I always want what's most popular. That's definitely the most important feature of things like stores. Price, flexibility, options are not that important, just give me something that everyone else has.
"In addition to these features, Windows Vista can clean many worms, viruses, rootkits and spyware thereby ensuring the integrity of the operating system and the privacy of users' data."
Maybe you are not familiar with PE, but it's a 32-bit OS, with full device driver compatibility (uses XP drivers) that also will execute shell scripts (VBS, and various other laguages supported). It's really the next generation DOS (in your context of DOS), and there will be a new version shipped with Windows Vista.
You're way off here, did you read the article? Are you not agreeing with the article's breakdown of cost? He lays it out pretty convincingly in terms of $/kg. Can you provide any sort of data like the author has provided that shows it will cost more than the author has stated? Rockets have a pretty serious limitation on the mass that can be lifted. There are things that "cheap rocket flights" just can't do, at ANY cost.
And also note that what you can buy in the store today (very few of which is called Duck Tape, mind you) is not recommended for use in ducting. Now-a-days there are special fabrics and special adhesives that are used to tape ducts. These new tape technologies reduce toxins in ducts and maintain effectiveness under excessive heat and cold. The building codes in many parts of the US specify exactly what type of tape you can use on your ducts, and today's traditional duct tape is not allowed in those cases.
So really either name doesn't reflect today's true nature at all.
Yes, and it will be a great day when they get the XML doc format into production on Office. Which makes a lot of sense. I don't think consumers are going to pay the hefty price tag for Office for much longer anyway, so it makes business sense to open it up and allow consumers to use leaner software but still share files with work, friends, etc.
DOS word document? I guess I underestimated the files you were referring to. DOS-based Word is 10 year-old software. Backwards compatibility for such old software is, IMO not necessary or required. I prefer software that abandons the older technology quicker rather than hanging on to it.
Seriously....Word for DOS. That belongs in a museum, not on a computer. What, you got a 386 running that?
The word processing that was in Works is not the same as Microsoft Word. They didn't break any sort of compatibility between versions.
Most people in this thread who want basic word processing should be comparing the various Mac word processing software to Works, not MS Word. MS Word has way more integrated enterprise and work-group features than a regular consumer will ever want to take advantage of. Most people who migrate away from Word to OO or others just want a word processor, not a collaboration tool, so they shouldn't be buying MS Office in the first place, they should buy Works, or...better yet....download Open Office or other free word processors.
Comparing any of those basic tools to Office just doesn't make sense. Apples and oranges.
Maybe you're not listening! How do you explain the fact that Clinton (the last Democrat in the presidency) did NOTHING like what you say with the national treasury? I think you are just a pawn to the conservative media. You should start thinking for yourself and realize that you are being manipulated into thinking that the Democrats only want to spend our money. It's just not true. I challenge you to produce a single fact that shows that a Democratic president has spent more money than Bush.
Even if Gore went to War and/or Kerry took the same actions as Bush, the spending would have been far less, because we would have saved money from Halliburton, etc. And the Dems wouldn't have blown $700+ trillion on a prescription drug program that's useless. Not to mention the insane money blown on hastily organized HSA and TSA.
Well, your generalization about Democrats is wrong, too. Name the only president to balance the budget and eliminate the defecit in the last 30 years. That's right...a Democrat!
Maybe you are too young to remember this, but Reagan also blew the budget while claiming to be fiscally conservative. FACE IT, Republicans are NOT fiscally conservative. They are members of the good-old-boy network and they "take care of their own". Surely you know that one huge leak of money from this administration is the no-bid contract and subsequent embezzlement by Halliburton. Screw the people that really need it, let's give it to a bunch of conservative old guys! Sure, let's give the regular folk a tax cut....but then we'll just take it out of "credit" and run a defecit government for a while...plus we'll force the next Democratic president figure out how to pay off the Republicans spending. What genius, if only it weren't so evil.
What gives toiletmonster? You have nothing to say about the poster's comments on Bush's record spending, huge deficit and rising inflation (along with interest rates)?
I thought you said you were more concerned about economics than social issues? You simply cannot say that these key economic indicators are somehow good. You are defending the indefensible!
You're completely wrong. So far, we have smoking bans in NYC and Texas being supported by two of the biggest republicans out there....Bloomberg and Rove. Face it, the republicans in power now (not the good old days, eh?) want to have big government controlling how I live my life. Personally, I value my freedom and I want it protected from both the mainstream republicans AND the fringe democrats.
The prevailing conservative position is to have a very large government that does NOT let you decide for yourself. Even if you come up with a list of things that fringe democrats (that have no power) want to ban, it pales in comparison to the list of personal freedoms that republicans have the power to ban right now!
So, are you saying that anything Snopes says is true? Don't believe everything you read, young friend!
Try doing some non-internet (pre-80s) research and you'll find most of the efforts Gore took up with regard to creating the internet backbone we all use today.
It's people like you, ugmoe, (and Matt Drudge) that take a single reference or source (no matter the reliability) to state something as fact. That's a dangerous way to live, when people can invent facts. Kind of reminds me of scientific thought in the 18th and 19th centuries.
Actually, you're wrong. Without the governmental sponsorship that Gore pushed for, the internet would not have progressed nearly as quickly in the early 90's. I guess it's possible you're not old enough to remember those days, but the internet hardware then was creaky, slow and unreliable. Hard to imagine, but we have a much stronger backbone today because of a Democrat!
OK...that's your interpretation/opinion on it. Do you think his contributions to the building of the internet are not noteworthy?
Personally, I see a big difference between invented and created. Inventing something is starting with nothing and dreaming up a system of functionality. Creating something is taking some instructions or guidlines and forming them into a cohesive entity. Something must be invented before it can be created.
Based on the Congressional records, it appears that he did, in fact, pass the law that validated the existence of the internet within the governmental realm of the FCC. Thus 'creating' something (albeit something governmental) from the many 'inventions' that led up to what we use today (TCP/IP, WWW, HTML).
So, someone goes to the store looking for a video game to innocently drive around in a virtual environment and picks out GTA...yeah....right. The typical kid that buys GTA is buying it FOR the violence.
I can see a parent letting their kid take the controls in GTA and driving around, smashing stuff up...no problem. But when the point of the game is mayhem, crime and graphic violence, then the parent should probably be there to make sure they don't figure out the controls and whack some hos and kill some bitches!
The issue is whether it's appropriate for children to play the graphic portion of the game, not the innocent parts. Is it unhealthy or healthy for children to witness violent acts against innocent people in a realistic fashion...and with video games, view that over and over again and take an active role. Some posters on this subject seem to think it's OK to have children play this game.
Who is recommending that parents watch porno with children? What does that have to do with this? Thats outright sick and really far from what i'm talking about.
Good, then you understand MY point about how sick it is to play GTA with your children.
I have no idea where teenagers came into this conversation, because all I have been saying is that it is sick (IMO) that people think it's OK for children to play GTA (again, not teenagers....don't know why you are focused on that, unless you are a teenager yourself).
And OBVIOUSLY, government making a law is idiotic...the parents are the ones responsible for raising children, not the government.
Slashdot Mirror
I always want what's most popular. That's definitely the most important feature of things like stores. Price, flexibility, options are not that important, just give me something that everyone else has.
According to this link, Vista will include some protection against rootkits:
Windows Vista Security and Data Protection Improvements
"In addition to these features, Windows Vista can clean many worms, viruses, rootkits and spyware thereby ensuring the integrity of the operating system and the privacy of users' data."
Maybe you are not familiar with PE, but it's a 32-bit OS, with full device driver compatibility (uses XP drivers) that also will execute shell scripts (VBS, and various other laguages supported). It's really the next generation DOS (in your context of DOS), and there will be a new version shipped with Windows Vista.
You should check out the RPC over HTTP feature in Exchange Server 2003. It does exactly what you want with a few other features built in.
a lther/RPC_over_HTTP.asp
http://www.outlookexchange.com/articles/HenrikW
You're way off here, did you read the article? Are you not agreeing with the article's breakdown of cost? He lays it out pretty convincingly in terms of $/kg. Can you provide any sort of data like the author has provided that shows it will cost more than the author has stated? Rockets have a pretty serious limitation on the mass that can be lifted. There are things that "cheap rocket flights" just can't do, at ANY cost.
And also note that what you can buy in the store today (very few of which is called Duck Tape, mind you) is not recommended for use in ducting. Now-a-days there are special fabrics and special adhesives that are used to tape ducts. These new tape technologies reduce toxins in ducts and maintain effectiveness under excessive heat and cold. The building codes in many parts of the US specify exactly what type of tape you can use on your ducts, and today's traditional duct tape is not allowed in those cases.
So really either name doesn't reflect today's true nature at all.
Note that the article says that he worked for those companies, it does not say that he lived there.
There was just an article on Slashdot about how to build a cheap RAID 5. Read it, and there's your answer.
/ 25/1720258&tid=198&tid=222&tid=137
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/06
Yes, and it will be a great day when they get the XML doc format into production on Office. Which makes a lot of sense. I don't think consumers are going to pay the hefty price tag for Office for much longer anyway, so it makes business sense to open it up and allow consumers to use leaner software but still share files with work, friends, etc.
DOS word document? I guess I underestimated the files you were referring to. DOS-based Word is 10 year-old software. Backwards compatibility for such old software is, IMO not necessary or required. I prefer software that abandons the older technology quicker rather than hanging on to it.
Seriously....Word for DOS. That belongs in a museum, not on a computer. What, you got a 386 running that?
More home users of computers in general? That doesn't sound correct to me.
Or do you mean more Mac users at home than in corporations?
I'm pretty sure there are more corporate PCs in the US than consumer's home PCs.
Anyone have any data?
The word processing that was in Works is not the same as Microsoft Word. They didn't break any sort of compatibility between versions.
Most people in this thread who want basic word processing should be comparing the various Mac word processing software to Works, not MS Word. MS Word has way more integrated enterprise and work-group features than a regular consumer will ever want to take advantage of. Most people who migrate away from Word to OO or others just want a word processor, not a collaboration tool, so they shouldn't be buying MS Office in the first place, they should buy Works, or...better yet....download Open Office or other free word processors.
Comparing any of those basic tools to Office just doesn't make sense. Apples and oranges.
Excel has some amazing features that blow away any other spreadsheet software. Of course, these same features are taken advantage of by hackers :(
Maybe you're not listening! How do you explain the fact that Clinton (the last Democrat in the presidency) did NOTHING like what you say with the national treasury? I think you are just a pawn to the conservative media. You should start thinking for yourself and realize that you are being manipulated into thinking that the Democrats only want to spend our money. It's just not true. I challenge you to produce a single fact that shows that a Democratic president has spent more money than Bush.
Yes. It would be incredibly easy to have spent less than Bush. Read this excellent study on spending in this administration, and you will probably be shredding your Republican Party membership card.
Even if Gore went to War and/or Kerry took the same actions as Bush, the spending would have been far less, because we would have saved money from Halliburton, etc. And the Dems wouldn't have blown $700+ trillion on a prescription drug program that's useless. Not to mention the insane money blown on hastily organized HSA and TSA.
Well, your generalization about Democrats is wrong, too. Name the only president to balance the budget and eliminate the defecit in the last 30 years. That's right...a Democrat!
Maybe you are too young to remember this, but Reagan also blew the budget while claiming to be fiscally conservative. FACE IT, Republicans are NOT fiscally conservative. They are members of the good-old-boy network and they "take care of their own". Surely you know that one huge leak of money from this administration is the no-bid contract and subsequent embezzlement by Halliburton. Screw the people that really need it, let's give it to a bunch of conservative old guys! Sure, let's give the regular folk a tax cut....but then we'll just take it out of "credit" and run a defecit government for a while...plus we'll force the next Democratic president figure out how to pay off the Republicans spending. What genius, if only it weren't so evil.
What gives toiletmonster? You have nothing to say about the poster's comments on Bush's record spending, huge deficit and rising inflation (along with interest rates)?
I thought you said you were more concerned about economics than social issues? You simply cannot say that these key economic indicators are somehow good. You are defending the indefensible!
You're completely wrong. So far, we have smoking bans in NYC and Texas being supported by two of the biggest republicans out there....Bloomberg and Rove. Face it, the republicans in power now (not the good old days, eh?) want to have big government controlling how I live my life. Personally, I value my freedom and I want it protected from both the mainstream republicans AND the fringe democrats.
The prevailing conservative position is to have a very large government that does NOT let you decide for yourself. Even if you come up with a list of things that fringe democrats (that have no power) want to ban, it pales in comparison to the list of personal freedoms that republicans have the power to ban right now!
So, are you saying that anything Snopes says is true? Don't believe everything you read, young friend!
Try doing some non-internet (pre-80s) research and you'll find most of the efforts Gore took up with regard to creating the internet backbone we all use today.
It's people like you, ugmoe, (and Matt Drudge) that take a single reference or source (no matter the reliability) to state something as fact. That's a dangerous way to live, when people can invent facts. Kind of reminds me of scientific thought in the 18th and 19th centuries.
Actually, you're wrong. Without the governmental sponsorship that Gore pushed for, the internet would not have progressed nearly as quickly in the early 90's. I guess it's possible you're not old enough to remember those days, but the internet hardware then was creaky, slow and unreliable. Hard to imagine, but we have a much stronger backbone today because of a Democrat!
OK...that's your interpretation/opinion on it. Do you think his contributions to the building of the internet are not noteworthy?
Personally, I see a big difference between invented and created. Inventing something is starting with nothing and dreaming up a system of functionality. Creating something is taking some instructions or guidlines and forming them into a cohesive entity. Something must be invented before it can be created.
Based on the Congressional records, it appears that he did, in fact, pass the law that validated the existence of the internet within the governmental realm of the FCC. Thus 'creating' something (albeit something governmental) from the many 'inventions' that led up to what we use today (TCP/IP, WWW, HTML).
So, someone goes to the store looking for a video game to innocently drive around in a virtual environment and picks out GTA...yeah....right. The typical kid that buys GTA is buying it FOR the violence.
I can see a parent letting their kid take the controls in GTA and driving around, smashing stuff up...no problem. But when the point of the game is mayhem, crime and graphic violence, then the parent should probably be there to make sure they don't figure out the controls and whack some hos and kill some bitches!
The issue is whether it's appropriate for children to play the graphic portion of the game, not the innocent parts. Is it unhealthy or healthy for children to witness violent acts against innocent people in a realistic fashion...and with video games, view that over and over again and take an active role. Some posters on this subject seem to think it's OK to have children play this game.
Who is recommending that parents watch porno with children? What does that have to do with this? Thats outright sick and really far from what i'm talking about.
Good, then you understand MY point about how sick it is to play GTA with your children.
I have no idea where teenagers came into this conversation, because all I have been saying is that it is sick (IMO) that people think it's OK for children to play GTA (again, not teenagers....don't know why you are focused on that, unless you are a teenager yourself).
And OBVIOUSLY, government making a law is idiotic...the parents are the ones responsible for raising children, not the government.
Oh, but if all Mac users were like you! Life would truly be a wonderful place!
Note to self....there is at least ONE Mac user that is not a zealot and does not evangelize!