The logic behind this statement is that it should encourage application vendors to eliminate as many unnecessary privilege escalations as possible by causing users to complain about all the UAC 'Cancel or Allow' prompts. That's flawed logic if I ever saw it. That's like trying to prevent car accidents by making it expensive to go to the hospital. Actually, it's more like preventing car accidents by installing speed-bumps, thereby forcing the car manufacturers who put shoddy shock absorbers in their cars to upgrade them.
So what? It was a matter of time before this happened, and usually it takes about a year or two to leak anyway. This is not a sign of Windows Vista's success or failure, it's merely people letting their curiosity get the better of them.
At its current state, it's basically Windows Vista with a few tiny improvements. There is no indication that the Windows 7 team are rushing this to replace Vista.
With MSOffice 2007, due to the default file format issue, EVERYONE has to get it AT THE SAME TIME. Or they won't be able to open the documents that other people are creating.
Because, y'know, there's absolutely no way someone, say, Microsoft could develop an add-on that allows Office 2000/XP/2003 users to read OOXML documents. Absolutely no way.
The original (think v1.0) code was licensed from Spyglass Mosaic, which in turn licensed the tech from NCSA Mosaic. In other words, no, it's not based on Netscape at all.
Back in the 1980s, Apple would ruthlessly try and sue anyone who attempted to sell a GUI that looked even remotely similar to their own - the lawsuit against Digital Research and later limitations put in place in GEM/2 and the Apple Computer, Inc v. Microsoft Corp. lawsuit were a direct result of that agressive behaviour. Apple claimed that stuff such as the shape and behaviour of windows on the screen were copyrightable. For a period, Apple did hold the monopoly on GUIs, and a sizeable hunk of the PC market.
One of the main reasons you don't see Apple everywhere is because they choose to cut themselves off from the rest of computing. They tie the OS to the hardware by requiring it to have a special chip to run. True, there are hacks to make it run on x86 PCs, but that's beside the point. The MacOS 'just works' because it is designed for a specific hardware set, while Windows has to support anything and everything the market dishes out.
Of cause, I would like to point out that Commodore filed for Chapter 11 some time ago, so you are really unlikely to see a 64, 128 or 1000 sold in stores, much less one running Windows.
On older builds of Vista it was impossible to get rid of this sound, but after enough complaining they added a checkbox in the Sound control panel.
The sound you linked to wasn't the startup sound in the classic sence i.e. the one that means "I'm logging on, just so ya know", but instead informs you when Windows is loaded and waiting for you to log on i.e. "Hey, you can log on now". Alot of Linux distros can do this, but it's turned off by default.
Slashdot Mirror
Mama mia, mama mia, mama mia, let me go!
But seriously, he has a point.
"way sooner than thought"? No.
Because, y'know, there's absolutely no way someone, say, Microsoft could develop an add-on that allows Office 2000/XP/2003 users to read OOXML documents. Absolutely no way.
Yes. It's called Shadow Copy, or Previous Versions, and it's been in Windows since 2003 Server.
The original (think v1.0) code was licensed from Spyglass Mosaic, which in turn licensed the tech from NCSA Mosaic. In other words, no, it's not based on Netscape at all.
Microsoft gave them money, sure... about a year before the suit was filed. Are you saying Bill Gates is clairvoyent?
I believe the GP was making the point that the ruling against Microsoft, which you linked, was wrong.
And, no he is not making it up, he is mearly referring to what many dictionaries define as a monopoly. For example, this Dictionary.com entry. Gosh.
StarCraft 2 has only been announced, not released. It still has time to wallow in constant development for ten or so years...
Er... Windows 98 was v4.1, and Windows ME was 4.9.
Note to self: use Preview button.
Back in the 1980s, Apple would ruthlessly try and sue anyone who attempted to sell a GUI that looked even remotely similar to their own - the lawsuit against Digital Research and later limitations put in place in GEM/2 and the Apple Computer, Inc v. Microsoft Corp. lawsuit were a direct result of that agressive behaviour. Apple claimed that stuff such as the shape and behaviour of windows on the screen were copyrightable. For a period, Apple did hold the monopoly on GUIs, and a sizeable hunk of the PC market. One of the main reasons you don't see Apple everywhere is because they choose to cut themselves off from the rest of computing. They tie the OS to the hardware by requiring it to have a special chip to run. True, there are hacks to make it run on x86 PCs, but that's beside the point. The MacOS 'just works' because it is designed for a specific hardware set, while Windows has to support anything and everything the market dishes out. Of cause, I would like to point out that Commodore filed for Chapter 11 some time ago, so you are really unlikely to see a 64, 128 or 1000 sold in stores, much less one running Windows.
Only when Company B was the market leader, they were much worse than Company A. And nobody did anything about it.
Actually, I think it's "In Soviet Russia, dominos knock over YOU!"
I would presume that a tricorder triangulates co-ordinates, but that's just me.
He said he never saw the one where the PC undergoes surgery to install Vista. Not the entire "Get A Mac" set of ads.