Hearing that all frigging installers are going to want admin perms is a frigging joke. Part of the reason Windows is insecure is you can't do anything without being an admin. It's not like it even supports a model whereby you install the software into your own location. Every piece of software expects to be able to write registries, replace system DLLs, and generally crap into a few common folders.
My sister runs a lot of the old Win3.x games on her XP non-admin account successfuly, because I installed them under her "Documents and Settings" directory (equivalent to ~/) and I knew they tend to want to store.INI files in the Windows directory, so I just gave her account access to those and problem solved. I also got CorelDRAW 3.0 (yes, 3.0) to run this way. Older installers that assume they have the go of the whole box will continue to be a problem, but here at least Microsoft is giving you the option to install them successfully to maintain compatibility. Hopefully if this is enough of a problem people will stop using that software. The Windows installer system has worked in mixed privilege mode for a long time, assuming the software publisher bothered with that at all. Most Windows software today is being released with these restrictions in mind. You can always forgo "\Program Files" and install somewhere else and choose the "Only for me" option in the installer. Really, have you never installed software that works well in non-admin mode under XP? That's odd.
BTW, when was the last time you ran Synaptic or yum without su[do]?
I mean, well over a decade I could download any old UNIX software,
I run decade-old software on Windows XP/2003 securely. I don't understand what's so special about that.
This means that people aren't going to install their animated cursors in a sandbox which only affects them.
If they feel the need to install animated cursors or Bonzi Buddy then there's fuck all you can do about it, after all.
Especially for the gossip and politics parts. I mean, everybody knows that the politics articles on Wikipedia are the best of the lot. Creationism, abortion, the republican party, George Bush. They're all great, balanced articles that come about with a healthy amount of consensus and almost never require their silly useless "aribitration" process. Everyone is an expert on teh interwebs. But hey, like the submitter says, Wikipedia "blew away Britannica".
I'm going to go out on a limb here and theorize that this project is going to have ads integrated from the beginning. If Jimbo wants a revenue stream, maybe he should just say so instead of selling it as some sort of fresh new revolutionary idea... user generated content? Never seen that before on the web.
LOL and all that, but no one uses VS2002 anyway, and those who have not moved to 2005 and are still running 2003 can do so in Vista, with caveats. I run VS2003 on an HP laptop with Vista Business and aside from a few minor annoyances it works well enough.
Applications written with previous versions of the.NET runtime work perfectly well in Vista.
If you can find a reference for that, I'll concede your point. I'll take a statement by Apple that says as much, and you'll have to ignore the hundreds of software titles out there that were updated in time for the Vista RTM using Microsoft's API reference.
This sounds a bit apologetic, but the bottom line is that Apple has had two years (at least) to get their shit together with widely available documentation and SDKs from Microsoft that many other software companies have happily used so far.
Of course, as you say "not ready" doesn't mean "doesn't work", but I would expect Apple to *at least* get Quicktime to function correctly. If they're not interested, that's fine. It's not like Microsoft needs Apple software to work on Windows. It's the other way around at least for the time being.
I have no idea what "has systematically killed products blah blah" has to do with anything. If Apple wants to systematically kill their apps on the Windows platform, I'd say that's fine. Quicktime has gotten better in the past few years but it's still buggy and brittle. At least it doesn't take over every media association in my computer and try to stick me with a non-removable tray icon anymore.
I remember when it first came out a company (I think gateway, its been a few years now) had a superior and cheaper mp3 player. It had everything the Ipod had, support for more file types and an FM tuner and it came in at like $100 cheaper.
You don't remember what that was? I'd buy it on eBay for sure, if it's all that. You're not talking about the Archos ones, are you? Those were nice, but they were bigger than bricks.
Just ask the senior resident "evangelist" for some help.
Seriously though, I mean don't do it like that. One of the reasons I've hear people claim they can't leave Windows is Office or Works. Most of the time all they do is do simple spreadsheets and documents. Tell them about OpenOffice. Tell them about other stuff like Amarok or whatever. And (if you're recommending Ubuntu, like you should) explain to them how Synaptic works. I've had people look at me funny when I tell them about all the software in there, as if it couldn't possibly be true.
Mostly people need replacements for what they do. They don't need to hear about how "cool" or "free" Linux is. If they're average Windows users, most Linux distros have replacements for everything. Concentrate on that.
Don't overdo it though... claiming that Linux is "inherently superior" to Windows and blabbing about how "evil" Microsoft is will do more harm than good the moment they have to deal with a problem that doesn't exist in Windows, like installing a font. Just make them aware of the learning curve and sell them on the real benefits.
Dunno if you can pull it off in 15 minutes... but asking them off the bat how they use their computer is always a good start. Usually "well, I surf the web and send email..." is good. Gamers are out. Granmas are usually in (and will normally benefit the most from moving off Windows).
And when someone actually plants a bomb somewhere, it causes damage and the police didn't act the way they're supposed to because they think it's probably a stupid prank then you'd be howling for their nads, wouldn't you?
I know it's fashionable to complain about these things now, but war on terror or not, this was unnecessary and dumb. It could have been done in any number of ways that did not involve bringing Boston to a halt in the middle of the day. I think the response was the correct one and I hope that if this ever happens in my city the response is exactly the same.
And if these bored TV execs thought about it for more than five seconds and didn't do this - then the terrorists are winning as well? I think not. This is about common sense and basic civil responsibility.
I dont understand why anyone would be irate when it turned out to be nothing.
If I lived in Boston and got nailed in one of the bridge or street closures I'd be pissed.
They could have at the very least fucking notified the police or something before it got out of hand. It's irresponsible because it doesn't take a genius to figure out that a problem like this might happen, and that other people just trying to get on with their day might be unfairly affected.
Since only people in Britain pay the BBC telly tax, what is the status of these downloads as far as the rest of the world is concerned? I can't see the BBC Trust subsidizing bandwidth of content paid for by Britons so that people in the US or Chile or Katmandu can watch Dr Who or whatever. Are they going to use IP blocking or something?
Unlike twitter here, you will never find me claiming something is "garbage" without having it tried first. And I think Linux and OS X are perfectly fine operating systems with certain strengths and weaknesses, just like Windows.
twitter actually hates "M$", so by definition he must also midlessly hate and deride everything they do or say. To him it's a religious or emotional issue instead of a simple technical one.
"Cursed it for weeks"? You are too funny. Well, actually not. And are they still "cursing" it now? And again, when they were "boosting M$" you thought they sucked, but now you think they are completely right. Is that how it works?
more of this kind of review.
Wow, I have this one. Does that make me "righter" than you? Or is it possible that some people will like it and some people won't? Oh, I forget - you must "hate" something if you don't like it, so there's no middle ground. And if you hate something, anyone that does not is an "astroturfer" and a "shill" or "troll". Never mind.
I was shocked by the poor quality of XP when I first had to use it. [...] I was taken in [...] Not taken in enough to purchase or use the garbage because I had moved everything to GNU/Linux by then
So you really never used it in any meaningful way, but you think it's "garbage". Well, that pretty much defines 100% of your comments about it. I guess ignorance is a virtue as far as you're concerned, eh?
Vista is colossally bad
Another OS you haven't used, but it's "collossally" bad. Of course.
Mosberg cursed it for weeks
I can find enough positive reviews out there, and I'm sure you can too. Myself, I'll wait to use the RTM version to form an opinion. Wait, you used to post your snide remarks about how it "sucked" whenever Slashbork posted another negative "review" of a release candidate. Yes, I remember now. You just knew it was going to suck, didn't you.
BTW, do you usually find yourself agreeing with Dvorak, or is this just a one-time thing? And do you normally rely on troll rag hacks to tell you what is good or bad?
That ratio will change when the $100 GNU/Linux laptops are considered normal.
Considering the fact that an OEM license of Vista Home costs Dell and the like about $40, I'd say you need to explain how the cost of the $500 Vista computer is actually Vista's fault. Go on, I'm actually curious.
Also, there are lots of companies that sell laptops with Linux preinstalled - would you like to point out one that sells for $100? Heck, I'll settle for $300.
The first successful, viable, externalized commercial "AJAX" application was Outlook Web Access (OWA). And it was that until GMail "discovered" out-of-band JS requests and some blogger re-christened it "AJAX".
I guess there's a joke here somewhere about Google having to steal talent from Microsoft, given that Microsoft is usually accused of the same thing.
But wait, didn't you say this when Windows 95 came out? And then with Windows 98 and 2000? And then again with XP?
I guess it's kinda like predicting "the year of Linux" every year, isn't it? Your track record with prediction is 100% wrong so far, but then again you seem completely detached from reality anyway. Constantly harping that "M$ is going down" on Slashdot will not actually cause that. Hopefully some day you'll realize that.
He is, actually. He's one of those people whose insane hatred of a company probably affects them physically and psycologically in ways we could hardly imagine. There are literally thousands of those offtopic "I'm feeling especially hateful today" posts in both of his Slashdot sockpuppet accounts.
Note that the message in some (some) cases is not the issue - it's the deranged messenger. Unfortunately he's accumulated enough "karma" here that he's allowed to post at +2.
Isn't it more than a little unusual to run a server edition for your desktop?
I guess, but I also use XP Pro regularly. In many ways they're essentially the same OS. And my experience with XP mirrors that of W2003, except for the need to occasionally restart the ASP worker process because it goes stupid, which is not an issue on 2003.
As for your other problems, I don't doubt they are real, but I've really never had a problem like that with W2K, XP or 2003. I rarely shut down my workstation except for patch tuesdays, and I can go 30-45 days without rebooting (not that I really care, it's a workstation). Now if I wasn't forced to reboot the OS because I patched the web server... but that's another story.
You really do believe all this, don't you? You really don't see the infantile duplicity in claiming people "insult you" and "lie" when you do exactly the same thing? You really are incapable of realizing all this crap you spew about "Windoze" is mostly nothing but cheap, unbelievable FUD, aren't you?
It's really sad that someone would think they are doing good this way. That they are somehow furthering the goals of free software and convincing anyone of anything with their dumb lies and childish misrepresentations of reality.
You are everything that is wrong with the free software/open source community. You are truly disgraceful.
I am not going to blindly claim you are lying of course, but I run Server 2003 Std. as my desktop and after almost three years I've yet to see an application that causes the OS to become unstable. Firefox is my canonical example of an app that leaks memory like crazy, but restarting it after a couple of days of continuous use obviously solves that problem.
I don't use InDesign or Photoshop but I do constantly run Visual Studio and other development tools. I'd guess a service debugging session left open for a day is going to be more detrimental to the OS than an open multi-megabyte PSD file, but I might be wrong about that.
Either way, I've never had to reboot Windows to fix a problem caused by an application. Not since the bad days of Win9x anyway.
Well, maybe you should talk to IBM. Aren't they the darlings of the open source crowd? They are the largest patent holders in the planet. Or maybe Microsoft will start doing that when they stop being sued by patent cliques that cost them billions, despite the fact that RMS likes to constantly remind everyone of the "dangers" of a company who has rarely used patents offensively, and rarely aggressively at that. FAT32 and an email to some media player developer about the ASX patent come to mind. Hell, Google and IBM send nastier cease and desist lawyergrams than Microsoft.
As for this of course it's being squeezed to the max by the unwashed masses - dammed if they do ("OMFG, M$ IS TEH SUXX"), dammned if they don't ("Hi, we're Eolas. Bend over") and dammned if they screw up and apologize.
Cox did you double plus good - they simply blocked all outbound 25 and inbound 80 traffic from within their network. I have a domain with an SMTP/POP server, but I can't use it to send mail from home. I have to send go through their regional SMTP server.
And no, they will not unblock it on a per-subscriber basis, at least they wouldn't last time I checked. I believe the only way to get rid of that block is to sign up for one of their business accounts.
Since I run the same Windows these botnets do but none of my four machines happen to be on one (or have ever been on one), what exactly would your plan be for making this stick? What's next, a class action suit against GM for car crashes caused by people talking on their cell phones?
Slashdot Mirror
"those" = the pre-created INI files.
My sister runs a lot of the old Win3.x games on her XP non-admin account successfuly, because I installed them under her "Documents and Settings" directory (equivalent to ~/) and I knew they tend to want to store .INI files in the Windows directory, so I just gave her account access to those and problem solved. I also got CorelDRAW 3.0 (yes, 3.0) to run this way. Older installers that assume they have the go of the whole box will continue to be a problem, but here at least Microsoft is giving you the option to install them successfully to maintain compatibility. Hopefully if this is enough of a problem people will stop using that software. The Windows installer system has worked in mixed privilege mode for a long time, assuming the software publisher bothered with that at all. Most Windows software today is being released with these restrictions in mind. You can always forgo "\Program Files" and install somewhere else and choose the "Only for me" option in the installer. Really, have you never installed software that works well in non-admin mode under XP? That's odd.
BTW, when was the last time you ran Synaptic or yum without su[do]?
I mean, well over a decade I could download any old UNIX software,
I run decade-old software on Windows XP/2003 securely. I don't understand what's so special about that.
This means that people aren't going to install their animated cursors in a sandbox which only affects them.
If they feel the need to install animated cursors or Bonzi Buddy then there's fuck all you can do about it, after all.
This just makes me laugh.
My thoughts exactly.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and theorize that this project is going to have ads integrated from the beginning. If Jimbo wants a revenue stream, maybe he should just say so instead of selling it as some sort of fresh new revolutionary idea... user generated content? Never seen that before on the web.
Applications written with previous versions of the .NET runtime work perfectly well in Vista.
Thanks.
Of course, as you say "not ready" doesn't mean "doesn't work", but I would expect Apple to *at least* get Quicktime to function correctly. If they're not interested, that's fine. It's not like Microsoft needs Apple software to work on Windows. It's the other way around at least for the time being.
I have no idea what "has systematically killed products blah blah" has to do with anything. If Apple wants to systematically kill their apps on the Windows platform, I'd say that's fine. Quicktime has gotten better in the past few years but it's still buggy and brittle. At least it doesn't take over every media association in my computer and try to stick me with a non-removable tray icon anymore.
You don't remember what that was? I'd buy it on eBay for sure, if it's all that. You're not talking about the Archos ones, are you? Those were nice, but they were bigger than bricks.
Seriously though, I mean don't do it like that. One of the reasons I've hear people claim they can't leave Windows is Office or Works. Most of the time all they do is do simple spreadsheets and documents. Tell them about OpenOffice. Tell them about other stuff like Amarok or whatever. And (if you're recommending Ubuntu, like you should) explain to them how Synaptic works. I've had people look at me funny when I tell them about all the software in there, as if it couldn't possibly be true.
Mostly people need replacements for what they do. They don't need to hear about how "cool" or "free" Linux is. If they're average Windows users, most Linux distros have replacements for everything. Concentrate on that.
Don't overdo it though... claiming that Linux is "inherently superior" to Windows and blabbing about how "evil" Microsoft is will do more harm than good the moment they have to deal with a problem that doesn't exist in Windows, like installing a font. Just make them aware of the learning curve and sell them on the real benefits.
Dunno if you can pull it off in 15 minutes... but asking them off the bat how they use their computer is always a good start. Usually "well, I surf the web and send email..." is good. Gamers are out. Granmas are usually in (and will normally benefit the most from moving off Windows).
I know it's fashionable to complain about these things now, but war on terror or not, this was unnecessary and dumb. It could have been done in any number of ways that did not involve bringing Boston to a halt in the middle of the day. I think the response was the correct one and I hope that if this ever happens in my city the response is exactly the same.
And if these bored TV execs thought about it for more than five seconds and didn't do this - then the terrorists are winning as well? I think not. This is about common sense and basic civil responsibility.
If I lived in Boston and got nailed in one of the bridge or street closures I'd be pissed.
They could have at the very least fucking notified the police or something before it got out of hand. It's irresponsible because it doesn't take a genius to figure out that a problem like this might happen, and that other people just trying to get on with their day might be unfairly affected.
Since only people in Britain pay the BBC telly tax, what is the status of these downloads as far as the rest of the world is concerned? I can't see the BBC Trust subsidizing bandwidth of content paid for by Britons so that people in the US or Chile or Katmandu can watch Dr Who or whatever. Are they going to use IP blocking or something?
twitter actually hates "M$", so by definition he must also midlessly hate and deride everything they do or say. To him it's a religious or emotional issue instead of a simple technical one.
Wow, I have this one. Does that make me "righter" than you? Or is it possible that some people will like it and some people won't? Oh, I forget - you must "hate" something if you don't like it, so there's no middle ground. And if you hate something, anyone that does not is an "astroturfer" and a "shill" or "troll". Never mind.
Don't ever stop linking to that, please.
So you really never used it in any meaningful way, but you think it's "garbage". Well, that pretty much defines 100% of your comments about it. I guess ignorance is a virtue as far as you're concerned, eh?
Another OS you haven't used, but it's "collossally" bad. Of course.
I can find enough positive reviews out there, and I'm sure you can too. Myself, I'll wait to use the RTM version to form an opinion. Wait, you used to post your snide remarks about how it "sucked" whenever Slashbork posted another negative "review" of a release candidate. Yes, I remember now. You just knew it was going to suck, didn't you.
BTW, do you usually find yourself agreeing with Dvorak, or is this just a one-time thing? And do you normally rely on troll rag hacks to tell you what is good or bad?
Considering the fact that an OEM license of Vista Home costs Dell and the like about $40, I'd say you need to explain how the cost of the $500 Vista computer is actually Vista's fault. Go on, I'm actually curious.
Also, there are lots of companies that sell laptops with Linux preinstalled - would you like to point out one that sells for $100? Heck, I'll settle for $300.
I guess there's a joke here somewhere about Google having to steal talent from Microsoft, given that Microsoft is usually accused of the same thing.
Yeah, because it's going to be super hard to buy an external USB floppy. Evar.
Like Windows 98, ME, 98SE, 2000 and XP before it.
Like... XP before it?
Who is this mythical "no one"? You?
Reality sucks, doesn't it?
But wait, didn't you say this when Windows 95 came out? And then with Windows 98 and 2000? And then again with XP?
I guess it's kinda like predicting "the year of Linux" every year, isn't it? Your track record with prediction is 100% wrong so far, but then again you seem completely detached from reality anyway. Constantly harping that "M$ is going down" on Slashdot will not actually cause that. Hopefully some day you'll realize that.
He is, actually. He's one of those people whose insane hatred of a company probably affects them physically and psycologically in ways we could hardly imagine. There are literally thousands of those offtopic "I'm feeling especially hateful today" posts in both of his Slashdot sockpuppet accounts.
Note that the message in some (some) cases is not the issue - it's the deranged messenger. Unfortunately he's accumulated enough "karma" here that he's allowed to post at +2.
I guess, but I also use XP Pro regularly. In many ways they're essentially the same OS. And my experience with XP mirrors that of W2003, except for the need to occasionally restart the ASP worker process because it goes stupid, which is not an issue on 2003.
As for your other problems, I don't doubt they are real, but I've really never had a problem like that with W2K, XP or 2003. I rarely shut down my workstation except for patch tuesdays, and I can go 30-45 days without rebooting (not that I really care, it's a workstation). Now if I wasn't forced to reboot the OS because I patched the web server... but that's another story.
It's really sad that someone would think they are doing good this way. That they are somehow furthering the goals of free software and convincing anyone of anything with their dumb lies and childish misrepresentations of reality.
You are everything that is wrong with the free software/open source community. You are truly disgraceful.
I don't use InDesign or Photoshop but I do constantly run Visual Studio and other development tools. I'd guess a service debugging session left open for a day is going to be more detrimental to the OS than an open multi-megabyte PSD file, but I might be wrong about that.
Either way, I've never had to reboot Windows to fix a problem caused by an application. Not since the bad days of Win9x anyway.
As for this of course it's being squeezed to the max by the unwashed masses - dammed if they do ("OMFG, M$ IS TEH SUXX"), dammned if they don't ("Hi, we're Eolas. Bend over") and dammned if they screw up and apologize.
And no, they will not unblock it on a per-subscriber basis, at least they wouldn't last time I checked. I believe the only way to get rid of that block is to sign up for one of their business accounts.
Since I run the same Windows these botnets do but none of my four machines happen to be on one (or have ever been on one), what exactly would your plan be for making this stick? What's next, a class action suit against GM for car crashes caused by people talking on their cell phones?