it the kid's choice? The mother's?
This is about risk; its MUCH more likely that someone would crash into me than someone would set fire to my house. The safety of my house doesn't depend on someone needing to exercise care. In fact, someone mus deliberately go out of their way to harm it. Driving is a whole different story. Its something I need to do (as well as others) and accidents are much more likely to happen.
Some crashed into me just because they didn't look to their side to see if the lane was clear; simply carelessness. Setting fire to my house; that requires some planning and deliberate action.
You have a flaw in your theory though; a portion of the drive won't be changing much, because OS and program files don't change too much. So there's a part of the disk that is only written to rarely, and other parts of the disk that will be written to more often, because a chunk of the drive won't change.
So while the drive would still last a long, long time, you do need to keep in mind the above.
I didn't mean to hurt your feelings or anything - There's a good reason why I qualified it as "probably" as opposed to "definitely".
Didn't hurt my feelings; even probably implies that you have good reason to believe something. Good reason, not "well this is how I view things." I'm just sick of/. modding up any crap someone tosses out on/. as it if were true. Bash MS, you get karma it seems, regardless of facts.
If such follies as UAC in Vista is any indication (and that's just the tip of one very bloated iceberg), it's a pretty solid bet that MSFT simply tacked on more cycle-eating code to prevent break-ins.
And this has exactly what to do with Win2003 server? I can see you haven't actually used the product, so perhaps you should not comment on it with speculation. The OP posted some benchmarks at least. I at least work with Server 2003 everyday. Did you even check out the Server 2008 beta to see if this "safe bet" is as safe as you think?
In either case, don't complain to me - complain to Microsoft's marketing department, who went well out of their way to push that perception back when Windows Server 2003 launched (well, it came in second - right after the bazillion demonstrations showing how easy they made it to migrate for all the holdouts still using Windows NT 4.0).
Don't blame you for throwing out some statement for which you really have no basis in fact? I requested fact, you came back with your bias perceptions. Ya, I think I can blame you for that.
You don't get it; its a risk for me. Following your model, if someone hits me, MY insurance will go up, because my insurance has to pay because the other person doesn't have insurance. How is that right? Someone else not having insurance is a risk TO ME.
Slashdot Mirror
Keep in mind my folks use ME and have for 7 years and never had a problem with it.
There's a non-zero chance, of course, I live in a parallen universe or something.
I'd say its a 100% certainty. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say they haven't had a problem with ME.
How will that become less important over time? If I go to PC World and buy a computer, and it has vista (well, it does), then I'm pretty much stuck with it. It's not going to become less important to me - I'm stuck with a computer that could have had better performance but doesn't, and it wasn't through a choice of mine.
And this is different than when XP first came out how?
Ahh, you mean daemons which sit there and literally do nothing until a movie start playing?
Ok, you think you know how the system works. Please post a reference that backs up your post. Otherwise, STFU.
Excuse me, what part of that quote says it will use cycles on DRM WHEN YOU AREN'T PLAYING A MOVIE OR AUDIO FILE?
I doubt people plop down 250 for something, use it for a week, then let it sit. Even casual gamers.
That said, I like the new controls. The standard controlers just add more and more buttons, and really pushing 10 buttons in hunderds of different sequences is just irritating. The wii controller allows me to use motion as well as button pushing to control the game.
As far as game library goes.. are there anything but sports games and FPS' on the PS3 or 360? I hate sports games, and am tired of the FPSes.
A FreeBSD jail allows a program to do administrative things within the jail without affecting other programs on the system. It's halfway between the limited user privileges of the traditional NT and UNIX models and a virtual machine such as VMware Server.
/etc on Linux. If LSB said that you should store config files there, and you store yours in /var, its your own fault when LSB now says Linux should enforce that config files ONLY be in /etc.
I see, not quite the same, but still an improvement (and very similar to what Linux does).
There wasn't a Windows operating system that supported both DirectX and limited user privileges until Windows 2000 came out. So how could video game developers test their DirectX games in a limited user account before the release of Windows 2000?
First, there is a beta program so you can do testing before the OS is actually released. Its not difficult to get into. Second, if they had been following best practices, there'd be not much reason to test. Things should have been stored in places like My Documents for other reasons as well. MS knew where they were going, and the best practices were there to help you go along that path easily.
The situation is similar to configuration files being stored in
Heh.. I know I am still waiting for games I'm interested in. For now though, I've been picking up gamecube games to hold me over. The Wii is a great game system, its just that game studios didn't think it would take off, so most of the games are the Mario varity.
That said, it looks like some good ones are coming up; manhunt, tomb raider: aniv., RE: chronicals, etc. hopefully RE: 5 will appear on the wii as well.
This is different than cocaine because cocaine is an illegal substance throughout the US, imports and domestic distribution is prohibited, period.
Which is also why its one of the largest imports to the US, and we have staggering levels of violence and money tied up in it.
You're right, except that we joined the WTO and entered into a contract, which DOES give the WTO a place in all of this. Unless you think we should just abandon the idea of contracts all together.
OH, and we're the biggest pushers of the WTO there is. May want to re-examine some of your facts..
hmm, i'll have to check that out. I've seen % signs, but they should be there... %27 replaces ' IIRC, whcih is the proper escaping.
There exist operating systems where a user can be an administrator within a sandbox, but not an administrator outside the sandbox. Such sandboxes include FreeBSD jails [freebsd.org].
Which sounds like what UAC does; the process (admin program) is isolated and has admin privledges, but its just that application... even if you're running as an administrator, you're really not anymore. Unless I'm misunderstanding what the jail is.
Did Microsoft provide an affordable way at the time for application developers to test whether their apps followed Microsoft's guidelines? For example, video games published between the release of August 1995 (Windows 95 street date) and February 2000 (Windows 2000 street date) couldn't be tested on Windows NT 4 because Windows NT 4 had only token support for an old version of DirectX.
Its irrelevent whether or not the games worked on NT 4; as you say, it didn't support DirectX. Its not DX BTW that is the problem with most programs. Most programs are misbehaving by writing in \Program Files or \Windows during usage. Its pretty trivial to configure where a program stores its documents and settings. The proper method is to ask the OS the location of the special folder (my documents, for example) and use that. Instead, many apps write their user configuration in program files.
This worked, because earlier versions of windows didn't have security, but now that MS is tighting security in their OS, things are starting to break. But if you correctly used the APIs to figure out the location of the user's special folders, your application is fine.
He was comparing Vista with XP. Stop trolling.
Not trolling. The changes in Vista were to increase the security of the platform. Oddly, much of the new behavior is similar to what many here consider the more secure OS. People here bash MS for an insecure OS, then turn around and bash them again when they do take steps to make the system more secure.
It's remarkable how, by just illustrating a point, all the bad or stupid trolls come out. Give it up, or learn to troll better, fanboy.
I don't expect a stupid anonymous fuck to know any better, but I'm not fanboy. I had a linux server for almost 10 years. Desktop linux for four.
My point, because you obvioiusly missed it, was that these changes were to increase security at the price of some usability (more mouse clicks). But also that those increased mouse clicks don't really matter, because you don't sit there changing the time on your computer all day. Unless you'd like to dispute that? Don't bother... your stupidity convienced me I was right to have all AC modded to oblivion, where i never see them.
Hmm, I'm on the 32-bit OS. Maybe it was fixed in a recent update?
Perhaps the problem comes from the realization that so many tasks were unnecessarily deemed administrative
But those same tasks require admin privileges on Linux as well, do they not? I seem to recall that was the case... if there even WAS a GUI way to change a setting.
so many apps had not had a significant refactor since Windows 98 or Me was the latest home OS.
That's a problem on the heads of the application developers. Of course, even then if they HAD followed MS guidelines, the apps would have moved painlessly (or, less painfully) to XP and later to Vista.
Remember, Windows / DOS started as a single user, non-networked OS. The internet came along, and MS couldn't just change things overnight, people DO expect their apps to work after an upgrade. The problem now is that many application developers STILL don't make their apps play nicely on even XP.. and that came out in 2001.
Personally I'm glad for UAC, and I hope it finally forces application develops to make the minor changes needed to get things done the right way.
No, Microsoft have re-arranged the places for many options and it generally takes more mouse clicks to get something done under Vistan than XP. Vista has a new 'Network and Sharing Center', the interface is confusing and difficult to utilise.
Yes, I'll give you the Network and Sharing center makes it harder to get to some of the screens it did before. Other options though.. I don't recall any that are harder to get to than with XP. Of course, if you expect things to never change I guess you'll have a hard time, but much of the re-arranging does make a lot more sense.
UAC is incredibly annoying and not a real safety feature as the average user will become so frustrated by the popups' frequency those warnings will not be read, the end user will simply click 'continue' so he or she can use the damn thing. UAC isnt about improved security, its about Microsoft being able to say 'oh, well its' the user's fault for clicking continue'.
How is it much different than Linux prompting for a root password in Gnome or KDE to perform an administrative task? To be fair, its the applications that are misbehaving, by requiring admin access when they don't really need it. As new versions of software are released, this problem should subside. In the mean time, it does get one thinking about what is going on. Certainly, such prompts shouldn't appear just by visiting a web page.
I give you an example of Vista's 'improved' interface design - changing the date and/or time. Under XP its simple - double click the clock in the lower right hand corner of the screen and presto! you can change the date-time.
Under Vista, you need to click on the clock, then click on a lick 'change date and time'. Which opens up another dialog box.... which has a button labeled 'change date/time'.... clicking on this button.... brings up a UAC dialog. Click continue. Hurray! I can change the date and time!.
I'm sorry, its been a couple of years, but is changing the system time not an administrative function in Linux? Can you just willy nilly change the clock there as well? IIRC, I had to dive into a command prompt to adjust the time, there wasn't any kind of GUI at all to do it. Seriously though, what requires you to change the clock setting so often? So yes, its more clicks.. but do you really spend that much time changing the clock or looking at your network settings?
XP to Vista - a double click to 4 mouse clicks. Nuff said.
So your argument is that when you do need to change the clock, it takes more clicks now. I have to wonder... how often are you changing the clock that this matters at all?
Hmm.. I happen to have Vista Ultimate, and Office 2007. I just clicked a link in Outlook and it opened FF just fine even though FF wasn't already open. How do you reproduce the error you describe?
Ok, I'll bite. What "invalid" urls are in exchangeweb? Before you answer, remember I DO have exchange web on my server..
Huh? The fastest data transfers are still over wires, and unless you want every single company out there to run wires (which they'll still have to pay the telco to do, to use the existing poles), there's no way to make this fair. They'll go under, because running lines is expesive.
The only real solution is for the state / cities to take ownership of the lines themselves and allow companies to offer services over those lines. This is similar to what my city is doing; rolling out their own fiber lines and they plan to allow competitors to offer services on them in the future.
Wrong wrong wrong. You are factually incorrect, I'm sorry.
Both you (and the moderator who modded you Informative) should read all the posts about "wear leveling", or research elsewhere then rejoin the topic so that misinformation is not spread.
Sorry, you are wrong. Unless you're going to claim that solid state drives are constantly moving data around WHICH HAS NOT CHANGED.
So file A is written somewhere, AND NEVER GETS CHANGED AGAIN. Are you going to claim that the contents of file A will be moved to another area? That sounds like a big performance hit, and leads to MORE writing of sectors which don't need to be written.
I'm sure the daughter's friend had a good install of Vista, though it was likely due to purchasing a new computer, not upgrading an old one. Seems Vista sucks on anything not brand new. Contrast that with my Linux box here, running on an old Pentium 4 with an outdated video card. Runs blazingly fast, even with Beryl installed and running. I guarantee I couldn't turn on the flashy effects in Vista if I could get it to install on this same machine.
No, I don't think that's true. The newest component of my first Vista install was two years old (apparently already outdated for games) is the MB and processor. My video card is about three years old, sound card is an Audigy 2 ZS (not the video one)... what five years old or so at least?
See, I don't get this. Its not more difficult; the start menu is largely the same. The Documents folder is layed out differently, which Pictures and Movies and such becoming peers to documents... but its not really that different. Is it UAC that everyone is saying is so different they can't figure out how to use the computer? Aside from clicking a dialog when i try to do an administrative task, nothing substancial changed from how I used Windows.
Unfortunately I couldn't really find anything specific that caused the switch back. Was it the kid's choice? The mother's?
This is about risk; its MUCH more likely that someone would crash into me than someone would set fire to my house. The safety of my house doesn't depend on someone needing to exercise care. In fact, someone mus deliberately go out of their way to harm it. Driving is a whole different story. Its something I need to do (as well as others) and accidents are much more likely to happen.
Some crashed into me just because they didn't look to their side to see if the lane was clear; simply carelessness. Setting fire to my house; that requires some planning and deliberate action.
You have a flaw in your theory though; a portion of the drive won't be changing much, because OS and program files don't change too much. So there's a part of the disk that is only written to rarely, and other parts of the disk that will be written to more often, because a chunk of the drive won't change.
So while the drive would still last a long, long time, you do need to keep in mind the above.
I didn't mean to hurt your feelings or anything - There's a good reason why I qualified it as "probably" as opposed to "definitely".
/. modding up any crap someone tosses out on /. as it if were true. Bash MS, you get karma it seems, regardless of facts.
Didn't hurt my feelings; even probably implies that you have good reason to believe something. Good reason, not "well this is how I view things." I'm just sick of
If such follies as UAC in Vista is any indication (and that's just the tip of one very bloated iceberg), it's a pretty solid bet that MSFT simply tacked on more cycle-eating code to prevent break-ins.
And this has exactly what to do with Win2003 server? I can see you haven't actually used the product, so perhaps you should not comment on it with speculation. The OP posted some benchmarks at least. I at least work with Server 2003 everyday. Did you even check out the Server 2008 beta to see if this "safe bet" is as safe as you think?
In either case, don't complain to me - complain to Microsoft's marketing department, who went well out of their way to push that perception back when Windows Server 2003 launched (well, it came in second - right after the bazillion demonstrations showing how easy they made it to migrate for all the holdouts still using Windows NT 4.0).
Don't blame you for throwing out some statement for which you really have no basis in fact? I requested fact, you came back with your bias perceptions. Ya, I think I can blame you for that.
You don't get it; its a risk for me. Following your model, if someone hits me, MY insurance will go up, because my insurance has to pay because the other person doesn't have insurance. How is that right? Someone else not having insurance is a risk TO ME.