Please define "so quickly." It does boot quickly, in comparison to what I gave, as well as older Windows versions (in my experience, on my machine, etc). I certainly didn't try to make it sound like their boot-time had reached the final end-goal and they could not longer improve on it...
And I'm fairly certain that Ubuntu lists boot times as improvement items, too. If they don't, then I'd be pretty shocked. I'm fairly certain that is consistently talked about every release... for both OS's.
You are presuming I don't know what I'm talking about.:)
The time from login screen to having Chrome running is perceptibly slightly less in Windows 7 than Ubuntu on my machine (which, by the way, isn't anything weird - just a P5N-D, Q6600, and an 8800).
I am measuring from power on to usable computer. I have also noticed that some amount does load while I type in my password... such that if I let the login screen sit for about 5-10 seconds, it doesn't have a slight pause between login and desktop. More user-startup services slows this down, of course.
And there's the rub. Initially, with a totally clean install, Windows 7 was slightly faster - from power on to usable computer. Now, Windows 7 does pause slightly between login and desktop... but that's because it now has to load a bunch of user-specified startup programs that it cannot load before that user logs in. Ubuntu, which I run on my work laptop, acts exactly the same way... and because I have a fair amount of those on my work desktop, it actually continues to load even after the desktop shows up and even Chrome takes a few seconds to load.
But based on my simple non-scientific perception-only test with clean installations of Ubuntu 9.x and Windows 7 (both x64), Windows 7 won. I'm not sure how "after-6-months" degradation of performance would compare. My work laptop has degraded significantly more than my home machine, but that's not a fair comparison at all:)
Graphic, yes... not a number, so good point. I know the antenna may not be in the sides, but I'm not sure where else it would be hehe. Probably in the screen, right below the bars, so that if I cover it I can no longer see the signal strength;)
Of course not. The word would then have no useful meaning as it would describe all manufacturers and their products.
Good. That was the idea, hehe...
Well thats just a sign that Microsoft's PC OS monopoly is weakening.
So, when do they cease to be a monopoly, then? When their market share is small enough?
I'm not arguing they weren't a monopoly or didn't abuse it in the past. I'm talking about right now. Why are they a monopoly right now? Taking the definition from the original poster that I was replying to - what "good" does MS have the ability to fix the price of aside from their own? And how are they different from Apple, except in size of market share?
Windows 7 actually boots several seconds (~5 to 10, last time I checked) - with everything I typically use installed - than Ubuntu 9.x. I have not tried 10.x
Sabayon and Windows 7 appear to boot more or less the same, although Windows 7 seems to be a bit faster still.
Who gets to decide what level of abstraction you take when defining a "good" though? Doesn't Apple have a monopoly on their own products, like iPhones?
So what does Microsoft have a price-setting monopoly on? Windows? Yes, that's their product...
Desktop computers? No, not really, you can get non-Windows-based desktop computers. Sure, not from every retailer, but that wasn't part of the definition.
Certainly not laptops....
So what "good" is it that MS has a monopoly over that isn't simply "huge market share"?
I hear a lot of people saying that. I hear very few people offering suggestions of companies who already have this sort of equipment ready. Any suggestions?
Your thoughts on Hamas seem equally misguided. They care very much about the political status of israel, but after suffering decades of systematic massacres and thievery, don't expect them to be favourably disposed.
They "care." Please elaborate on what you think they "care" about in terms of Israel. Right now, your statement could mean they "care" in that they want Israel to exist or they "care" in that they want Israel to be blown up.
Why does it seem that nobody has a memory of the world before season one of `Lost'?
I have never seen a single episode of Lost and have no inclination to do so. I am one of those "I don't own a TV" guys, I don't watch many movies, I don't have a netflix account, etc...
I'll bite. What disproves - not Biblically speaking, but just the simple idea - the idea that there was a global flood? Because it seems like a lot of fossils are created during "great floods." Nobody seems to ever even suggest the idea that there was a global flood... every other idea is proposed (numerous "great floods," meteors hitting the earth, etc) but why is a global flood not proposed?
Is it simply because a particular religion has that in their beliefs, or is there actual evidence for numerous "great" floods as opposed to one global flood?
I would tend to agree. It was a sarcastic comment... but it appears that many people think that should be the course of action. Hey, maybe if we slapped the terrorists with some U.N. Sanctions!;)
Israel appears to think the current national entity should not be a national entity, but appears to be willing to allow people to live there, in the name of peace.
Hamas, on the other hand, thinks all Israel - the Jewish PEOPLE - be killed. They don't care about the political status of Israel, they hate the Jews.
That's a big difference. One is anti-ethnic-group (genocide), and the other is anti-political-entity (mmmm land dispute, nation dispute, not genocide).
By the way, if Israel doesn't acknowledge the right for Palestine to exist, why do they allow ANY aid into Gaza? On one hand, you have Israel allowing aid (yes, we can argue about how well they are doing that, but they ARE doing it). On the other hand, we have Hamas actively trying to kill all the Jews in Israel. Hmmmmm. Yup, sounds very equal to me, as your one-liner seemed to imply... [/sarcasm]
And yet people get so upset and claim that the US "made" the terrorists. I guess they did. Just like Mark Z. did. It does not take much for a western to anger someone. In fact, most people on slashdot would be likely candidates for execution; most of them deny that Allah exists.
But what we really need to do is talk about this with them and come to an understanding...
And by the way, Israel is bad. Israel shouldn't have a blockade, Hamas isn't really a big threat. They just want to "execute" Israel...
But that could be because both teams played AMAZINGLY well.
Or it could be because one player messed up a lot on each team (the one that actually shot).
Basically, this is just software that analyzes individual players performance leading up to shots - assists. Their JOB is to get the ball up to the striker. Their job is not necessarily to actually score. The scorers, though, get all the glory. Perhaps this software will help that?
Correct, the monotheistic God of the Old Testament is referred to with the plural... that is one of the reasons for a Trinitarian view of God. The plural was also used as a superlative, however... sort of like saying "God of gods."
My point was that this guy calling his aliens "Elohim" seems to be... rather a rip-off.
But is it ok for me to claim that I have a proven method (just not FDA okayed) to cure cancer!!!... and later, after you pay me a couple $100k, you find out there was no proof afterall and nobody has been cured?
It's like me selling you a bridge somewhere. I have proof that I own it. You buy it. You find out I didn't actually have what I told you I had. You would sue me. It would be fraud.
I'm not saying legit treatments should be cracked down on, but anyone claiming something - to get you to buy it - without actually having any proof of what they are claiming... especially for things like curing cancer... that's a problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Come on now. We all know Joe is a plumber, not a HAM radio operator. ;)
The organisation software installed in my own brain still beats any I've installed on my computer thus far.
But is it open source?
;)
Please define "so quickly." It does boot quickly, in comparison to what I gave, as well as older Windows versions (in my experience, on my machine, etc). I certainly didn't try to make it sound like their boot-time had reached the final end-goal and they could not longer improve on it...
And I'm fairly certain that Ubuntu lists boot times as improvement items, too. If they don't, then I'd be pretty shocked. I'm fairly certain that is consistently talked about every release ... for both OS's.
You are presuming I don't know what I'm talking about. :)
The time from login screen to having Chrome running is perceptibly slightly less in Windows 7 than Ubuntu on my machine (which, by the way, isn't anything weird - just a P5N-D, Q6600, and an 8800).
I am measuring from power on to usable computer. I have also noticed that some amount does load while I type in my password... such that if I let the login screen sit for about 5-10 seconds, it doesn't have a slight pause between login and desktop. More user-startup services slows this down, of course.
And there's the rub. Initially, with a totally clean install, Windows 7 was slightly faster - from power on to usable computer. Now, Windows 7 does pause slightly between login and desktop ... but that's because it now has to load a bunch of user-specified startup programs that it cannot load before that user logs in. Ubuntu, which I run on my work laptop, acts exactly the same way... and because I have a fair amount of those on my work desktop, it actually continues to load even after the desktop shows up and even Chrome takes a few seconds to load.
But based on my simple non-scientific perception-only test with clean installations of Ubuntu 9.x and Windows 7 (both x64), Windows 7 won. I'm not sure how "after-6-months" degradation of performance would compare. My work laptop has degraded significantly more than my home machine, but that's not a fair comparison at all :)
I am pretty sure I saw this on the King's Quest slashdot story, but it somehow made it into the NASA story... hehe...
Graphic, yes... not a number, so good point. I know the antenna may not be in the sides, but I'm not sure where else it would be hehe. Probably in the screen, right below the bars, so that if I cover it I can no longer see the signal strength ;)
Of course not. The word would then have no useful meaning as it would describe all manufacturers and their products.
Good. That was the idea, hehe...
Well thats just a sign that Microsoft's PC OS monopoly is weakening.
So, when do they cease to be a monopoly, then? When their market share is small enough?
I'm not arguing they weren't a monopoly or didn't abuse it in the past. I'm talking about right now. Why are they a monopoly right now? Taking the definition from the original poster that I was replying to - what "good" does MS have the ability to fix the price of aside from their own? And how are they different from Apple, except in size of market share?
Windows 7 actually boots several seconds (~5 to 10, last time I checked) - with everything I typically use installed - than Ubuntu 9.x. I have not tried 10.x
Sabayon and Windows 7 appear to boot more or less the same, although Windows 7 seems to be a bit faster still.
I am running on a quad core 7gb ram system.
Because, clearly, most users want crazy new innovations.
... not really ... most users want working computers that are nicely integrated so they can do what they want with the least amount of effort.
Only a few people want cutting-edge innovation in their day-to-day OS. Typically, those Linux distros have stability issues. ;)
Who gets to decide what level of abstraction you take when defining a "good" though? Doesn't Apple have a monopoly on their own products, like iPhones?
So what does Microsoft have a price-setting monopoly on? Windows? Yes, that's their product...
Desktop computers? No, not really, you can get non-Windows-based desktop computers. Sure, not from every retailer, but that wasn't part of the definition.
Certainly not laptops....
So what "good" is it that MS has a monopoly over that isn't simply "huge market share"?
I can cover all edges of my env3 and I do not see any signal strength drop on the display...
Those two points are precisely my point. hehe.
Hm. 1+ mile underwater welding. That sounds ... um, rather difficult.
They had a hard enough time dropping a giant cap and not having it pop off due to the pressure...
I hear a lot of people saying that. I hear very few people offering suggestions of companies who already have this sort of equipment ready. Any suggestions?
Link to a few examples from the flotilla one.
Your thoughts on Hamas seem equally misguided. They care very much about the political status of israel, but after suffering decades of systematic massacres and thievery, don't expect them to be favourably disposed.
They "care." Please elaborate on what you think they "care" about in terms of Israel. Right now, your statement could mean they "care" in that they want Israel to exist or they "care" in that they want Israel to be blown up.
Why does it seem that nobody has a memory of the world before season one of `Lost'?
I have never seen a single episode of Lost and have no inclination to do so. I am one of those "I don't own a TV" guys, I don't watch many movies, I don't have a netflix account, etc...
I'll bite. What disproves - not Biblically speaking, but just the simple idea - the idea that there was a global flood? Because it seems like a lot of fossils are created during "great floods." Nobody seems to ever even suggest the idea that there was a global flood... every other idea is proposed (numerous "great floods," meteors hitting the earth, etc) but why is a global flood not proposed?
Is it simply because a particular religion has that in their beliefs, or is there actual evidence for numerous "great" floods as opposed to one global flood?
I would tend to agree. It was a sarcastic comment... but it appears that many people think that should be the course of action. Hey, maybe if we slapped the terrorists with some U.N. Sanctions! ;)
Israel has given up land.
Israel appears to think the current national entity should not be a national entity, but appears to be willing to allow people to live there, in the name of peace.
Hamas, on the other hand, thinks all Israel - the Jewish PEOPLE - be killed. They don't care about the political status of Israel, they hate the Jews.
That's a big difference. One is anti-ethnic-group (genocide), and the other is anti-political-entity (mmmm land dispute, nation dispute, not genocide).
By the way, if Israel doesn't acknowledge the right for Palestine to exist, why do they allow ANY aid into Gaza? On one hand, you have Israel allowing aid (yes, we can argue about how well they are doing that, but they ARE doing it). On the other hand, we have Hamas actively trying to kill all the Jews in Israel. Hmmmmm. Yup, sounds very equal to me, as your one-liner seemed to imply... [/sarcasm]
Hmmm, pretty much sounds like Christianity as well.
That depends on what group claiming the name of Christian/Christ you are referring to.
And yet people get so upset and claim that the US "made" the terrorists. I guess they did. Just like Mark Z. did. It does not take much for a western to anger someone. In fact, most people on slashdot would be likely candidates for execution; most of them deny that Allah exists.
But what we really need to do is talk about this with them and come to an understanding...
And by the way, Israel is bad. Israel shouldn't have a blockade, Hamas isn't really a big threat. They just want to "execute" Israel...
Hm.
But that could be because both teams played AMAZINGLY well.
Or it could be because one player messed up a lot on each team (the one that actually shot).
Basically, this is just software that analyzes individual players performance leading up to shots - assists. Their JOB is to get the ball up to the striker. Their job is not necessarily to actually score. The scorers, though, get all the glory. Perhaps this software will help that?
Midtown Madness was really fun. :)
Correct, the monotheistic God of the Old Testament is referred to with the plural... that is one of the reasons for a Trinitarian view of God. The plural was also used as a superlative, however... sort of like saying "God of gods."
My point was that this guy calling his aliens "Elohim" seems to be ... rather a rip-off.
But is it ok for me to claim that I have a proven method (just not FDA okayed) to cure cancer!!! ... and later, after you pay me a couple $100k, you find out there was no proof afterall and nobody has been cured?
It's like me selling you a bridge somewhere. I have proof that I own it. You buy it. You find out I didn't actually have what I told you I had. You would sue me. It would be fraud.
I'm not saying legit treatments should be cracked down on, but anyone claiming something - to get you to buy it - without actually having any proof of what they are claiming ... especially for things like curing cancer ... that's a problem.