I noticed that a couple of applications don't work with my Athlon's (hammer core) NX bit enabled. But clicking "Add" to the "permitted apps" list is a simple once-off operation like a firewall.
Trillian and Warlords:Battlecry III were the only apps with this "problem" to date. For some reason they're bypassing some Windows API's and directly executing code from memory they're not supposed to. This isn't Microsofts fault either - I love watching Windows and my CPU working together to ensure code that runs is not doing anything dodgey.
But I can agree with the consultants a while ago - with SP2 for XP, buying anything but Athlon K8 is a bad security decision.
From the perspective of someone in I/T, and understanding what a firewall is, I would have thought it obvious that if you firewall an application away from the internet, that application won't be able to access the internet. Perhaps Microsoft simply overestimated their customers and user base, so decided to inform people that, yes, firewalls prevent internet traffic unless they are configured not to.
These third party apps just won't work if the firewall is blocking their ports - many of the games for instance won't work in multiplayer unless they can "phone home".
Windows, being the biggest OS entity there is, attracts a lot of third party application developers. And many of those really aren't good at what they do.
Hence, MS enables a real working firewall by default - a lot of poorly written applications break.
It's not really MS's fault, but groups like Slashdot are spreading a lot of FUD to make it seem like it is.
All the problems listed have nothing to do with SP2.
The programs listed don't work because SP2 enables a firewall.
Even if you could get those applications to run under Gentoo, if you applied a firewall, they would also stop working.
Should Gentoo publish a list including all those applications (and all the rest!), publicly admitting that they do not work under Gentoo when an unconfigured firewall is enabled? If not, perhaps you shouldn't be so fast to put the boot into MS.
At least Microsoft went to the effort of advising their customers. That's what is commonly referred to as good customer service.
Okay Mr. FUD, let's look at Linux. Say you had a linux install. And you ran Mozilla and you used that to browse websites, mozilla came *bundled* with your operating system.
This is all well and good.
Now you install a Firewall, perhaps one bundled with your Linux distro.
Suddenly, Mozilla doesn't work anymore! You can't browse the internet!
Is this the fault of your Linux distributor? Why are people saying that Windows is useless because the new firewall *blocks* traffic unless you open the right ports? Why aren't people saying the same for Linux, when Linux works *exactly* the same way?
Or do you just like to spread anti-MS FUD so you can get karma on slashdot?
I think most people on/. would say it was unacceptable to run A/V software on a Windows box.
I think most people on/. would say it was unacceptable to not update A/V software regularly.
I think most people on/. would say the same thing about running a firewall on a Windows box.
So if follows that if you want to run a firewall you might have to do a bit of configuration on it - and seriously, configuring a learning firewall is easy enough for end users.
They see a popup - Do you want to allow MiRC to access the internet? And they click yes. They clicked "Yes" for the Bonzi Buddy, they can click yes for this!
Exactly. Slashdotters have always constantly paid out on microsoft because MS has chosen ease of use before security.
Now, like a responsible company should, they've taken the drastic step of enabling a firewall on Windows by default. And, like any slashdot FUD loving crowd would, slashdot is blaming microsoft because a list of 50 third party apps won't run if some ports aren't opened on a firewall.
I'm happy with SP2, very happy at the extra secuirity, especially enabling the NX bit on my A64.
They aren't really "glitches" And they have nothing to do with the actual code in the Service Pack (I've been running it fine since it was released on Winbeta).
If you took time to read the article, you'd find that the applications would work fine if you disabled the Windows Firewall. The applications fail because SP2 enables a firewall by default, and these applications do not work without an open port.
Anyone who tries to agree with the anti-microsoft FUD in the article above must be some kind of luddite or a really blinkered linux zealot.
Enabling a firewall by default in Windows is the greatest thing Redmond has ever done to try and make up for the horror's they've unleashed on the people of the world. Trying to spread even more FUD with the objective to stop people from applying this service pack is madness.
Check your facts before posting! Unless you think slashdotters are really that gullible?
Most importantly, you get very high performance for each CPU you add into an Opteron SMP system - not so with intel systems, because the SMP technology they use is very weak compared with the Alpha lineage.
If you thought Far Cry was resource intensive... DooM3 from my first hand accounts is revolutionising the PC industry. So many people wanting new graphics cards...
I strongly agree with the parent. If you intend to play games on a PC, the laptop is not the form factor you want.
Laptops are popular for LAN gamers and I can see the appeal, but seriously, for the same kind of outlay you can buy a flat panel LCD display and a shuttle or similar small form factor PC. These small systems cost more than a full sized desktop but they will easily outperform any laptop in the same price range. They're also significantly more upgradable than a laptop, and the drivers are much better.
That's a pretty sudden and ill informed decision - in Vice City and GTA3, your ability to sprint is entirely dependant on the amount of time you spend sprinting. The more you sprint, the fitter you become, and the longer you can sprint for.
You're assuming that this will be a complete RPG conversion - I doubt that. I think the differences will be barely noticeable, every bit as subtle as the "training" in GTA3 and VC.
Likewise, at the end of Vice City, when you own every property, and sit at 200 health and 200 armour and every car you drive has double armour, you can run without tiring and every house you have has a huge range of weapons - you're not the same guy, not by a long shot.
There are a lot of violent computer games, and they don't all sell as well as GTA.
Why then is GTA successful? It's related to the violence, but it's more about freedom. Violence is a potential side effect of freedom. In many games, you won't be allowed to just go this way, shoot that person, steal this car, run over that pedestrian.
If players were prevented from acting and viewing the consequences of their actions, the game would lose its appeal. But because the computer lets you get away with whatever you intend to do, the player feels in complete control and the sense of immersion, the pure escapism takes hold - no "artificial" barriers to get in your way.
I'll agree with that, but coming from Far Cry straight into DooM3, the graphics aren't the biggest wow factor - it's the intricate and high level of detail in the level design and the incredibly high production values. Everything in the environment has been designed to make the gameplay very immersive, which has really impressed me - DooM3 is less of a cookie-cutter FPS than I was anticipating.
I mean, sure, DooM3 brings my rig to its very knees, but it's doing so much with what I have I don't really mind.
And to support your original argument - if nobody cared about graphics we'd all still be playing NES/C64/EGA/CGA games!
False assertion. Nethack is simply more popular amongst web developers and possibly bloggers. There may be a vast community of M:T players who simply refuse to connect to the internet or mention their sacred game on websites. Yeah.
Yeah I have noticed that although Rockstar makes significant improvements to the graphics engine for the PC version of GTA, it is still suffering from the low polygon counts and poor use of features that it inherits from the console version.
Running the game at 1600x1200 with FSAA and aniso filtering does make it look far better than the PS/2 would ever be able to, however GTA does look very dated in comparison to some of the newer PC games.
Still the gameplay of GTA has always been the primary driver (and the graphics for consoles as well, although I always find reviewing graphics for a console an amusing concept considering the hardware is very constraining so developers are limited in what they can do, especially when you consider what a properly configured PC can do). Playing GTA on PC is much like playing a slightly older game that is still fun - many people play Counterstrike on PC for the gameplay rather than the graphics.
GTA is also in the rare position that is is practically alone in it's class, therefore has little or no competition apart from, well, Mafia (which in turn was an excellent game in its own right).
PC architecture is very different, with the traditional layout being a dedicated GPU for rendering and a very very generic CPU for doing any and all things imaginable. The PC is definately a jack of all trades.
The speed of the CPU is slightly relevant, however the key, absolute key area where the console can be considered suitable for playing games is because every single transistor, every bit of memory is optimised like crazy just to make the games work.
PC's on the other hand have a *lot* more power than a console, but games don't tend to be as heavily optimised for two reasons - firstly developers get acceptable results quite easily because of the power of the platform, and secondly they can't afford to get too specific, because even platforms from the same manufacturer (eg intel) have vastly different capabilities (look at the IPC of a P3 vs a P4!).
However, with regards to console performance, consoles reach their limit very quickly with regards to optimisations, although it is quite remarkable to see the things the PS2 is capable of, it's only because the developers are doing so much with so little. I don't think we'll be seeing DooM3 any time soon - and whether you think it's a fun game or not, you can't deny that DooM3 establishes a very high precedent in terms of production quality that the 6 processors in a PS2 just won't be able to meet.
People who own PC's, who paid money for 3D accelerators. Also people who bought Xboxes to play games on.
So you don't care about graphics, but you stipulate that a game must have "bearable" graphics, we'll assume that you intend to be the judge of whether graphics are "bearable" or not? I would suggest then that you also care about graphics. Way to answer your own question in the negatory.
Remember, the AMD hammers all have a lot of history going back to an ancient Alpha pedigree - a lot of the Alpha design team went to work on the 64 bit implementations for AMD.
It shows in the excellent IPC scores of the hammer series, and the incredible scaling for SMP systems that Opterons enjoy.
So alpha technology lives on in a small way in the AMD hammers.
If you suffer from a disease that involves a certain gene code that is patented... surely, the "creator", who owns that patent, is responsible for you having it, and therefore liable? Or will they be able to sue you for third degree patent infringement?
If a patent holder prevents you from obtaining treatment for your disorder, can you then sue them for withholding information vital to your survival, which is in essence actively preventing your path to continued survival?
I think that establishing a legal precedent whereby a patent holder of genetic information becomes liable for either a) damage caused by their gene or b) criminal prevention of an individual from obtaining treatment to a life threatening condition would be a wonderful disincentive for patenting the blatantly obvious
These are all valid points. Linux is an excellent operating system in it's own ways, it has some very good strengths in the server space. But you're completely ignoring the original assertion, which is, "Is linux ready for the desktop?"
When we ask this question, we are immediately asking whether Linux can compete with Windows for the desktop real estate. The question is all about whether Windows or Linux is a more suitable desktop operating system. To suggest otherwise is to suggest to people that they use a less appropriate tool for a particular job.
Which is the most appropriate tool for the desktop, then? Is it a tool that requires users or administrators to manually edit text files to allow common hardware devices to work? Or is it a tool that configures itself transparently to the end user?
If we look again at the question, "Is linux ready for the desktop?", we can gauge this to some extent by the market penetration of Windows vs. Linux on the desktop arena. Which operating system has the highest penetration? Which is most appropriate, most ready for the desktop? Which is winning?
I think that whether an OS is winning market share is completely within the point, in the context of this topic.
Yes! All that is needed is a linux distro vendor to set that up for you. That would work.
But you're acknowledging my point and ignoring it all at the same time (something quite common in the linux arena).
So what you're saying is : Microsoft does all the config work for you, and it works most of the time. Linux doesn't do any of the config work for you, the Linux developers assume you want to wade through lines of text files instead.
Why do you think Microsoft is winning with people advocating such godawful development practices?
Slashdot Mirror
I noticed that a couple of applications don't work with my Athlon's (hammer core) NX bit enabled. But clicking "Add" to the "permitted apps" list is a simple once-off operation like a firewall.
Trillian and Warlords:Battlecry III were the only apps with this "problem" to date. For some reason they're bypassing some Windows API's and directly executing code from memory they're not supposed to. This isn't Microsofts fault either - I love watching Windows and my CPU working together to ensure code that runs is not doing anything dodgey.
But I can agree with the consultants a while ago - with SP2 for XP, buying anything but Athlon K8 is a bad security decision.
From the perspective of someone in I/T, and understanding what a firewall is, I would have thought it obvious that if you firewall an application away from the internet, that application won't be able to access the internet. Perhaps Microsoft simply overestimated their customers and user base, so decided to inform people that, yes, firewalls prevent internet traffic unless they are configured not to.
Answer for ya.
It's not broken.
These third party apps just won't work if the firewall is blocking their ports - many of the games for instance won't work in multiplayer unless they can "phone home".
Windows, being the biggest OS entity there is, attracts a lot of third party application developers. And many of those really aren't good at what they do.
Hence, MS enables a real working firewall by default - a lot of poorly written applications break.
It's not really MS's fault, but groups like Slashdot are spreading a lot of FUD to make it seem like it is.
RTFA please.
The same applications would all stop working if you installed any firewall, hardware or software, router or ZoneAlarm.
This has nothing to do with QA testing - obviously if you enable a firewall, some apps are going to stop working.
Why on earth is it microsofts QA departments fault that you can't FTP if your FTP port isn't open on your firewall?
If you think that it really is MS's fault after actually reading the article - then yes, you should be shot. Twice. Darwin save us all.
You didn't seem to read the article -
All the problems listed have nothing to do with SP2.
The programs listed don't work because SP2 enables a firewall.
Even if you could get those applications to run under Gentoo, if you applied a firewall, they would also stop working.
Should Gentoo publish a list including all those applications (and all the rest!), publicly admitting that they do not work under Gentoo when an unconfigured firewall is enabled? If not, perhaps you shouldn't be so fast to put the boot into MS.
At least Microsoft went to the effort of advising their customers. That's what is commonly referred to as good customer service.
Okay Mr. FUD, let's look at Linux. Say you had a linux install. And you ran Mozilla and you used that to browse websites, mozilla came *bundled* with your operating system.
This is all well and good.
Now you install a Firewall, perhaps one bundled with your Linux distro.
Suddenly, Mozilla doesn't work anymore! You can't browse the internet!
Is this the fault of your Linux distributor? Why are people saying that Windows is useless because the new firewall *blocks* traffic unless you open the right ports? Why aren't people saying the same for Linux, when Linux works *exactly* the same way?
Or do you just like to spread anti-MS FUD so you can get karma on slashdot?
I'm saying it is acceptable.
/. would say it was unacceptable to run A/V software on a Windows box.
/. would say it was unacceptable to not update A/V software regularly.
/. would say the same thing about running a firewall on a Windows box.
I think most people on
I think most people on
I think most people on
So if follows that if you want to run a firewall you might have to do a bit of configuration on it - and seriously, configuring a learning firewall is easy enough for end users.
They see a popup - Do you want to allow MiRC to access the internet? And they click yes. They clicked "Yes" for the Bonzi Buddy, they can click yes for this!
Exactly. Slashdotters have always constantly paid out on microsoft because MS has chosen ease of use before security.
Now, like a responsible company should, they've taken the drastic step of enabling a firewall on Windows by default. And, like any slashdot FUD loving crowd would, slashdot is blaming microsoft because a list of 50 third party apps won't run if some ports aren't opened on a firewall.
I'm happy with SP2, very happy at the extra secuirity, especially enabling the NX bit on my A64.
They aren't really "glitches"
And they have nothing to do with the actual code in the Service Pack (I've been running it fine since it was released on Winbeta).
If you took time to read the article, you'd find that the applications would work fine if you disabled the Windows Firewall. The applications fail because SP2 enables a firewall by default, and these applications do not work without an open port.
Anyone who tries to agree with the anti-microsoft FUD in the article above must be some kind of luddite or a really blinkered linux zealot.
Enabling a firewall by default in Windows is the greatest thing Redmond has ever done to try and make up for the horror's they've unleashed on the people of the world. Trying to spread even more FUD with the objective to stop people from applying this service pack is madness.
Nice going, trollboy.
Check your facts before posting! Unless you think slashdotters are really that gullible?
Most importantly, you get very high performance for each CPU you add into an Opteron SMP system - not so with intel systems, because the SMP technology they use is very weak compared with the Alpha lineage.
If you thought Far Cry was resource intensive... DooM3 from my first hand accounts is revolutionising the PC industry. So many people wanting new graphics cards...
I strongly agree with the parent. If you intend to play games on a PC, the laptop is not the form factor you want.
Laptops are popular for LAN gamers and I can see the appeal, but seriously, for the same kind of outlay you can buy a flat panel LCD display and a shuttle or similar small form factor PC. These small systems cost more than a full sized desktop but they will easily outperform any laptop in the same price range. They're also significantly more upgradable than a laptop, and the drivers are much better.
Well hopefully you'll have had it *before* they filed the patent, which is likely in the case of genes. This is a nice case of prior art in fact.
The only real victims are children born after the filing of these patents. Won't someone please think of the children?
I think that guy was a troll :)
That's a pretty sudden and ill informed decision - in Vice City and GTA3, your ability to sprint is entirely dependant on the amount of time you spend sprinting. The more you sprint, the fitter you become, and the longer you can sprint for.
You're assuming that this will be a complete RPG conversion - I doubt that. I think the differences will be barely noticeable, every bit as subtle as the "training" in GTA3 and VC.
Likewise, at the end of Vice City, when you own every property, and sit at 200 health and 200 armour and every car you drive has double armour, you can run without tiring and every house you have has a huge range of weapons - you're not the same guy, not by a long shot.
There are a lot of violent computer games, and they don't all sell as well as GTA.
Why then is GTA successful? It's related to the violence, but it's more about freedom. Violence is a potential side effect of freedom. In many games, you won't be allowed to just go this way, shoot that person, steal this car, run over that pedestrian.
If players were prevented from acting and viewing the consequences of their actions, the game would lose its appeal. But because the computer lets you get away with whatever you intend to do, the player feels in complete control and the sense of immersion, the pure escapism takes hold - no "artificial" barriers to get in your way.
I'll agree with that, but coming from Far Cry straight into DooM3, the graphics aren't the biggest wow factor - it's the intricate and high level of detail in the level design and the incredibly high production values. Everything in the environment has been designed to make the gameplay very immersive, which has really impressed me - DooM3 is less of a cookie-cutter FPS than I was anticipating.
I mean, sure, DooM3 brings my rig to its very knees, but it's doing so much with what I have I don't really mind.
And to support your original argument - if nobody cared about graphics we'd all still be playing NES/C64/EGA/CGA games!
False assertion. Nethack is simply more popular amongst web developers and possibly bloggers. There may be a vast community of M:T players who simply refuse to connect to the internet or mention their sacred game on websites. Yeah.
Yeah I have noticed that although Rockstar makes significant improvements to the graphics engine for the PC version of GTA, it is still suffering from the low polygon counts and poor use of features that it inherits from the console version.
Running the game at 1600x1200 with FSAA and aniso filtering does make it look far better than the PS/2 would ever be able to, however GTA does look very dated in comparison to some of the newer PC games.
Still the gameplay of GTA has always been the primary driver (and the graphics for consoles as well, although I always find reviewing graphics for a console an amusing concept considering the hardware is very constraining so developers are limited in what they can do, especially when you consider what a properly configured PC can do). Playing GTA on PC is much like playing a slightly older game that is still fun - many people play Counterstrike on PC for the gameplay rather than the graphics.
GTA is also in the rare position that is is practically alone in it's class, therefore has little or no competition apart from, well, Mafia (which in turn was an excellent game in its own right).
PC architecture is very different, with the traditional layout being a dedicated GPU for rendering and a very very generic CPU for doing any and all things imaginable. The PC is definately a jack of all trades.
The speed of the CPU is slightly relevant, however the key, absolute key area where the console can be considered suitable for playing games is because every single transistor, every bit of memory is optimised like crazy just to make the games work.
PC's on the other hand have a *lot* more power than a console, but games don't tend to be as heavily optimised for two reasons - firstly developers get acceptable results quite easily because of the power of the platform, and secondly they can't afford to get too specific, because even platforms from the same manufacturer (eg intel) have vastly different capabilities (look at the IPC of a P3 vs a P4!).
However, with regards to console performance, consoles reach their limit very quickly with regards to optimisations, although it is quite remarkable to see the things the PS2 is capable of, it's only because the developers are doing so much with so little. I don't think we'll be seeing DooM3 any time soon - and whether you think it's a fun game or not, you can't deny that DooM3 establishes a very high precedent in terms of production quality that the 6 processors in a PS2 just won't be able to meet.
Who cares about graphics?
People who own PC's, who paid money for 3D accelerators. Also people who bought Xboxes to play games on.
So you don't care about graphics, but you stipulate that a game must have "bearable" graphics, we'll assume that you intend to be the judge of whether graphics are "bearable" or not? I would suggest then that you also care about graphics. Way to answer your own question in the negatory.
Remember, the AMD hammers all have a lot of history going back to an ancient Alpha pedigree - a lot of the Alpha design team went to work on the 64 bit implementations for AMD.
It shows in the excellent IPC scores of the hammer series, and the incredible scaling for SMP systems that Opterons enjoy.
So alpha technology lives on in a small way in the AMD hammers.
More interestingly.
If you suffer from a disease that involves a certain gene code that is patented... surely, the "creator", who owns that patent, is responsible for you having it, and therefore liable? Or will they be able to sue you for third degree patent infringement?
If a patent holder prevents you from obtaining treatment for your disorder, can you then sue them for withholding information vital to your survival, which is in essence actively preventing your path to continued survival?
I think that establishing a legal precedent whereby a patent holder of genetic information becomes liable for either a) damage caused by their gene or b) criminal prevention of an individual from obtaining treatment to a life threatening condition would be a wonderful disincentive for patenting the blatantly obvious
These are all valid points. Linux is an excellent operating system in it's own ways, it has some very good strengths in the server space. But you're completely ignoring the original assertion, which is, "Is linux ready for the desktop?"
When we ask this question, we are immediately asking whether Linux can compete with Windows for the desktop real estate. The question is all about whether Windows or Linux is a more suitable desktop operating system. To suggest otherwise is to suggest to people that they use a less appropriate tool for a particular job.
Which is the most appropriate tool for the desktop, then? Is it a tool that requires users or administrators to manually edit text files to allow common hardware devices to work? Or is it a tool that configures itself transparently to the end user?
If we look again at the question, "Is linux ready for the desktop?", we can gauge this to some extent by the market penetration of Windows vs. Linux on the desktop arena. Which operating system has the highest penetration? Which is most appropriate, most ready for the desktop? Which is winning?
I think that whether an OS is winning market share is completely within the point, in the context of this topic.
Yes! All that is needed is a linux distro vendor to set that up for you. That would work.
But you're acknowledging my point and ignoring it all at the same time (something quite common in the linux arena).
So what you're saying is : Microsoft does all the config work for you, and it works most of the time. Linux doesn't do any of the config work for you, the Linux developers assume you want to wade through lines of text files instead.
Why do you think Microsoft is winning with people advocating such godawful development practices?