There is Win2000 Professional (WinNT5 Workstation), Win2000 Server, and several others. However, there is no Win2000 Personal. All Win2000 releases are really WinNT5. The only thing that changed is the name.
However, that doesn't mean that there will be no confusion. Microsoft will also release a DOS-based Windows later on, called Windows Millenium. I think that's what you're talking about.
Well, I was just thinking how the RIAA is actually helping MP3.com make the service popular. I wouldn't have known about it without this lawsuit and Slashdot post.:)
But Windows has to be reinstalled not just for these problems. There are other problems, such as DLL bloat, registry bloat, etc.
I was talking about a slightly different thing. Not reinstalling itself, but the act of formatting the hard drive. While in this case, it was probably a test box with nothing important on it, I have talked to many people who thought of no other way to reinstall other than to format their hard drive, which contained importand data that was never backed up
The problems you describe have a totally different cause. When you are accessing the web through AOL, it is actually happening through a proxy. Besides the problems you describe, AOL will often fetch things and cache them, causing udpate problems, as well as send you compressed images instead of the whole thing by default.
My first experience with AOL 5.0 was in early winter when I tried to upgrade from AOL 4.0 to AOL 5.0. I'll spare you the details, but after trying every trick I knew to get the system working properly after the upgrade, the punchline was "Format C:\".
Right away, this tells you what kind of "expert" you're dealing with. I have seen many like him. The people that think there is something special about Windows, and that somehow, by some hidden magic, the problems will stay unless you format the hard drive. Nuking \WINDOWS and reinstalling it (as a last resort) doesn't seem as an option to them.
Oh wait, this is a journalist Windows Magazine we're talking about... why did I even comment?
AOL's web browser is still based on Internet Explorer
It isn't based on Internet Explorer. It is Internet Explorer. It would be nice if Netscape could provide the same functionality. Let's hope Mozilla does.
Back in the day, when AOL was about to switch from their own browser, which sucked, to a good one, they had a choice between Netscape and MSIE. They were pretty much ready to sign a deal with Netscape, but AOL's requirement was that the browser appear inside of the AOL frame - not as a separate window. Netscape didn't like that, so they went with Internet Explorer.
One of the good side effects of Microsoft bundling IE with everything (watch my Karma drop!) is that any programmer can just drop in a control into his program and he instantly has a web browser. Not only that, but the control allows access to everything IE has to offer, including (in the later versions) the entire DHTML object tree. I think that is pretty cool, although it would still be nice to be able to uninstall the damn thing where it isn't needed.
Helping people with their computers occasionally, I have a little experience with AOL. Some of these claims are very exagerrated, and some of the things they discuss have existed since AOL 4.0.
Remember, AOL doesn't do this until you tell it that it's OK by clicking "Yes". If a user is clueless enough not to know what the program is asking them, they are actually being helped, since they will probably want to use AOL for their email and browsing.
For those that like AOL and use it, this is actually a Good Thing, and something that many other programs do. All that happens is that instead of Outlook Express or Netscape Messenger, you get the AOL interface when you click a mailto: link. Is it bad when AOL takes over TCP/IP when they use no other ISP?
On the other hand, there are issues that weren't discussed in the article that are a lot worse.
For one thing, AOL carries with it all the TCP/IP and Winsock drivers for many different versions of Windows, and installs the versions it has regardless of the ones already existing. This has all kinds of effects, including crippling some TCP/IP programs, and re-introducing previously patched bugs and vulnerabilities.
No, actually, I have seen the moderation at Slashdot improve lately. While there really is the agreement moderation, I have also seen many comments that disagree with Slashdot's majority opinion marked up as well. As long as it's a good post
I also think that the implementation of this idea would improve it further.
Your system would require a lot of active moderation and more moderation points because the majority of posts would have to moderated up to differentiate them from flame.
First of all, the moderation points that were earlier used to get rid of grits would now be used to moderate comments. And also, like another poster pointed out, points could now be directly proportianally to the number of comments.
I think that whatever posts one may find on Slashdot, they are still personal experience. So let me share mine...:)
In 1996, I bought a Packard Bell. As I now know, it had a WD drive inside of it. Being a Packard Bell, it overheated all the time, and CDs I took out of the CD-ROM drive were very often warm, almost hot to the touch. The same goes for floppies.
The Packard Bell is still alive. I'm using it right now, although not in the same state. But the WD drive remains, and I have added another one. No problems yet. And remember, I'm not the average Packard Bell user. I'm a nerd.
While I was writing this post, I also thought of another factor. Turning your computer on and off repeatedly does bad things to the hard drive. IIRC, it has something to do with the hard drive spinning up and down. So the more you turn it on and off, the faster the hard drive will fail. (Please correct me if I'm wrong...)
A friend of mine recently spoke an interesting thought. He said that he thinks that reading Slashdot comments would be a lot more pleasant if they could only be moderated up, and not down.
It seems abusrd at first, but if you think about it, it does start to make sense. Maybe the moderation threshold would have to be increased... but the moderators would need not spend their points on taking out the kiddies. The kiddies would stay there - but the overall average score of the articles would rise, and the kiddies' posts would be left below it.
Not only that, but no added moderation pounts would be needed if the amount of kids doubled overnight. Right now, if the number of kiddie posts doubles, there would either have to be more moderation points issued, or the StN ratio would fall significantly. But with the proposed system, if the amount of lame posts increases while the amount of good posts stays the same, very little would change.
Think about it... sounds good?
--
Re:Lower-case / capital letters for filenames
on
FreeBSD VM Design
·
· Score: 1
Although I hate it very much, as it is very inconvenient, I would say that it is a bug. I have seen many a programmer having trouble understanding case sensitivity, which leaves little hope for the average Win95 user. And since Microsoft tries to make the WinNT and Win95 interfaces fairly similar, this behavior is carried over.
Yes, that's the install. But the *download* is about 50MB, and Microsoft doesn't provide a simple way to install a bare-bones browser. IE4 didn't even allow installing IE4 without OE4 until SP2 came out (which is when IE4 became useless...). At work, I was forced to install IE4, and then clean out the 5 or 6 packages it forced on me. No, I didn't install the Active Desktop
Mozilla is coming along. So far, so good. But when I download it, it still has more than 5 megs. It still pops up a DOS window and does not have a nice design.
HELLO! Does the word "debug" mean anything to you? What about the word "alpha"? The reason mozilla opens a console window is because it is needed for debugging. The same goes for the 5MB download. A lot of it is debug code, and code for reporting the bugs, etc.
When was the last time you checked how big IE is? IE5 is at least 50MB. Netscape 4.x is about 17MB. Please don't compare a finished product to something that is not even beta.
This is exactly why I am against introducing the browser to anyone non-geek until it is finished. They will try it, hate it, and will think that it will always be like that. "Yeah, I tried it a long time ago, and it really sucked!"
Yes. Exactly. I think that they should write a nice stable browser, and worry about the GUI later. How many Slashdot people will either write or download a plain-button "skin" in the end anyway? I know that I will...
--
Re:Design of Mozilla must address fears of busines
on
Mozilla Status Update
·
· Score: 4
What really annoys me is when sites think that it is their responsibility to protect me from viewing their site in a browser which they don't think is appropriate. If you really think that your site is going to suck so much in my browser, you could issue a warning. But don't ban me from the site because your page's margins will look 2 pixels off!
Lately, this has been a growing trend, even with large sites. I can understand sites not supporting Netscape 2.x, but I have seen many sites that refuse to work with Opera 3.61, which supports just about everything one needs (including HTML 3.2, Java, Flash, and anything else that is available as a Netscape plugin.)
If the page looks like crap in my browser, it is up to me to decide not to view it! Don't protect me from myself, please!
Yes, but each time they pull this trick, the masses believe their propaganda more and more. If you repeat a lie over and over again, you will eventually take it for the truth.
The problem is that they have the resources to pull publicity stunts like this all the time, and most people only hear one side of the story.
Ok, we all know that this is definitely a Bad Thing. Now, what do we do about it? If all of the intelligent slashdotters got together and helped these guys argue their case in court, I'm sure that the MPAA wouldn't win the lawsuit.
Is it possible for the best comments and suggestions to be picked out and forwarded to the lawyers? Are the defendands going to have a lawyer? Can they possibly do anything to fight the MPAA without a virtually unlimited supply of cash?
There must be a way Slashdot can help... besides spreading the truth around - this is already obvious...
(I can't provide any answers, so I threw up some questions instead...)
Geeks and nerds, move away from the keyboard before reading, lest you short-circuit your keyboard with drool. Behold! An MP3 player from Compaq, that holds nearly 5 gigs of MP3s!
Slashdot Mirror
However, that doesn't mean that there will be no confusion. Microsoft will also release a DOS-based Windows later on, called Windows Millenium. I think that's what you're talking about.
--
--
I was talking about a slightly different thing. Not reinstalling itself, but the act of formatting the hard drive. While in this case, it was probably a test box with nothing important on it, I have talked to many people who thought of no other way to reinstall other than to format their hard drive, which contained importand data that was never backed up
--
--
Right away, this tells you what kind of "expert" you're dealing with. I have seen many like him. The people that think there is something special about Windows, and that somehow, by some hidden magic, the problems will stay unless you format the hard drive. Nuking \WINDOWS and reinstalling it (as a last resort) doesn't seem as an option to them.
Oh wait, this is a journalist Windows Magazine we're talking about... why did I even comment?
--
It isn't based on Internet Explorer. It is Internet Explorer. It would be nice if Netscape could provide the same functionality. Let's hope Mozilla does.
Back in the day, when AOL was about to switch from their own browser, which sucked, to a good one, they had a choice between Netscape and MSIE. They were pretty much ready to sign a deal with Netscape, but AOL's requirement was that the browser appear inside of the AOL frame - not as a separate window. Netscape didn't like that, so they went with Internet Explorer.
One of the good side effects of Microsoft bundling IE with everything (watch my Karma drop!) is that any programmer can just drop in a control into his program and he instantly has a web browser. Not only that, but the control allows access to everything IE has to offer, including (in the later versions) the entire DHTML object tree. I think that is pretty cool, although it would still be nice to be able to uninstall the damn thing where it isn't needed.
--
- Remember, AOL doesn't do this until you tell it that it's OK by clicking "Yes". If a user is clueless enough not to know what the program is asking them, they are actually being helped, since they will probably want to use AOL for their email and browsing.
- For those that like AOL and use it, this is actually a Good Thing, and something that many other programs do. All that happens is that instead of Outlook Express or Netscape Messenger, you get the AOL interface when you click a mailto: link. Is it bad when AOL takes over TCP/IP when they use no other ISP?
On the other hand, there are issues that weren't discussed in the article that are a lot worse.For one thing, AOL carries with it all the TCP/IP and Winsock drivers for many different versions of Windows, and installs the versions it has regardless of the ones already existing. This has all kinds of effects, including crippling some TCP/IP programs, and re-introducing previously patched bugs and vulnerabilities.
--
--
I also think that the implementation of this idea would improve it further.
--
First of all, the moderation points that were earlier used to get rid of grits would now be used to moderate comments. And also, like another poster pointed out, points could now be directly proportianally to the number of comments.
--
In 1996, I bought a Packard Bell. As I now know, it had a WD drive inside of it. Being a Packard Bell, it overheated all the time, and CDs I took out of the CD-ROM drive were very often warm, almost hot to the touch. The same goes for floppies.
The Packard Bell is still alive. I'm using it right now, although not in the same state. But the WD drive remains, and I have added another one. No problems yet. And remember, I'm not the average Packard Bell user. I'm a nerd.
While I was writing this post, I also thought of another factor. Turning your computer on and off repeatedly does bad things to the hard drive. IIRC, it has something to do with the hard drive spinning up and down. So the more you turn it on and off, the faster the hard drive will fail. (Please correct me if I'm wrong...)
--
It seems abusrd at first, but if you think about it, it does start to make sense. Maybe the moderation threshold would have to be increased... but the moderators would need not spend their points on taking out the kiddies. The kiddies would stay there - but the overall average score of the articles would rise, and the kiddies' posts would be left below it.
Not only that, but no added moderation pounts would be needed if the amount of kids doubled overnight. Right now, if the number of kiddie posts doubles, there would either have to be more moderation points issued, or the StN ratio would fall significantly. But with the proposed system, if the amount of lame posts increases while the amount of good posts stays the same, very little would change.
Think about it... sounds good?
--
--
--
--
IE4 didn't even allow installing IE4 without OE4 until SP2 came out
--
--
HELLO! Does the word "debug" mean anything to you? What about the word "alpha"? The reason mozilla opens a console window is because it is needed for debugging. The same goes for the 5MB download. A lot of it is debug code, and code for reporting the bugs, etc.
When was the last time you checked how big IE is? IE5 is at least 50MB. Netscape 4.x is about 17MB. Please don't compare a finished product to something that is not even beta.
This is exactly why I am against introducing the browser to anyone non-geek until it is finished. They will try it, hate it, and will think that it will always be like that. "Yeah, I tried it a long time ago, and it really sucked!"
--
--
Lately, this has been a growing trend, even with large sites. I can understand sites not supporting Netscape 2.x, but I have seen many sites that refuse to work with Opera 3.61, which supports just about everything one needs (including HTML 3.2, Java, Flash, and anything else that is available as a Netscape plugin.)
If the page looks like crap in my browser, it is up to me to decide not to view it! Don't protect me from myself, please!
--
What network is this on?
--
The problem is that they have the resources to pull publicity stunts like this all the time, and most people only hear one side of the story.
--
Is it possible for the best comments and suggestions to be picked out and forwarded to the lawyers? Are the defendands going to have a lawyer? Can they possibly do anything to fight the MPAA without a virtually unlimited supply of cash?
There must be a way Slashdot can help... besides spreading the truth around - this is already obvious...
(I can't provide any answers, so I threw up some questions instead...)
--
http://www.pjbox.com/product.htm
--
--