I'm starting to get the feeling, or at least a slight suspicion anyway, that Windows isn't a very good quality operating system. Anyone else noticed that?
Not just Macbooks but iMacs. I have a mid-2010 iMac which is still a useful and usable machine, but since updating to 10.11.4, it sometimes just goes into a hung state when waking up, showing the spinning pizza indefinitely in the login screen (I have it set to require login on wake). Requires a hard power-switch shutdown and reboot to unstick it. Happening about once every three or four days since the OS update.
This happened to me last week. I wasn't streaming or anything, but I was playing Dirt Rally. It was an online stage, which you only get one shot at per day. 30 seconds in, W10 decides it needs to do some upgrading right then, so it collapses my game into a window, throws crap all over the screen and forces a restart. Afterwards, due to Dirt Rally policy of disallowing a stage restart if the game is exited mid-stage, I was unable to have another shot at it. In the overall scheme of things it matters very little, but I was absolutely blown away by the sheer chutzpah of the OS doing that.
I'm a Mac guy, and only use W10 to run this game - it's nothing but a launcher as far as I'm concerned. Macs may be many things (and a great gaming platform isn't one of them, hence I have a PC for that), but I can't imagine a Mac ever doing something this obnoxious. If they ever do, that's the end of me upgrading for sure.
If anyone knows how I can disable this I'm all ears. I have everything else disabled that I can see - location, Cortana, etc, etc, but it STILL thinks it knows better.
There are a lot of assumptions baked into that rather flippant remark. I actually know some women, and most of them actually like sex. Some even enjoy it in cars, though now we're (long) out of our teens, it's not terribly appealing.
If the only way you can imagine having sex is by pressuring a woman into doing something she doesn't want to do, that says much more about you than it does about women. I feel sorry for you.
26% year-over-year br
Makes it sound like they've been declining for several years. They've had their first dip in revenue in 13 years - I think it's a bit early to say if that represents a 26% decline "year over year" or whether it's just a blip. But hey, let's all get on the whole "Apple is doomed!" bandwagon all over again. What is this, the 1990s?
I'm a new and somewhat reluctant user of Windows 10. I only use it as a platform to launch certain games, via Steam. All of its other features (other than what it provides as APIs to games) I don't need. I especially don't need any of this Cortana crap, auto-updates, or other typical PC-type features. I have a Mac for all that stuff.
So what I'd like to ask is how do I disable everything I don't need? Can someone point me to a "minimum Windows 10 for dummies" kind of thing? I've been through all the interface that I can see, but I suspect I'm only scratching the Surfaceâ, because it still acts somewhat intrusively, even interrupting a Dirt Rally session mid-stage the other day to tell me it needed to restart to install an update (and DR's design meant the stage was voided). I despise that behaviour - it must be possible to set things up such that I'm in charge of it, and not the other way around? Any tips or help appreciated!
Agreed. Our Dyson vacuum cleaner gave up the ghost (after 10 years, so it hadn't done that badly, at least by modern expectations). We bought a Miele Classic C1 (with bags). Oh what a joy! The thing actually cleans, and when its bag is full, you throw it in the bin - no asthma-indicuing choking cloud of dust to deal with which leaves the perspex tank on the cleaner filthy and scratched. Dyson's triumph was to convince everyone that - axiomatically - bagless was better, whereas in fact it's way worse. If you have any sort of breathing issues when confronted by a cloud of essentially human waste in dust form, you don't want a bagless vacuum.
Yes, it's a waste of taxpayer's money. But the solution isn't joining the Tea Party. That's like saying the only way to fix a leak in your roof is to move your entire house inside another building that has a non-leaky roof.
At least with Siri, it's up to the user what "persona" (or more specifically, which voice) you choose. I would assume that the other similar services are user-customisable. The entire premise of the article is bogus.
You're not well versed in computer security, obviously. So you apply the assumption that all slashdotters are as ill-informed as yourself. It *is* a lot better than ROT-13 (that comparison is absurdly silly) and if you care to actually read the technical documentation, you might begin to understand it. It's probably not 100% uncrackable, but it's pretty darn close.
I get "normal" battery usage out of my iPhone 4S, which is to say maybe a day if I happen to browse the web a bit, Facebook a bit, make a few calls. 2-3 days on very light usage. But on a recent trip to the US, where I had no cell service, my battery life utterly tanked. I could feel it getting hot in my pocket. My guess was that it was constantly searching for a cell signal it could use, and had ramped up the TX power to max to try and get one. When I twigged and turned off the cellphone feature, battery life returned to normal.
This suggests that if you are in a marginal signal area, your battery could be getting hammered because the phone tries harder to maintain a connection.
Oh, that and the usual suspects - the Facebook app is terrible.
That's called "cutting off your nose to spite your face". It's the exact same thing as people voting for Trump because they hate Obama. You really need to grow up, friends.
I'll take your word for the figure, but that assumes that a) it's a head-on collision and b) the 640kN would be absorbed by the plane rather than the drone. Since the airflow around the plane is designed to flow smoothly, as the aircraft approached the drone would be deflected into the airstream and flow with it (being far lighter than the plane), so if it did hit it would not be anything like a head-on collision. But assuming that it was a worst-case scenario and did hit part of the plane hard enough to generate 640kN, the drone would rapidly disintegrate. Seems like the aircraft would be unlucky to suffer much more than a denting. Going into an engine is likely to be a lot worse, but then, they are designed to take a bird strike.
Serious question: if an aircraft were to hit or suck one of these things into its engines, what would happen? I would imagine that a flimsy construction of metal and plastic would simply vapourize (or glance off if just hitting the exterior) and do no harm. Certainly compared to a goose or other weighty bird, a drone seems like a pretty insubstantial thing.
You're wrong about the 737 - the 737-100, which was the 737 variant around when Concorde was designed, could seat 85-124 depending on configuration. Concorde was 92-128. The 747 was only unveiled the same year Concorde was, so again the Concorde design was contemporary with the 707 rather than the 747. The 707 had a slightly higher seating capacity, but it wasn't vastly more. In the 60s, it probably was anyone's guess how things would go - they'd only just left the propellor era behind. Some thought speed, others capacity. In hindsight, capacity won out, but that was far from obvious in the early 60s when Concorde's specification was fixed.
Well that's weird. I have a very similar GPU (R9 270 @975MHz) but using an i5 CPU. The test said that despite being 0% CPU bound, I only got a 0.4 average fidelity score - almost as low as it goes on the scale. How can that be?
Since my GPU card is low end but up to date, I wasn't expecting top marks or anything, but I wasn't expecting it to be anywhere like that low either. Something's not right.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm starting to get the feeling, or at least a slight suspicion anyway, that Windows isn't a very good quality operating system. Anyone else noticed that?
Not just Macbooks but iMacs. I have a mid-2010 iMac which is still a useful and usable machine, but since updating to 10.11.4, it sometimes just goes into a hung state when waking up, showing the spinning pizza indefinitely in the login screen (I have it set to require login on wake). Requires a hard power-switch shutdown and reboot to unstick it. Happening about once every three or four days since the OS update.
This happened to me last week. I wasn't streaming or anything, but I was playing Dirt Rally. It was an online stage, which you only get one shot at per day. 30 seconds in, W10 decides it needs to do some upgrading right then, so it collapses my game into a window, throws crap all over the screen and forces a restart. Afterwards, due to Dirt Rally policy of disallowing a stage restart if the game is exited mid-stage, I was unable to have another shot at it. In the overall scheme of things it matters very little, but I was absolutely blown away by the sheer chutzpah of the OS doing that.
I'm a Mac guy, and only use W10 to run this game - it's nothing but a launcher as far as I'm concerned. Macs may be many things (and a great gaming platform isn't one of them, hence I have a PC for that), but I can't imagine a Mac ever doing something this obnoxious. If they ever do, that's the end of me upgrading for sure.
If anyone knows how I can disable this I'm all ears. I have everything else disabled that I can see - location, Cortana, etc, etc, but it STILL thinks it knows better.
I'm just amazed there's such a thing as a "sex in moving cars expert".
last time I was in Vegas I was given "promotional" literature advertising that I could get a happy ending limo back to the airport
Since that's a very short ride, I imagine they'll be driving round and round the block. Just another way to inflate the charges, really.
There are a lot of assumptions baked into that rather flippant remark. I actually know some women, and most of them actually like sex. Some even enjoy it in cars, though now we're (long) out of our teens, it's not terribly appealing.
If the only way you can imagine having sex is by pressuring a woman into doing something she doesn't want to do, that says much more about you than it does about women. I feel sorry for you.
26% year-over-year
br Makes it sound like they've been declining for several years. They've had their first dip in revenue in 13 years - I think it's a bit early to say if that represents a 26% decline "year over year" or whether it's just a blip. But hey, let's all get on the whole "Apple is doomed!" bandwagon all over again. What is this, the 1990s?
I'm a new and somewhat reluctant user of Windows 10. I only use it as a platform to launch certain games, via Steam. All of its other features (other than what it provides as APIs to games) I don't need. I especially don't need any of this Cortana crap, auto-updates, or other typical PC-type features. I have a Mac for all that stuff.
So what I'd like to ask is how do I disable everything I don't need? Can someone point me to a "minimum Windows 10 for dummies" kind of thing? I've been through all the interface that I can see, but I suspect I'm only scratching the Surfaceâ, because it still acts somewhat intrusively, even interrupting a Dirt Rally session mid-stage the other day to tell me it needed to restart to install an update (and DR's design meant the stage was voided). I despise that behaviour - it must be possible to set things up such that I'm in charge of it, and not the other way around? Any tips or help appreciated!
Agreed. Our Dyson vacuum cleaner gave up the ghost (after 10 years, so it hadn't done that badly, at least by modern expectations). We bought a Miele Classic C1 (with bags). Oh what a joy! The thing actually cleans, and when its bag is full, you throw it in the bin - no asthma-indicuing choking cloud of dust to deal with which leaves the perspex tank on the cleaner filthy and scratched. Dyson's triumph was to convince everyone that - axiomatically - bagless was better, whereas in fact it's way worse. If you have any sort of breathing issues when confronted by a cloud of essentially human waste in dust form, you don't want a bagless vacuum.
Ads have always been a cancer on the internet. This is just further metastasisation.
Yes, it's a waste of taxpayer's money. But the solution isn't joining the Tea Party. That's like saying the only way to fix a leak in your roof is to move your entire house inside another building that has a non-leaky roof.
At least with Siri, it's up to the user what "persona" (or more specifically, which voice) you choose. I would assume that the other similar services are user-customisable. The entire premise of the article is bogus.
Surely. Has to be. Hasn't it?
You're not well versed in computer security, obviously. So you apply the assumption that all slashdotters are as ill-informed as yourself. It *is* a lot better than ROT-13 (that comparison is absurdly silly) and if you care to actually read the technical documentation, you might begin to understand it. It's probably not 100% uncrackable, but it's pretty darn close.
So, not only do "they" want to add as much hay as possible while they search for the needle, turns out they're not even looking at the right haystack.
The base doesn't change what the number IS, only how it is written down.
Windows 10 is a poor quality operating system. It's surprising how many people appear not to have realised this.
I get "normal" battery usage out of my iPhone 4S, which is to say maybe a day if I happen to browse the web a bit, Facebook a bit, make a few calls. 2-3 days on very light usage. But on a recent trip to the US, where I had no cell service, my battery life utterly tanked. I could feel it getting hot in my pocket. My guess was that it was constantly searching for a cell signal it could use, and had ramped up the TX power to max to try and get one. When I twigged and turned off the cellphone feature, battery life returned to normal.
This suggests that if you are in a marginal signal area, your battery could be getting hammered because the phone tries harder to maintain a connection.
Oh, that and the usual suspects - the Facebook app is terrible.
That's called "cutting off your nose to spite your face". It's the exact same thing as people voting for Trump because they hate Obama. You really need to grow up, friends.
I'll take your word for the figure, but that assumes that a) it's a head-on collision and b) the 640kN would be absorbed by the plane rather than the drone. Since the airflow around the plane is designed to flow smoothly, as the aircraft approached the drone would be deflected into the airstream and flow with it (being far lighter than the plane), so if it did hit it would not be anything like a head-on collision. But assuming that it was a worst-case scenario and did hit part of the plane hard enough to generate 640kN, the drone would rapidly disintegrate. Seems like the aircraft would be unlucky to suffer much more than a denting. Going into an engine is likely to be a lot worse, but then, they are designed to take a bird strike.
Serious question: if an aircraft were to hit or suck one of these things into its engines, what would happen? I would imagine that a flimsy construction of metal and plastic would simply vapourize (or glance off if just hitting the exterior) and do no harm. Certainly compared to a goose or other weighty bird, a drone seems like a pretty insubstantial thing.
far fewer than a 747 or even 737
You're wrong about the 737 - the 737-100, which was the 737 variant around when Concorde was designed, could seat 85-124 depending on configuration. Concorde was 92-128. The 747 was only unveiled the same year Concorde was, so again the Concorde design was contemporary with the 707 rather than the 747. The 707 had a slightly higher seating capacity, but it wasn't vastly more. In the 60s, it probably was anyone's guess how things would go - they'd only just left the propellor era behind. Some thought speed, others capacity. In hindsight, capacity won out, but that was far from obvious in the early 60s when Concorde's specification was fixed.
Confused about the issues? Don't be! Here's my easy one-step guide to taking sides on this issue.
Ask yourself one question: are you a douchebag?
Y: FBI
N: Apple
Well that's weird. I have a very similar GPU (R9 270 @975MHz) but using an i5 CPU. The test said that despite being 0% CPU bound, I only got a 0.4 average fidelity score - almost as low as it goes on the scale. How can that be? Since my GPU card is low end but up to date, I wasn't expecting top marks or anything, but I wasn't expecting it to be anywhere like that low either. Something's not right.
I have come to a conclusion. Windows is not a good quality operating system.