Note: If you do get random BSOD errors with 2K or XP, look to fautly memory or memory timing settings.
That's a bad idea. Don't immediately look to faulty memory/timing settings; instead, look to what the error message says. The codes actually tell you what the problem is; Googling them will usually provide you with results.
I second this fully. Not to mention all the other niceities RDP/ICA includes, such as file access, sound, printer access, resolution/color depth changing, etc. Plus, RDP is one standard - it's not fragmented like VNC (you have so many different variations of VNC out there, like UltraVNC, TightVNC, RealVNC, etc., each with their own versions.) With RDP, your only concern is the version of the client and the version of the server.
Re:I want animated program icons
on
Longhorn Preview
·
· Score: 1
2003 is? 2003 is what? A multi-user operating system? So are 2000 and XP. Windows XP is of course designed for workstation use, but they are still fully multi user operating systems. There are more versions of 2000 than Professional; they are all multi-user operating systems.
Yeah, it's the people who drive safely and according to the official regulations who are dangerous
That's one way to look at it. When most people violate the speed limit in an area, you can blame the problem on many groups:
The law/speed limit itself or those who set the speed limit
The majority of people that drive over the posted limit
The minority who follow the limit
I blame the minority who does follow the limit. Why? Because it's easier. Because if a few drove faster, the roads would be safer. It's alot easier to get a small amount people to change than to get the minority to change.
You wouldn't have any problem with the people doing 50 if you were doing 50 as well.
In many areas, people don't want to drive 50mph. If the speed limit is 50mph, normally I don't want to drive 50mph. I want to drive at least 60. There are very few speed limits which I feel are justified... and most people seem to feel the same way, judging by the speeds they travel at.
Of course, some people will follow the speed limit simply because it's the law.
there might also be an actual need for speed limits so that people don't die on the road?
Of course. This means *reasonable* limits. Not arbitary 35mph speed limits on most two-lane roads that are common in some suburbs. As soon as you enter a different city/township, the limits jump up to 45mph. The nearest interstate has a 55mph speed limit mainly through one entire county -- after being 65mph before that for some time -- hint: most people don't slow down when they see the reduced speed limit sign. Even in a construction zone, most people go at least 65mph (in a 55mph zone), even though they can get doubled fines.
Come on, speeding fines are not a major revenue source
Maybe not for the local government themselves, but for the police department they can provide a much-needed boost in many areas.
That's nice, but since most people do not follow speed limits in many areas, it's those obstinate goody two-shoes that often cause a bigger threat to safety. In my suburb, most speed limits are arbitrarily placed at 35 mph on non-county/state roads. There are *very* few people that go 35 mph. I, for one, usually honk at them or even pass them (regardless if it's legal to pass them.) There are few roads where the speed limits are widely followed - even on the expressway, the only time I've seen all traffic going at the posted speed limit was during bad weather. Otherwise, it's always at least 5 over in the right lane and closer to 10 in the left, except for those who choose to do the speed limit (and end up getting passed by almost everyone.)
The fact is, I have NEVER seen anyone get pulled over for say, not signaling... and I have seen it done in front of cops many times.
And why would a cop pay attention to someone's signaling, when they could be looking at other things that actually *cause* problems like their head/tail lights (at night) along with speeding? Unless they are looking for drunk drivers, cops mainly go after speeders and those with broken lights.
Driving down the road a 65 on a nice day when you have two freakin miles of visibility will land you a ticket, but changing lanes or cutting someone off almost NEVER does.
It's a LOT easier to catch speeders than illegal lane changes and cutting people off.
I really don't care too much how fast someone's going, so long as they keep it under insane speeds, what's actually dangerous is when they do something unexpected, like turn left in fron if you without signaling.
That's unfortunate that it bothers you, but you have to pay attention to the road. Many drivers are ignorant, stupid, inconsiderate, etc. Cops cannot watch every lane change to make sure they properly use their signal. The best way to avoid bad drivers is not to drive at all.
Of course, neither of these options really beats an X Server with direct access to the hardware on a dedicated *NIX box instead of having to emulate X through another display layer:)
It's not really emulating X. It's an X server running on a separate layer.
Whilst UNIX support is, of course, not directly possible with Windows
Actually, it is, with addon software. Microsoft Windows Services for Unix includes a POSIX subsystem called Interix. Partially based on BSD and GNU software, Interix runs as a separate subsystem in the Windows NT kernel, alongside Win32. It provides a much more UNIX-like system than POSIX. You may want to see my previous post for more information on this topic.
Hmm translucent windows... also very ground breaking (XOrg has had this since 6.8)...
If you want to talk about the windowing system, Windows has had supported this feature since 5.0. (That's Windows 2000, which was released in 2000.)
Re:I want animated program icons
on
Longhorn Preview
·
· Score: 1
but to be honest the main reason that Microsoft is so popular is because it's bundled, not because it's necessarily better.
What IS better? I can make a long list of reasons why Windows is better for my use than Linux (it's much longer than the list of things Linux can do that Windows cannot.) I have yet to try to use it, but Mac OS X may have a chance.
For many tasks, Linux is simply not the easiest choice. Linux may work just fine for some people or some uses for desktop users; but Mac OS X and Windows are the only operating systems I would ever use on a desktop system.
Re:I want animated program icons
on
Longhorn Preview
·
· Score: 1
Smells like bullcrap to me. No way you have used all those systems, and especially NeXtStep, and still claim Windows is superior.
Why not? What about Windows makes it inherently inferior?
Its a single user operating system
Windows NT (which includes 2000, XP, and 2003) are multi-user operating systems. While a lot of software makes stupid assumptions, the operating systems themselves are fully multi-user. On my Windows XP Professional box, I can have multiple users using the system via various methods: SSH (via Services for Unix), remote desktop (as many people as I allow can log in simultaneously and can perform as many tasks as the system can handle), and the local console. The NTFS filesystem supports ACLs and ownership, something beloved Mac OS X hasn't done until Tiger and some other operating systems still don't support by default/on all versions/on the default filesystems. Processes belong to certain users, which have permissions allowing or disallowing them to do different things. Windows does a lot of things in a more advanced way than UNIX and its clones/derivatives.
with a horrible look to it out of the box (that default XP look).
Some of the defualt Linux distribution themes look equally poor. I don't have much of a problem with it; on my own computer, I'll change it to classic mode, but otherwise, I don't complain and it doesn't bother me. Windows gives you the ability to change the look out of the box (Luna and Classic) -- in Mac OS X, Aqua is your only choice -- and I'm not a huge fan of Aqua. Plus, it's really easy to just *change* the damn thing. If you're so inclined, you can use nLite to make a customized install disc with that feature disabled.
Re:I want animated program icons
on
Longhorn Preview
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Cygwin. It is actually usable nowdays. Now if not for those assbackwards filepaths in Win it would be quite good.
If you like Cygwin -- you may also enjoy Microsoft Windows Services for Unix. In my opinion, it's much closer to Unix than Cygwin. It uses BSD code and some GPL (it includes GCC and friends.) It's not as usable as a default install of Cygwin is, but there's some precompiled software availbale for it. Programs in/compiled with SFU run in an actual kernel-level POSIX subsystem called Interix, instead of Cygwin's Unix-like layer that runs under Win32. Unix permissions are emulated (I believe) and programs don't have.exe on the end. GCC is supported, and in general (as someone who is used to using BSD/Linux) is much cleaner and nicer than Cygwin.
$ ls/; uname -a; who; gcc -v admin common docs help log opt tmp var bin dev etc lib net proc usr Interix eclipse 3.5 SP-8.0.1969.1 x86 AMD Athlon/Duron matt ttyn00 Apr 15 18:19 Reading specs from/opt/gcc.3.3/lib/gcc-lib/i586-pc-interix3/3.3/spec s Configured with: : (reconfigured) : (reconfigured)/dev/fs/C/gnu2.intel/egcs.s ource//configure --verbose --prefix=/opt/gcc.3.3 --disable-shared --with-stabs - -enable-nls --with-local-prefix=/opt/gcc.3.3 --with-gnu-as --with-gnu-ld --enabl e-targets=i586-pc-interix3 --enable-threads=posix Thread model: posix gcc version 3.3
I'd guess that more programs would compile unmodified in SFU compared to Cygwin (assuming you're using GCC), but I have no evidence/experience to back this up.
The Sveasoft firmware on a Linksys WRT54G has more functionality than almost any other router out there.
Bullshit. OpenWRT has tons more functionality. It does whatever you set it up to, and is infinitely more powerful due to its lack of constraints. Plus, nothing compares to *gasp* an actual *router* with a router operating system.
I firmly believe that the merger with Cisco brought the high-end technology down to the mass-market.
The WRT54G has little to do with Cisco. The main chipset is made, engineered, and designed by Broadcom, who sells it to many other companies, including competitors like Netgear and many others. Broadcom developed the specialized operating system, which is mostly Linux, some other open-source code, and some other Broadcom-written code. Linksys's job? They made the box itself, maybe the mainboard, and their own interface. The WRT54G does, however, happen to be one of the most popular Broadcom-based routers.
I'm not sure. I've never downloaded a game over the Internet on a Nokia phone, but I have transferred things to both CDMA and GSM Nokia phones. I'm assuming you'd be able to download games from your own/public sites over the Internet as long as Sprint hasn't blocked it (on their gateway or on the phone itself.)
GSM is popular in the US. While not predominant, it's the second most used system and has sizeable market share. Are you aware that the largest carrier in the US is a GSM carrier?
I live in the US, and I've been using GSM sine 2002.
Some phones have USB cable adapters, and then you either have limited ability of data transfer, or need to somehow hack the handset.
While this may be the case for some phones, it is not for most GSM phone. I can access media on my phone using real Motorola-endorsed software, Mobile PhoneTools. With third-party or even Motorola's on service software, I can access the phone's filesystem and EEPROM and perform even more tasks. Basically: the commercially available software does what most users want it to, while the third-party or Motorola service software does what technicians and nerds want to do. At any rate, no hacking is required either way. I can even transfer data over Bluetooth to my phone -- games, ringtones, pictures -- right out of the box; I only need to pair my phone with my computer and hit Accept on the phone at the right time. I can also transfer the phone book, although this is a bit more difficult to do (requires third-party software.)
Camera phone? Take all the photos you like, but it's X cents per photo to get them of your phone.
I can access all the photos on my phone over Bluetooth, once again, with minimal effort other than pairing the phone. I can also use a USB cable, along with either the easy-to-use data transfer software or the advanced programs that grant me access to the phone's filesystem directly.
Address book backup? Sure, it's only X dollars a month for automatic backups!
Is this service offered at all? It doesn't matter, seeing as how the majority of phones (even if they don't support transferring media) support phone book synchronization. Some do it over Bluetooth or IR, too. Some support doing it via SyncML, also.
Want games on your Java enabled phone? Sure, we have a selection here for $4.99 per game per month (sorry, you can only select from this menu).
All the Java phones I've used (Sony Ericsson, Nokia, Motorola) have supported downloading my own games over the Internet (although the provider does charge for Internet access -- in my case, I have unlimited access. If you're using dialup at offpeak hours, or can afford to pay per-kilobyte charges, this isn't an issue.) My Motorola phone supports transferring Java games over the cable and Bluetooth, once again, with minimal effort via Bluetooth.
Want some GREW games? We have those too (sorry, you can't code your own, BREW is proprietary).
BREW phones are much more locked down.
Handset manufacturers would love to put these features in for users, but they don't because then the cell phone companies won't sell the phones and wont support them if purchesed through other channels.
They do put those features in GSM phones, which are the only phones sold by two major US carriers. While they don't officially "support" as in provide assistance to users of other phones, US GSM networks will work with any other unlocked GSM phone that supports the right frequency bands.
A few phones, but they're mostly (if not all) GSM phones, which constitute (my guess) a little less than half of the US market. They tend to be higher-end models and smartphones (although my cheap T300 had IR.) Bluetooth is more common.
You can then use the IR link to download and upload images, ringtones, operator logos (back when they existed), text messages, and phone books.
At least on my Sony Ericsson, you didn't need any special software to transfer files or individual phone book entries. With the right software, you could back up the phone book and SMS boxes completely.
yet another problem, is that file transfer over USB isnt possible (it might be with additional software
It is completely possible. However, Motorola phones do not present themselves as mass storage devices, so it's not as easy as dragging and dropping files. In order to do this (realistically and usefully), the phone would either have to emulate a FAT partition or actually store data in a FAT partition. A propietary interface is much cheaper and easier to implement. With the right software, you can transfer your own media to most phones over USB.
If the phone had only a USB plug, it would have to be a USB host to be able to allow things like corded headsets and such to attach.
The standard 2.5 mm plug has been working fine for many manufacturers for years, while some still opt for propietary connectors. A USB host for headsets would be nice if the devices used the common USB headset profiles, but there's always the (much cooler) Bluetooth headsets.
I ask because almost all camera phones have bluetooth and a USB dongle costs $5...
Not at all. Sprint, Verizon, Nextel, and Alltel have only had a select few Bluetooth phones. Cingular and T-Mobile have had many more, but still, many of their camera phones are not Bluetooth capable.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a bad idea. Don't immediately look to faulty memory/timing settings; instead, look to what the error message says. The codes actually tell you what the problem is; Googling them will usually provide you with results.
I second this fully. Not to mention all the other niceities RDP/ICA includes, such as file access, sound, printer access, resolution/color depth changing, etc. Plus, RDP is one standard - it's not fragmented like VNC (you have so many different variations of VNC out there, like UltraVNC, TightVNC, RealVNC, etc., each with their own versions.) With RDP, your only concern is the version of the client and the version of the server.
2003 is? 2003 is what? A multi-user operating system? So are 2000 and XP. Windows XP is of course designed for workstation use, but they are still fully multi user operating systems. There are more versions of 2000 than Professional; they are all multi-user operating systems.
That's one way to look at it. When most people violate the speed limit in an area, you can blame the problem on many groups:
- The law/speed limit itself or those who set the speed limit
- The majority of people that drive over the posted limit
- The minority who follow the limit
I blame the minority who does follow the limit. Why? Because it's easier. Because if a few drove faster, the roads would be safer. It's alot easier to get a small amount people to change than to get the minority to change.You wouldn't have any problem with the people doing 50 if you were doing 50 as well.
In many areas, people don't want to drive 50mph. If the speed limit is 50mph, normally I don't want to drive 50mph. I want to drive at least 60. There are very few speed limits which I feel are justified... and most people seem to feel the same way, judging by the speeds they travel at.
Of course, some people will follow the speed limit simply because it's the law.
Of course. This means *reasonable* limits. Not arbitary 35mph speed limits on most two-lane roads that are common in some suburbs. As soon as you enter a different city/township, the limits jump up to 45mph. The nearest interstate has a 55mph speed limit mainly through one entire county -- after being 65mph before that for some time -- hint: most people don't slow down when they see the reduced speed limit sign. Even in a construction zone, most people go at least 65mph (in a 55mph zone), even though they can get doubled fines.
Come on, speeding fines are not a major revenue source
Maybe not for the local government themselves, but for the police department they can provide a much-needed boost in many areas.
That's nice, but since most people do not follow speed limits in many areas, it's those obstinate goody two-shoes that often cause a bigger threat to safety. In my suburb, most speed limits are arbitrarily placed at 35 mph on non-county/state roads. There are *very* few people that go 35 mph. I, for one, usually honk at them or even pass them (regardless if it's legal to pass them.) There are few roads where the speed limits are widely followed - even on the expressway, the only time I've seen all traffic going at the posted speed limit was during bad weather. Otherwise, it's always at least 5 over in the right lane and closer to 10 in the left, except for those who choose to do the speed limit (and end up getting passed by almost everyone.)
And why would a cop pay attention to someone's signaling, when they could be looking at other things that actually *cause* problems like their head/tail lights (at night) along with speeding? Unless they are looking for drunk drivers, cops mainly go after speeders and those with broken lights.
Driving down the road a 65 on a nice day when you have two freakin miles of visibility will land you a ticket, but changing lanes or cutting someone off almost NEVER does.
It's a LOT easier to catch speeders than illegal lane changes and cutting people off.
I really don't care too much how fast someone's going, so long as they keep it under insane speeds, what's actually dangerous is when they do something unexpected, like turn left in fron if you without signaling.
That's unfortunate that it bothers you, but you have to pay attention to the road. Many drivers are ignorant, stupid, inconsiderate, etc. Cops cannot watch every lane change to make sure they properly use their signal. The best way to avoid bad drivers is not to drive at all.
It's not really emulating X. It's an X server running on a separate layer.
Whilst UNIX support is, of course, not directly possible with Windows
Actually, it is, with addon software. Microsoft Windows Services for Unix includes a POSIX subsystem called Interix. Partially based on BSD and GNU software, Interix runs as a separate subsystem in the Windows NT kernel, alongside Win32. It provides a much more UNIX-like system than POSIX. You may want to see my previous post for more information on this topic.
If you want to talk about the windowing system, Windows has had supported this feature since 5.0. (That's Windows 2000, which was released in 2000.)
What IS better? I can make a long list of reasons why Windows is better for my use than Linux (it's much longer than the list of things Linux can do that Windows cannot.) I have yet to try to use it, but Mac OS X may have a chance.
For many tasks, Linux is simply not the easiest choice. Linux may work just fine for some people or some uses for desktop users; but Mac OS X and Windows are the only operating systems I would ever use on a desktop system.
Why not? What about Windows makes it inherently inferior?
Its a single user operating system
Windows NT (which includes 2000, XP, and 2003) are multi-user operating systems. While a lot of software makes stupid assumptions, the operating systems themselves are fully multi-user. On my Windows XP Professional box, I can have multiple users using the system via various methods: SSH (via Services for Unix), remote desktop (as many people as I allow can log in simultaneously and can perform as many tasks as the system can handle), and the local console. The NTFS filesystem supports ACLs and ownership, something beloved Mac OS X hasn't done until Tiger and some other operating systems still don't support by default/on all versions/on the default filesystems. Processes belong to certain users, which have permissions allowing or disallowing them to do different things. Windows does a lot of things in a more advanced way than UNIX and its clones/derivatives.
with a horrible look to it out of the box (that default XP look).
Some of the defualt Linux distribution themes look equally poor. I don't have much of a problem with it; on my own computer, I'll change it to classic mode, but otherwise, I don't complain and it doesn't bother me. Windows gives you the ability to change the look out of the box (Luna and Classic) -- in Mac OS X, Aqua is your only choice -- and I'm not a huge fan of Aqua. Plus, it's really easy to just *change* the damn thing. If you're so inclined, you can use nLite to make a customized install disc with that feature disabled.
If you like Cygwin -- you may also enjoy Microsoft Windows Services for Unix. In my opinion, it's much closer to Unix than Cygwin. It uses BSD code and some GPL (it includes GCC and friends.) It's not as usable as a default install of Cygwin is, but there's some precompiled software availbale for it. Programs in/compiled with SFU run in an actual kernel-level POSIX subsystem called Interix, instead of Cygwin's Unix-like layer that runs under Win32. Unix permissions are emulated (I believe) and programs don't have .exe on the end. GCC is supported, and in general (as someone who is used to using BSD/Linux) is much cleaner and nicer than Cygwin.
I'd guess that more programs would compile unmodified in SFU compared to Cygwin (assuming you're using GCC), but I have no evidence/experience to back this up.As are most other modern operating systyems.
This is the duty of Lesbian GNU/Linux!
Bullshit. OpenWRT has tons more functionality. It does whatever you set it up to, and is infinitely more powerful due to its lack of constraints. Plus, nothing compares to *gasp* an actual *router* with a router operating system.
I firmly believe that the merger with Cisco brought the high-end technology down to the mass-market.
The WRT54G has little to do with Cisco. The main chipset is made, engineered, and designed by Broadcom, who sells it to many other companies, including competitors like Netgear and many others. Broadcom developed the specialized operating system, which is mostly Linux, some other open-source code, and some other Broadcom-written code. Linksys's job? They made the box itself, maybe the mainboard, and their own interface. The WRT54G does, however, happen to be one of the most popular Broadcom-based routers.
The post you replied to was using this as an example in his simile, not stating this as fact.
I'm not sure. I've never downloaded a game over the Internet on a Nokia phone, but I have transferred things to both CDMA and GSM Nokia phones. I'm assuming you'd be able to download games from your own/public sites over the Internet as long as Sprint hasn't blocked it (on their gateway or on the phone itself.)
AOL has its own separate cable service available to Time Warner customers, but RoadRunner is definitely not AOL and does not make you an AOLer
I live in the US, and I've been using GSM sine 2002.
Some phones have USB cable adapters, and then you either have limited ability of data transfer, or need to somehow hack the handset.
While this may be the case for some phones, it is not for most GSM phone. I can access media on my phone using real Motorola-endorsed software, Mobile PhoneTools. With third-party or even Motorola's on service software, I can access the phone's filesystem and EEPROM and perform even more tasks. Basically: the commercially available software does what most users want it to, while the third-party or Motorola service software does what technicians and nerds want to do. At any rate, no hacking is required either way. I can even transfer data over Bluetooth to my phone -- games, ringtones, pictures -- right out of the box; I only need to pair my phone with my computer and hit Accept on the phone at the right time. I can also transfer the phone book, although this is a bit more difficult to do (requires third-party software.)
Camera phone? Take all the photos you like, but it's X cents per photo to get them of your phone.
I can access all the photos on my phone over Bluetooth, once again, with minimal effort other than pairing the phone. I can also use a USB cable, along with either the easy-to-use data transfer software or the advanced programs that grant me access to the phone's filesystem directly.
Address book backup? Sure, it's only X dollars a month for automatic backups!
Is this service offered at all? It doesn't matter, seeing as how the majority of phones (even if they don't support transferring media) support phone book synchronization. Some do it over Bluetooth or IR, too. Some support doing it via SyncML, also.
Want games on your Java enabled phone? Sure, we have a selection here for $4.99 per game per month (sorry, you can only select from this menu).
All the Java phones I've used (Sony Ericsson, Nokia, Motorola) have supported downloading my own games over the Internet (although the provider does charge for Internet access -- in my case, I have unlimited access. If you're using dialup at offpeak hours, or can afford to pay per-kilobyte charges, this isn't an issue.) My Motorola phone supports transferring Java games over the cable and Bluetooth, once again, with minimal effort via Bluetooth.
Want some GREW games? We have those too (sorry, you can't code your own, BREW is proprietary).
BREW phones are much more locked down. Handset manufacturers would love to put these features in for users, but they don't because then the cell phone companies won't sell the phones and wont support them if purchesed through other channels.
They do put those features in GSM phones, which are the only phones sold by two major US carriers. While they don't officially "support" as in provide assistance to users of other phones, US GSM networks will work with any other unlocked GSM phone that supports the right frequency bands.
A few phones, but they're mostly (if not all) GSM phones, which constitute (my guess) a little less than half of the US market. They tend to be higher-end models and smartphones (although my cheap T300 had IR.) Bluetooth is more common.
You can then use the IR link to download and upload images, ringtones, operator logos (back when they existed), text messages, and phone books.
At least on my Sony Ericsson, you didn't need any special software to transfer files or individual phone book entries. With the right software, you could back up the phone book and SMS boxes completely.
It is completely possible. However, Motorola phones do not present themselves as mass storage devices, so it's not as easy as dragging and dropping files. In order to do this (realistically and usefully), the phone would either have to emulate a FAT partition or actually store data in a FAT partition. A propietary interface is much cheaper and easier to implement. With the right software, you can transfer your own media to most phones over USB.
The standard 2.5 mm plug has been working fine for many manufacturers for years, while some still opt for propietary connectors. A USB host for headsets would be nice if the devices used the common USB headset profiles, but there's always the (much cooler) Bluetooth headsets.
It wouldn't *have* to. Not all USB ports provide 500 mA at all times.
Not at all. Sprint, Verizon, Nextel, and Alltel have only had a select few Bluetooth phones. Cingular and T-Mobile have had many more, but still, many of their camera phones are not Bluetooth capable.