Well color me red, here I thought this kind of testing should have been done prior to release. Guess the new model of software development is to have the users discover the bugs (can I get a smiley on this) instead of paying a QA team to test.
No, color you stupid. Office 2010 hasn't been released yet.
I mean, what the hell, Slashdot! Serious news? On this, the holiest day of the Geek Calendar?
Gah. I think the best thing Slashdot could do this April 1st is to just do nothing at all. In addition to being a joke in itself, they would also be recognizing that they simply can never surpass OMG PONIES. Never.
Using the Internet in general is just painful on the 1st. Everybody thinks they need to do a joke, whether they have a good idea or not, and most of the time it's just an old obvious "joke" that isn't funny anymore. People of the Internet: If you have a good idea, go for it. If not, don't bother.
That said, XKCD has a pretty good one this year. Hint: Try "make me a sandwich":)
Umm, the boxes are all controlled by the same program, so whether or not there is physical separation between them (does that have any meaning in a user interface?) has nothing to do with whether or not the data is collected or not.
And you don't understand the problem. This isn't a trust issue with the Chrome application. If it was, you would have lost the battle as soon as you installed it on your computer. This is a privacy problem (a recurring theme with Google's applications).
The issue that MS is pointing out is that because Chrome combines the address bar and the search box, when you start typing hotmidgetoatmealpor, that information is sent directly to Google so they can do auto-completion/auto-searching. Where it is associated with you. And saved. Forever.
In IE, the search box is a separate entity, and you can turn search suggestions on or off for each search provider. Because of this, the only information sent to MS (or whatever search provider you use) is what you type in the search box. You can visit whatever URLs you want to and Bing/Yahoo/Google will never know about them.
Honestly though, I still struggle to figure out what the point of search suggestions are. I suppose they're helpful for people who don't know what they're looking for, but when I go to Google, I already know what I'm going to search for -- that's why I'm there! That said, I suppose it does provide some entertainment.
I had a college friend who called me in a panic once, she had a paper due the following day and Clippy had popped up and WOULD NOT GO AWAY.
I have to say I find that unlikely considering that the Office assistant does not steal focus away from the program you're using and that moving it out of the way is as difficult as clicking and dragging it to the side of the screen. And the deep, secret menu to get rid of it? Right click and choose "Hide".
Every time this topic comes up, it seems like the people most vehemently against Clippy and MS BOB were the people who never actually even saw or used them. They just see that it's fashionable to hate them and jump on board.
This is perhaps where something like an iPad could help go towards paperless.
When you consider the reasons people print their email, a trinket like the iPad is going completely the wrong direction. The people I've known that print their email usually do so for a few reasons:
- Easier for them to read on paper than a monitor - They can easily annotate with corrective marks, shapes, arrows, comments - Collate and file the message away with other paperwork - Just don't like using computers for whatever reason and prefer a hard copy
Some of these are doable on a computer, but none are as easy on a computer. It's fairly short-sighted and selfish do immediately disregard everyone that prints email as "stupid" or "just stubborn" (as commenters have done in other threads).
Peter Watts describes in much more detail events of the trial and conviction on his blog.
It would be nice to know if there was some evidence besides the accounts of the officer and Watts.
In a previous blog entry Watts mentioned there was video surveillance of the incident that would be used in court, but now he makes no comment on it. Maybe the video wasn't as helpful to him as he first said it would be (or maybe there wasn't any after all).
Because they are expressions of ideas, more like mathematical proofs than real, mechanical, inventions - and neither ideas nor mathematical theories are patentable.
While I'm generally against software patents, this does bother me somewhat. If you come up with an amazing algorithm - which is really just math - to do something, for example, like RSA, why shouldn't you be able to patent the process? An algorithm can be very real in the sense that it takes input (like a machine) runs some process (like a machine) and yields meaningful output (like a machine). Why shouldn't the work that went into the creation of this system be patented (like a machine)?
Yes, the system is abused by people like Amazon and their "one click" crap, but the normal patent system is abused as well. It seems like the real answer is more stringent patent review and oversight, not outright banning of software patents.
An interesting idea would be to require a company applying for a software patents to release the source code. Normal machines can be investigated to determine if they violate an existing patent, why not hold software to the same requirement? If I create algorithm B that takes the same input and yields the same output as your algorithm A, but does it in a completely different way, I'm not in violation of your patent, but the only way to know this is to see the source code for both.
Interesting. I certainly can't speak for IMAX as a whole, but the theater I saw Avatar in was definitely using circular polarization. I was able to move my head any which way and didn't notice any problems with the image.
One thing I DID notice, however, was that at the start of the movie the image associated with the right eye was just slightly out of focus. This was remarkably distracting (especially when text was on the screen). After a few minutes I complained and they eventually fixed it. I would have assumed that they would be extra careful about focus when doing 3D movies, but maybe there are subtleties involved when using two projectors (though I kind of doubt it).
I got headaches only with the Imax version because of the linear polarization which meant if my head was tilted even slightly to the side, there would be ghosting.
I saw the film both at a normal theater (polarized) and IMAX 3D and found the IMAX version to be much more enjoyable. The bigger screen made the entire think much more enveloping: It was more like being in the middle of the action instead of looking through a window into the 3D world.
That's my biggest beef with 3D, actually. Many theaters just aren't built with it in mind. If there is anything in your field of vision that is either illuminated or obstructing the screen, it will completely destroy the illusion of depth and drive your eyes and mind nuts. Even just the black border of the theater wall against the screen was enough to distract at times (as I said above, the "through a window" effect).
That's essentially true, but I don't think movies are simply about story telling -- movies are more about story immersion. You aren't just being told a story, you are experiencing the story through sight, sound (including the associated physical vibration), dialog, etc. In this way I think that 3D can be more than just a scam. As the summary said, Avatar's 3D really was incredibly well done. It could have been better; I read that Cameron originally wanted to film at about 60 fps but Fox shot him down, but this would have helped with both brightness and strobing issues. Once you become accustomed to the 3D picture, it really was a more immersive experience.
Of course, I think it makes no sense at all to go and "convert" older standard films into 3D, especially because what you get isn't even really 3D. You just can't present more information to the audience than you started with. Avatar was filmed with multiple cameras and therefore had the information needed to present a real 3D stereoscopic image. The Wizard of Oz wasn't.
Personally I think that well-executed 3D is a great boon to theaters because it provides (at least currently) a much needed physical reason for people to go to the theater to see a movie instead of just waiting to watch it at home. Hopefully they don't kill off this opportunity for themselves by overdoing or abusing it.
As for c++, modern (i.e. good!) c++ code should look very much like python, except that it is statically typed, of course: Pointers should be avoided. No char*, definitely no manual memory management. No "delete"s. Only strings and vectors. Segmentation faults usual indicate that programming skills need to be updated...
You're kidding, right? If you think "good" C++ code avoids all use of pointers, new and delete then you have obviously never worked on a project of any meaningful size or scope. Pointers and heap allocation methods are very much part of "good" C++ code.
Resources have been and always will be a great excuse to go to war. Considering the unsustainable growth rate of the human species it is only a matter of time before incredibly populous countries (for example, China) decide that they need to expand. The only thing keeping them from choosing to expand into the US is our military. The only thing keeping them from expanding into Russia is the Russian military. Same goes for Japan and so on.
In addition to large powers like China there are smaller powers that would love to increase their stature. If a country like North Korea didn't fear retaliation, do you think Kim Jong-il would still be content to be just the Supreme Leader of North Korea and not Super Duper Supreme Leader of Asia?
Anyone who really thinks the world has become flowers and rainbows enough that we should just disband the military needs to wake up and look around. While I agree that the US shouldn't be some kind of world police, the deterrent that our military offers (and Russia's military, and the UK, etc) against attack is absolutely important. While a strong military alone won't prevent all war, it is awful nice to have around when a war does start.
So what it really comes down to is whether one really wants (in this case) a WiFi finder. I certainly won't miss such apps.
First they came for the VoIP apps, and I did not speak out--because I had unlimited minutes; Then they came for the erotic apps, and I did not speak out--because I am religous; Then they came for the WiFi stumblers, and I did not speak out--because I do not need one; Then they came for my app--and no one spoke for me because 'Apple knows best'.
A little melodramatic, maybe, but still somewhat apt I think. Apple has shown they have no qualms about removing entire categories of applications for the iPhone, all without provocation, explanation, or compensation. Anyone who depends on (develops for or uses) the iPhone in a serious business or financial sense is crazy.
Be interesting to see if this has any effect on browser usage statistics. Would be hilariously funny if IE actually gains traction.
Actually, it is much more likely that IE will lose market share from this when you consider that most users:
are happy with what they have
are not expecting a dialog box to jump at them
do not understand the reason for such a dialog
do not care what the dialog box says
will just want the dialog box to go away
Most of them will simply click a button at random, all while wondering why their Windows is so annoying and hard to use. The most amazing thing is that some people still think this is a good thing:
"Millions of people who have never really thought about which browser to use will now be forced to make a choice," said BBC technology correspondent Rory Cellan-Jones on his blog.
When did forcing users to make a choice they don't really understand become good design? Oh, that's right, it never did and this whole thing is a farce.
a novel way to prevent them: by drafting contracts that hold developers responsible when bugs creep into applications
Holding a gun to somebody's head won't make them a better developer.
I don't understand why well-known and tested techniques can't be used to catch these bugs. There are many ways to help ensure code quality stays high, from good automated and manual testing to full-on code reviews. The problem is that most companies aren't willing to spend the money on them and most open source projects don't have the manpower to dedicate to testing and review.
TFA seems like it's just looking for somebody to blame when the axe falls. If your method of preventing bugs is to fire everybody that makes a programming mistake pretty soon you won't have any developers left.
What is it about current marketting groups that somehow destines them to come up with the worst possible name, especially when re-branding something? Xfinity? Oh wow, it starts with X and has 'infinity' in it! Pure win! That name is so bad I'd almost cancel my Comcast service just so I don't have to hear it again (to be fair, I've had really good luck with Comcast. It's only been down once in about 5 years and speeds are usually great).
With the X, I know what you are thinking. It's a marketing thing. You see, I wanted to call the show `Going to other planets' but research says that shows with X in the name get better ratings.
I can see the commercials already: "Prepare for X-treme Internet access. Our X-cellent service will go X-traordinary lengths to serve you!"
Please tell me you're joking. The movie I, Robot may have been okay if it were simply a standalone film, but as an "adaption" of Asimov's book it was a travesty. About the only thing the book had in common with the movie was the title.
While overly satirical and lacking in details, Maddox's review isn't all that far from the mark.
All I can figure is that you're one of the upper-level MS sales execs astroturfing Slashdot.
Nope. Just a system administrator who is planning on migrating to Win7 this year. A few simple Google queries resulted in finding this page which is pretty comprehensive and has the essential information needed by any competent sysadmin planning a migration.
I have a machine, purchased by my employer that has to be validated against the key server at the office.
The machine however is at my house. The only way to make it validate is to ensure that I'm connected to the VPN when it attempts to find its key.
You shouldn't be using a KMS-licensed computer away from the KMS server for such a long time. The whole point of KMS is to reduce licensing headaches by having clients automatically aquire a volume license and activate themselves, all without going over the Internet. Removing such a machine from the local network completely invalidates this.
If you have a computer at home, it should be converted to a MAK license so that it doesn't need to communicate with the KMS server. Anyone mildly familiar with Windows 7 volume licensing should know this. I suggest you (or your system administrator) take a look at the Win7 Volume Activation Deployment Guide and the Volume Activation Planning Guide. You know, the things you should read before you do a wide-scale deployment of a new system.
I'll probably end up cracking my legit install to stop this stupid behavior.
So instead of connecting to your VPN four times a year, you'll put yourself in a position of almost certainly getting blacklisted? That makes sense.
Also wrong. Windows (and NTFS) can easily replace files that are in use with alternative versions.
There are a lot of misconceptions caused by people assuming that just because Windows doesn't usually do something it can't do something. Windows and the NT kernel also support hotpatching, but it isn't widely used do to the complicated and very careful scrutiny that needs to be made by system administrators that want to apply the patch.
Also, remember that NTFS is a fully POSIX compliant filesystem. It has a lot more functionality available that just what is exposed through the normal Win32 API.
Yeah, I love the updates that require a reboot so they can install another update that then requires another reboot.
Ah, see now you're confusing Microsoft with Adobe. Adobe is terrible at requiring reboots for the most trivial tasks. At one point updating Acrobat Reader from the original 7.0 release to the then-newest 7.8 release took 8 restarts.
I'll buy rebooting the system when the kernel is updated, or core services (lsass, winlogon, csrss, etc) get patched, but Acrobat!? The people who write the installers for Adobe's products have long been my arch nemesises (nemesi?) for this very reason.
Slashdot Mirror
Well color me red, here I thought this kind of testing should have been done prior to release. Guess the new model of software development is to have the users discover the bugs (can I get a smiley on this) instead of paying a QA team to test.
No, color you stupid. Office 2010 hasn't been released yet.
Nice try though.
I mean, what the hell, Slashdot! Serious news? On this, the holiest day of the Geek Calendar?
Gah. I think the best thing Slashdot could do this April 1st is to just do nothing at all. In addition to being a joke in itself, they would also be recognizing that they simply can never surpass OMG PONIES. Never.
Using the Internet in general is just painful on the 1st. Everybody thinks they need to do a joke, whether they have a good idea or not, and most of the time it's just an old obvious "joke" that isn't funny anymore. People of the Internet: If you have a good idea, go for it. If not, don't bother.
That said, XKCD has a pretty good one this year. Hint: Try "make me a sandwich" :)
Umm, the boxes are all controlled by the same program, so whether or not there is physical separation between them (does that have any meaning in a user interface?) has nothing to do with whether or not the data is collected or not.
And you don't understand the problem. This isn't a trust issue with the Chrome application. If it was, you would have lost the battle as soon as you installed it on your computer. This is a privacy problem (a recurring theme with Google's applications).
The issue that MS is pointing out is that because Chrome combines the address bar and the search box, when you start typing hotmidgetoatmealpor, that information is sent directly to Google so they can do auto-completion/auto-searching. Where it is associated with you. And saved. Forever.
In IE, the search box is a separate entity, and you can turn search suggestions on or off for each search provider. Because of this, the only information sent to MS (or whatever search provider you use) is what you type in the search box. You can visit whatever URLs you want to and Bing/Yahoo/Google will never know about them.
Honestly though, I still struggle to figure out what the point of search suggestions are. I suppose they're helpful for people who don't know what they're looking for, but when I go to Google, I already know what I'm going to search for -- that's why I'm there! That said, I suppose it does provide some entertainment.
I had a college friend who called me in a panic once, she had a paper due the following day and Clippy had popped up and WOULD NOT GO AWAY.
I have to say I find that unlikely considering that the Office assistant does not steal focus away from the program you're using and that moving it out of the way is as difficult as clicking and dragging it to the side of the screen. And the deep, secret menu to get rid of it? Right click and choose "Hide".
Every time this topic comes up, it seems like the people most vehemently against Clippy and MS BOB were the people who never actually even saw or used them. They just see that it's fashionable to hate them and jump on board.
This is perhaps where something like an iPad could help go towards paperless.
When you consider the reasons people print their email, a trinket like the iPad is going completely the wrong direction. The people I've known that print their email usually do so for a few reasons:
- Easier for them to read on paper than a monitor
- They can easily annotate with corrective marks, shapes, arrows, comments
- Collate and file the message away with other paperwork
- Just don't like using computers for whatever reason and prefer a hard copy
Some of these are doable on a computer, but none are as easy on a computer. It's fairly short-sighted and selfish do immediately disregard everyone that prints email as "stupid" or "just stubborn" (as commenters have done in other threads).
Peter Watts describes in much more detail events of the trial and conviction on his blog.
It would be nice to know if there was some evidence besides the accounts of the officer and Watts.
In a previous blog entry Watts mentioned there was video surveillance of the incident that would be used in court, but now he makes no comment on it. Maybe the video wasn't as helpful to him as he first said it would be (or maybe there wasn't any after all).
Because they are expressions of ideas, more like mathematical proofs than real, mechanical, inventions - and neither ideas nor mathematical theories are patentable.
While I'm generally against software patents, this does bother me somewhat. If you come up with an amazing algorithm - which is really just math - to do something, for example, like RSA, why shouldn't you be able to patent the process? An algorithm can be very real in the sense that it takes input (like a machine) runs some process (like a machine) and yields meaningful output (like a machine). Why shouldn't the work that went into the creation of this system be patented (like a machine)?
Yes, the system is abused by people like Amazon and their "one click" crap, but the normal patent system is abused as well. It seems like the real answer is more stringent patent review and oversight, not outright banning of software patents.
An interesting idea would be to require a company applying for a software patents to release the source code. Normal machines can be investigated to determine if they violate an existing patent, why not hold software to the same requirement? If I create algorithm B that takes the same input and yields the same output as your algorithm A, but does it in a completely different way, I'm not in violation of your patent, but the only way to know this is to see the source code for both.
Interesting. I certainly can't speak for IMAX as a whole, but the theater I saw Avatar in was definitely using circular polarization. I was able to move my head any which way and didn't notice any problems with the image.
One thing I DID notice, however, was that at the start of the movie the image associated with the right eye was just slightly out of focus. This was remarkably distracting (especially when text was on the screen). After a few minutes I complained and they eventually fixed it. I would have assumed that they would be extra careful about focus when doing 3D movies, but maybe there are subtleties involved when using two projectors (though I kind of doubt it).
I got headaches only with the Imax version because of the linear polarization which meant if my head was tilted even slightly to the side, there would be ghosting.
Actually, IMAX 3D uses circular polarization.
I saw the film both at a normal theater (polarized) and IMAX 3D and found the IMAX version to be much more enjoyable. The bigger screen made the entire think much more enveloping: It was more like being in the middle of the action instead of looking through a window into the 3D world.
That's my biggest beef with 3D, actually. Many theaters just aren't built with it in mind. If there is anything in your field of vision that is either illuminated or obstructing the screen, it will completely destroy the illusion of depth and drive your eyes and mind nuts. Even just the black border of the theater wall against the screen was enough to distract at times (as I said above, the "through a window" effect).
Frankly, 3D has nothing to do with story telling.
That's essentially true, but I don't think movies are simply about story telling -- movies are more about story immersion. You aren't just being told a story, you are experiencing the story through sight, sound (including the associated physical vibration), dialog, etc. In this way I think that 3D can be more than just a scam. As the summary said, Avatar's 3D really was incredibly well done. It could have been better; I read that Cameron originally wanted to film at about 60 fps but Fox shot him down, but this would have helped with both brightness and strobing issues. Once you become accustomed to the 3D picture, it really was a more immersive experience.
Of course, I think it makes no sense at all to go and "convert" older standard films into 3D, especially because what you get isn't even really 3D. You just can't present more information to the audience than you started with. Avatar was filmed with multiple cameras and therefore had the information needed to present a real 3D stereoscopic image. The Wizard of Oz wasn't.
Personally I think that well-executed 3D is a great boon to theaters because it provides (at least currently) a much needed physical reason for people to go to the theater to see a movie instead of just waiting to watch it at home. Hopefully they don't kill off this opportunity for themselves by overdoing or abusing it.
As for c++, modern (i.e. good!) c++ code should look very much like python, except that it is statically typed, of course: Pointers should be avoided. No char*, definitely no manual memory management. No "delete"s. Only strings and vectors. Segmentation faults usual indicate that programming skills need to be updated...
You're kidding, right? If you think "good" C++ code avoids all use of pointers, new and delete then you have obviously never worked on a project of any meaningful size or scope. Pointers and heap allocation methods are very much part of "good" C++ code.
We face no external threats, militarily speaking.
Resources have been and always will be a great excuse to go to war. Considering the unsustainable growth rate of the human species it is only a matter of time before incredibly populous countries (for example, China) decide that they need to expand. The only thing keeping them from choosing to expand into the US is our military. The only thing keeping them from expanding into Russia is the Russian military. Same goes for Japan and so on.
In addition to large powers like China there are smaller powers that would love to increase their stature. If a country like North Korea didn't fear retaliation, do you think Kim Jong-il would still be content to be just the Supreme Leader of North Korea and not Super Duper Supreme Leader of Asia?
Anyone who really thinks the world has become flowers and rainbows enough that we should just disband the military needs to wake up and look around. While I agree that the US shouldn't be some kind of world police, the deterrent that our military offers (and Russia's military, and the UK, etc) against attack is absolutely important. While a strong military alone won't prevent all war, it is awful nice to have around when a war does start.
Good fences make good neighbors.
It's time for us to discard our empire.
That's cute. Which empire was that again?
So what it really comes down to is whether one really wants (in this case) a WiFi finder. I certainly won't miss such apps.
A little melodramatic, maybe, but still somewhat apt I think. Apple has shown they have no qualms about removing entire categories of applications for the iPhone, all without provocation, explanation, or compensation. Anyone who depends on (develops for or uses) the iPhone in a serious business or financial sense is crazy.
I really hate these new features. It doesn't seem like there's a way to disable them too. :(
Disable Aero Snap
Good tunes are good tunes. What's their problem?
Computers can compose music for less money and in greater quantity than humans.
Be interesting to see if this has any effect on browser usage statistics. Would be hilariously funny if IE actually gains traction.
Actually, it is much more likely that IE will lose market share from this when you consider that most users:
Most of them will simply click a button at random, all while wondering why their Windows is so annoying and hard to use. The most amazing thing is that some people still think this is a good thing:
When did forcing users to make a choice they don't really understand become good design? Oh, that's right, it never did and this whole thing is a farce.
Holding a gun to somebody's head won't make them a better developer.
I don't understand why well-known and tested techniques can't be used to catch these bugs. There are many ways to help ensure code quality stays high, from good automated and manual testing to full-on code reviews. The problem is that most companies aren't willing to spend the money on them and most open source projects don't have the manpower to dedicate to testing and review.
TFA seems like it's just looking for somebody to blame when the axe falls. If your method of preventing bugs is to fire everybody that makes a programming mistake pretty soon you won't have any developers left.
What is it about current marketting groups that somehow destines them to come up with the worst possible name, especially when re-branding something? Xfinity? Oh wow, it starts with X and has 'infinity' in it! Pure win! That name is so bad I'd almost cancel my Comcast service just so I don't have to hear it again (to be fair, I've had really good luck with Comcast. It's only been down once in about 5 years and speeds are usually great).
Reminds me of the line in Wormhole X-Treme!:
I can see the commercials already: "Prepare for X-treme Internet access. Our X-cellent service will go X-traordinary lengths to serve you!"
Blegh.
This definitely would not have been posted here ten years ago.
Of course not. Ten years ago it would have been "Father of the Frisbee Dies At 80".
What bothers me more is that, from what I can tell, Netcraft hasn't confirmed this yet. Are we sure this isn't another hoax?
I Robot is a pretty decent film
Please tell me you're joking. The movie I, Robot may have been okay if it were simply a standalone film, but as an "adaption" of Asimov's book it was a travesty. About the only thing the book had in common with the movie was the title.
While overly satirical and lacking in details, Maddox's review isn't all that far from the mark.
All I can figure is that you're one of the upper-level MS sales execs astroturfing Slashdot.
Nope. Just a system administrator who is planning on migrating to Win7 this year. A few simple Google queries resulted in finding this page which is pretty comprehensive and has the essential information needed by any competent sysadmin planning a migration.
I have a machine, purchased by my employer that has to be validated against the key server at the office.
The machine however is at my house. The only way to make it validate is to ensure that I'm connected to the VPN when it attempts to find its key.
You shouldn't be using a KMS-licensed computer away from the KMS server for such a long time. The whole point of KMS is to reduce licensing headaches by having clients automatically aquire a volume license and activate themselves, all without going over the Internet. Removing such a machine from the local network completely invalidates this.
If you have a computer at home, it should be converted to a MAK license so that it doesn't need to communicate with the KMS server. Anyone mildly familiar with Windows 7 volume licensing should know this. I suggest you (or your system administrator) take a look at the Win7 Volume Activation Deployment Guide and the Volume Activation Planning Guide. You know, the things you should read before you do a wide-scale deployment of a new system.
I'll probably end up cracking my legit install to stop this stupid behavior.
So instead of connecting to your VPN four times a year, you'll put yourself in a position of almost certainly getting blacklisted? That makes sense.
It's not the kernel. It's the filesystem.
Also wrong. Windows (and NTFS) can easily replace files that are in use with alternative versions.
There are a lot of misconceptions caused by people assuming that just because Windows doesn't usually do something it can't do something. Windows and the NT kernel also support hotpatching, but it isn't widely used do to the complicated and very careful scrutiny that needs to be made by system administrators that want to apply the patch.
Also, remember that NTFS is a fully POSIX compliant filesystem. It has a lot more functionality available that just what is exposed through the normal Win32 API.
It's supposed to be a microkernel
Wrong. The Windows NT kernel is a hybrid kernel, not a microkernel. Mark Russinovich also confirms this in his Windows Internals book series.
Microkernels aren't used almost anywhere in production because of efficiency problems.
Yeah, I love the updates that require a reboot so they can install another update that then requires another reboot.
Ah, see now you're confusing Microsoft with Adobe. Adobe is terrible at requiring reboots for the most trivial tasks. At one point updating Acrobat Reader from the original 7.0 release to the then-newest 7.8 release took 8 restarts.
I'll buy rebooting the system when the kernel is updated, or core services (lsass, winlogon, csrss, etc) get patched, but Acrobat!? The people who write the installers for Adobe's products have long been my arch nemesises (nemesi?) for this very reason.