it's all the little things that have been fine-tuned over time to work together.
Which I don't think has anything to do with starting everything from scratch in my opinion - that's more to do with Apple focusing on those areas. I'm pretty sure if Microsoft focused a lot on having things work together as much as Apple it would be the same.
The thing is, Microsoft believes what they have done is "good enough".
In my view, XP = OS X 10.0;
Are you joking? I'm a OS X user and I remember how fracking unstable 10.0 was, there is no way you can compare 10.0 to XP stability wise, functionality wise it was lacking heavily too in comparison.
Apple has traditionally found the balance of backwards-compatibility and forward-looking acumen that has allowed me to always run the (MacOS) software I've wanted to, while not failing to OS bloat (notwithstanding MacOS 9).
What bloat are you talking about?
BTW, my personal opinions about Vista: The scheduler is crap (being generally slow, high hardware requirements etc) and I am so happy that they fixed the scheduler in Seven. I've been using the Seven Beta since it came out, and honestly - I can't really see anything it's lacking in. The interface seems fine, it's not slow, it runs on netbooks.
I can't really think of anything that Seven doesn't do which OS X can. When you mention bloat and backwards compatibility - still nothing comes to my mind.
I could go on, but you get my point. I don't really think you have much of a point there, I can easily get the same as a regular PC.
plus you don't have to suffer their damn UI.
I personally find OS X's UI annoying. So it doesn't fit my needs, never mind the fact the OS doesn't run some of the applications I use and others that it does run, it runs terribly.
Ballmer is just trolling. He knows that Apple offers real value because OS X is a better operating system than Windows, which means that Apple has essentially taken away the high-end PC business away from Microsoft.
A art studio local to me moved to 100% windows systems because Photoshop couldn't even do 64bit on OS X, and they really needed the extra memory requirements. I know that BBC 1, 2 of the territorial television stations here use Windows systems almost exclusively for workstations.
So, what I am really asking is, can I have a source for this statement you made? Because it doesn't seem to be dominating the areas where Macs stereotypically accel at.
Microsoft has repeatedly chosen to patch Windows instead of rebuilding it from the ground up as a modern operating system, the way Apple did with OS X. They should have known 8 years ago that this was the wrong strategy.
What does OS X do that Windows 7 can't, which makes it so superior?
There is no match as far as how clean and robust is the build, compared to other top-brand PCs.
Personally, I still prefer IBM's builds. It's not that much more clean in comparison to IBM's. Sun's are pretty decent too, and the pricing is similar to Apple's. I haven't had the chance to touch Dell's or Sony's equivalent systems though.
i just expect a option to show server's that are below average rating. sometimes people wanna host their servers with crazy rules like 4chan server and the ones where they allow mic spam.
Oh poor 4chan! It'll be a terrible loss to the TF2 community!
This is patently false. UAC dialogs are in their own session so you cant "OK" them programatically.
Window messaging doesn't care what session a Window is in. How do I know? I've written software to do it.
Ya, you forgot to say its only for certain folders which contain program files. Do users on linux typically copy to ~/bin or ~/sbin everyday?
No, infact I can't even recall the last time I had to do it on Linux.. Now Windows, that's a whole different story, I find it more common on Windows because of how certain applications expect a lot of stupid things.
There is a difference in philosophy here. UAC doesn't define a security boundary. Even if you OK ONE admin operation you might not want to OK another operation from the same program.
It's a GUID for hell sakes. They could of even made UAC look up the GUID action, but no, they just give you a GUID for details. Sorry, it's not a different philosophy, it's stupidity.
They hope that application devs would fix apps so they wouldnt need the UAC popups and then in the next windows release they would make everyone by default limited user and use something like sudo.
They added API calls that will request UAC elevation through dialogs - I am doubtful of such claims.
Put your nerd rage against MS aside for a minute and explain what's so bad about UAC.
Alternative file system drivers like the IFS driver is broken when UAC is enabled, prevents any newly copied/installed/generated executables from executing on said filesystems with a "parameter incorrect" error.
UAC is exploitable via the window messaging API, making it possible for malicious software to automatically accept UAC dialogs.
UAC adds annoying dialogs for things like copy operations, one after another "You will need admini.." "needs to have admnistr.." "are you sure you want to copy to this protected syst..".
Best of all, it doesn't even deter the common computer user, since they will juts accept every dialog out of habit.
it's certainly no worse than having to do an sudo in linux.
When kdesudo or gksudo pops up, it tells me the command it's executing, when UAC pops up... For example, when adjusting windows update settings:
"blah blah eeds admin privileges to continue" *click more details* "{kfpf-3-wsefsfse-f3f3fkfowfw3ffw}"
Oh great, a GUID. Seriously, at least techs knew what was going on with gksudo and kdesudo for an action, but with UAC? Well.. Unless they're memorizing GUIDs and I'm pretty sure they aren't.
I have actually. When that happens on one of my Linuxes boxes, a e-mail is fired off, it's shutdown and another server takes over it's operations without interruption to the service.
Someone moderated that as overrated, but I don't see how that's overrated?
Mainframes are quite expensive, compared to having a few inter-connected servers that are going to do the same job for a lot less cost. This cost includes, cheaper admins, cheaper power bills, cheaper hardware and in most cases, cheaper software solutions (price of hiring someone who can program on a mainframe? verses Linux/Windows?).
Sure, they have fail over components, however if that single system goes down, everything goes down with it. While using multiple regular x86 servers, sure, they might be more prone to failure, but having a fail over setup so service is not interupted is the same way, it's also a lot cheaper to replace any failing components on such a system than a mainframe.
Someone please explain to me WHY this is overrated compared to the mainframes, please?
My old branch used Linux and Windows servers (I know this from the fact I worked there).
Have you ever used a credit card?
Eurolink (credit processor) when I had a credit card was going on about how they used xserves, I think they called it the "fish tank" because of how they arranged the servers.
Shopped at a supermarket?
I know ASDA and Tesco here locally use Windows+Linux things.
Almost any kind of company that runs a massive billing system or deals with huge inventories uses mainframes to process data and generate reports. I used to think they were dead, too, but there's still a large market for "big iron".
In all honesty. I have only seen one and heard about one in real life, and that was when they were getting rid of it in a Citibank branch because of how expensive it was to operate and maintain.
i love linux as much as everyone else but in reality there isn't a product yet out side of exchange that gives the amount of seemless intgration that exchange gives.
Slashdot Mirror
Which I don't think has anything to do with starting everything from scratch in my opinion - that's more to do with Apple focusing on those areas. I'm pretty sure if Microsoft focused a lot on having things work together as much as Apple it would be the same.
The thing is, Microsoft believes what they have done is "good enough".
Are you joking? I'm a OS X user and I remember how fracking unstable 10.0 was, there is no way you can compare 10.0 to XP stability wise, functionality wise it was lacking heavily too in comparison.
What bloat are you talking about?
BTW, my personal opinions about Vista: The scheduler is crap (being generally slow, high hardware requirements etc) and I am so happy that they fixed the scheduler in Seven. I've been using the Seven Beta since it came out, and honestly - I can't really see anything it's lacking in. The interface seems fine, it's not slow, it runs on netbooks.
I can't really think of anything that Seven doesn't do which OS X can. When you mention bloat and backwards compatibility - still nothing comes to my mind.
No, their high end workstations are pretty nicely built.
Searching for "all in one pc"
First result on a google search,
http://www.cadar.co.uk/
Second result on a google search,
http://www.trustedreviews.com/pcs/review/2008/09/29/HP-TouchSmart-IQ500-All-In-One-PC/p1
Third result on a google search,
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sony-Blu-ray-Drive-Vista-Premium/dp/B001IDYW7A
I could go on, but you get my point. I don't really think you have much of a point there, I can easily get the same as a regular PC.
I personally find OS X's UI annoying. So it doesn't fit my needs, never mind the fact the OS doesn't run some of the applications I use and others that it does run, it runs terribly.
A art studio local to me moved to 100% windows systems because Photoshop couldn't even do 64bit on OS X, and they really needed the extra memory requirements. I know that BBC 1, 2 of the territorial television stations here use Windows systems almost exclusively for workstations.
So, what I am really asking is, can I have a source for this statement you made? Because it doesn't seem to be dominating the areas where Macs stereotypically accel at.
What does OS X do that Windows 7 can't, which makes it so superior?
Personally, I still prefer IBM's builds. It's not that much more clean in comparison to IBM's. Sun's are pretty decent too, and the pricing is similar to Apple's. I haven't had the chance to touch Dell's or Sony's equivalent systems though.
It's broken, it doesn't give you a lobby. I had to make a horrid workaround using sv_search_key crap.
I counted - four seconds.
i just expect a option to show server's that are below average rating. sometimes people wanna host their servers with crazy rules like 4chan server and the ones where they allow mic spam.
Oh poor 4chan! It'll be a terrible loss to the TF2 community!
I can't think of any basic features ffmpeg lacks. I also Googled the question and couldn't find anything.
Examples please?
I do.
I've played MUDs, MUCKs for years but I have no idea what you are referring to. :(
I swear, that Soyuz module will never die, considering how old it is.
Yes, Windows ME is bad.
You forgot Windows ME.
I think you'll survive without it.
I can without putting much of an effort in remembering.
I looked at it, I can't see how it solves the problem?
I generally don't give enough information to do that. I'll usually just take a snapshot of it working for me.
Example:
"Linux sucks because Microsoft Office doesn't work!!"
Me: Works for me.
Example 2:
*Someone trying a silly come back against me*
Me: I am.
Example 3:
"Fuck Linux! Magic the Gathering: Online doesn't work on it!!!"
Me: Works for me.
I guess you haven't found me some place outside of Slashdot yet.
Window messaging doesn't care what session a Window is in. How do I know? I've written software to do it.
No, infact I can't even recall the last time I had to do it on Linux.. Now Windows, that's a whole different story, I find it more common on Windows because of how certain applications expect a lot of stupid things.
It's a GUID for hell sakes. They could of even made UAC look up the GUID action, but no, they just give you a GUID for details. Sorry, it's not a different philosophy, it's stupidity.
They added API calls that will request UAC elevation through dialogs - I am doubtful of such claims.
Alternative file system drivers like the IFS driver is broken when UAC is enabled, prevents any newly copied/installed/generated executables from executing on said filesystems with a "parameter incorrect" error.
UAC is exploitable via the window messaging API, making it possible for malicious software to automatically accept UAC dialogs.
UAC adds annoying dialogs for things like copy operations, one after another "You will need admini.." "needs to have admnistr.." "are you sure you want to copy to this protected syst..".
Best of all, it doesn't even deter the common computer user, since they will juts accept every dialog out of habit.
When kdesudo or gksudo pops up, it tells me the command it's executing, when UAC pops up... For example, when adjusting windows update settings:
"blah blah eeds admin privileges to continue" *click more details* "{kfpf-3-wsefsfse-f3f3fkfowfw3ffw}"
Oh great, a GUID. Seriously, at least techs knew what was going on with gksudo and kdesudo for an action, but with UAC? Well.. Unless they're memorizing GUIDs and I'm pretty sure they aren't.
That's just filesystem overhead.
I'd rather go with (e)SATA (3Gb/s max), also with almost zero CPU overhead (SATA hack for Mac Mini).
Someone moderated that as overrated, but I don't see how that's overrated?
Mainframes are quite expensive, compared to having a few inter-connected servers that are going to do the same job for a lot less cost. This cost includes, cheaper admins, cheaper power bills, cheaper hardware and in most cases, cheaper software solutions (price of hiring someone who can program on a mainframe? verses Linux/Windows?).
Sure, they have fail over components, however if that single system goes down, everything goes down with it. While using multiple regular x86 servers, sure, they might be more prone to failure, but having a fail over setup so service is not interupted is the same way, it's also a lot cheaper to replace any failing components on such a system than a mainframe.
Someone please explain to me WHY this is overrated compared to the mainframes, please?
No, that saves a file and includes irrelevant information on screen.
My old branch used Linux and Windows servers (I know this from the fact I worked there).
Eurolink (credit processor) when I had a credit card was going on about how they used xserves, I think they called it the "fish tank" because of how they arranged the servers.
I know ASDA and Tesco here locally use Windows+Linux things.
In all honesty. I have only seen one and heard about one in real life, and that was when they were getting rid of it in a Citibank branch because of how expensive it was to operate and maintain.
So what's wrong with the following products?
http://www.egroupware.org/
http://www.group-office.com/
http://mirror.open-xchange.org/ox/EN/community/
http://www.scalix.com/
http://www.kolab.org/
http://www.opengroupware.org/
http://www.zimbra.com/
http://www.openconnector.org/
Non-free alternatives:
http://www.novell.com/products/groupwise/
http://bynari.net/index.php?id=7
http://www.stalker.com/CommuniGatePro/
http://www.officecalendar.com/
http://www.samsungcontact.com/
http://www.zarafa.com/
http://www.postpath.com/
I look forward to reading your reply.