"I run a Mac, and it runs everything I need, including Linux and Windows via Parallels."
Virtual machines are an option for everyone under any OS, I don't count that as demonstrating that an OS can run what I want. If it can't run natively, I'm not interested. Apple has been doing some nice things so I may eventually change my mind, but for now I'm quite happy with Vista and see no compelling reason to switch. YMMV.
Windows is sandboxed, which any sensible person knows it needs to be because it is an adware and viral nightmare.
While I grant that I'm not the average PC user, I have never had a serious virus or adware problem, and it's been years since I've touched a virus. Again, YMMV.
How can you like an OS that doesn't run your applications? That's its sole purpose in life! If it supports every app you need, then go ahead and love it. But if it doesn't run something you find critical then it's useless to you.
Now you know why I don't use Linux or a Mac. Vista runs everything I need, something I can't say for Linux or OS X.
Thus far I've had no problems using Photoshop CS2 under Vista, and what little playing I've done with Illustrator CS2 has met no problems. Photoshop CS3 beta also works fine. Just because it isn't on the official list doesn't mean it won't work. Firefox and OpenOffice? Same thing - no problems.
Making money is not evil, but it's also not evil to criticize corporations that offer simple treatments for very high cost. Yes, there needs to be compensation for money that went into the research, but drug companies go far beyond that. In the same way that our free society gives those companies the right to set prices as they will, I have the right to criticize those companies for what I consider to be unethical practices. The problem goes on that a large part of the philosophy behind capitalism is the encouragement of competition, and that competition will drive the market to favor the consumer. There is no competition for many of these treatments and tightly controlled patents help to ensure that there never will be any. All still strictly legal, but I'm still free to criticize.
That's what I said: "Symantec is on the list" - guess I could have specified WHICH list, but I figured the context would show I meant the list of products that passed.
Windows XP was released October 2001, XP SP1 in September, 2002. It sounds like Vista SP1 is going to be out faster than XP SP1 was, but not by a large margin.
You lose your "power user" claims with that one - someone that voluntarily runs ME, the worst OS that has ever existed? I like XP and I plan to upgrade to Vista pretty quick because I've liked the pre-release versions, but I cringe any time I even hear about ME.
And proprietary yes men need a better rallying cry than 'buy it because everyone else does'.
So because I decide to use a system you don't like and then I defend that choice, that makes me someone's yes man? Is the only way to operate the freedom of choice done by making the same decisions you make? Interesting view of freedom.
And knocking for spelling is so 1980's. Get with the Blackberry age and buy a clue.
The Blackberry age? Blackberry's came around a bit after the 80's. And I'd like to think that people who feel they have something to say believe their message to have enough merit that they want to say it well. Oh, and you once more misspelled compatible.
I'd rather have a choice that's compatibile with most than no choice thats only compatible with one.
You must have missed my repeated mentions of the Office 2007 compatibility pack.
You choose your slave master, I'll choose freedom.
You take your choice of office system WAY too seriously. And see above comment about how we exercise our freedom to decide these things.
Well all of this surveillance is the fault of the tin-foil-hat people. Their campaign has been far too successful and there are too many people these days wearing their hats. The aliens, working through human government leaders, need new ways to monitor our brainwave patterns. These kinds of things are just a start of the next phase of their new monitoring tactic. If you want to see less of these cameras, stop wearing your tin foil hats!
I'm not worried about working with anyone else, just with myself. And Microsoft has released a compatibility pack that can be installed on older versions of Office so that they can work with the new format, expanding the field of people I could work with if I needed to. (See http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/products/HA10168 6761033.aspx)
People who sit on the bleeding edge can't complain about incompatibility because they are merely a small percentage.
The ramifications of being a small percentage is something Linux users need to learn. But if you will kindly re-read my post you will not find complaining but observation, as well as asking if anyone happened to know if I was wrong.
However, should the source code be open, they can do something about that compatability and try to fix it themselves.
Open source advocates really need a better rallying cry than this. (And better spelling - compatability?)
or the parent company decides to get off it's multi-billion dollar ass and make a product thats backwards compatible.
See previously mentioned compatibility pack.
Perhaps for others it's not a concern but for me it is a little more of one. I like Office 2007 and have been using it since the early Beta release so all of my documents over the last several months are in the new format. When I occasionally work in Linux I'm not able to interact with those files. My fault for using an uncommon format, but I'm nonetheless interested in finding those filters.
Have you tried any Office 2007 files yet? I haven't seen any of the open source suites release filters to work with those files. Granted the releases aren't public yet but the betas have been around long enough that I'm surprised that it isn't out there. Or perhaps someone here can tell me where to find them?
To me this is one thing that makes Office 2007 great. With Word all the tools are right there easy to see in front of me. I didn't use a lot of stuff in previous versions because I never took the time to go digging for them. My fault, yes, but Office 2007 has removed my need to dig and makes it easy for me to access tools that I'm now finding to be pretty useful.
a fairly clear disinterest in Wii as a platform for his company's products is shown.
"You keep using that word. I do not think it mean what you think it mean."
Disinterest? So his company has a complete lack of bias or compulsion one way or another? I suspect the submitter meant lack of interest or uninterested.
I'd imagine far more people downloaded the different betas than will buy a copy online. The internet survived the betas well enough. Those tubes are made of tough stuff.
As for reinstall, I'd imagine the download is something like an ISO file. It has to be burned to DVD to be usable, just like the betas. Then all you do is keep the burned DVD, perhaps keeping the file on the computer as a backup.
Explain to me how you prove that no Korans were flushed down the toilets at Gitmo.
First, because I trust the word of my government much more than the word of terrorists and their lawyers. I don't recall the specific evidence given to show that the accusations were false, but I remember finding it convincing enough.
I don't even know what to say except that you'll be one of the first against the wall when the revolution comes.
I wouldn't be the first to give my life for my country.
Why do people feel the need to be so "smart" about this? Why is it cool to use your half-formed scientific knowledge to criticise something you clearly know nothing about?
You mean like the vast majority of people on both sides of the debate, most slashdotters included?
And, name me one thing that Apple has done that involves DRM, besides the iTunes Music Store. You can't, because they haven't done ANYTHING. And the music store only has DRM at the insistence of the record labels.
What else do you want? iTunes is the medium through which they provide all the entertainment that people want, which means that all of it is under DRM. Looking at it this way, everything Apple has done regarding popular multimedia entertainment has been through DRM. And even worse, many of the capibilities are only available via Apple hardware and software. Yes, you can use iTunes on a PC or Laptop but that's as far as it goes. In my book this makes Apple more restrictive, not less. But it makes sense, hardware is one place where Apple makes money. I don't fault them for defending their business, but I won't pretend they are somehow more user friendly.
Slashdot Mirror
"I run a Mac, and it runs everything I need, including Linux and Windows via Parallels."
Virtual machines are an option for everyone under any OS, I don't count that as demonstrating that an OS can run what I want. If it can't run natively, I'm not interested. Apple has been doing some nice things so I may eventually change my mind, but for now I'm quite happy with Vista and see no compelling reason to switch. YMMV.
Windows is sandboxed, which any sensible person knows it needs to be because it is an adware and viral nightmare.
While I grant that I'm not the average PC user, I have never had a serious virus or adware problem, and it's been years since I've touched a virus. Again, YMMV.
I don't know about Counterstrike, but those others are also on my frequent use list and I haven't had a problem with them under Vista.
How can you like an OS that doesn't run your applications? That's its sole purpose in life! If it supports every app you need, then go ahead and love it. But if it doesn't run something you find critical then it's useless to you.
Now you know why I don't use Linux or a Mac. Vista runs everything I need, something I can't say for Linux or OS X.
Thus far I've had no problems using Photoshop CS2 under Vista, and what little playing I've done with Illustrator CS2 has met no problems. Photoshop CS3 beta also works fine. Just because it isn't on the official list doesn't mean it won't work. Firefox and OpenOffice? Same thing - no problems.
the humor is weak with this one
Making money is not evil, but it's also not evil to criticize corporations that offer simple treatments for very high cost. Yes, there needs to be compensation for money that went into the research, but drug companies go far beyond that. In the same way that our free society gives those companies the right to set prices as they will, I have the right to criticize those companies for what I consider to be unethical practices. The problem goes on that a large part of the philosophy behind capitalism is the encouragement of competition, and that competition will drive the market to favor the consumer. There is no competition for many of these treatments and tightly controlled patents help to ensure that there never will be any. All still strictly legal, but I'm still free to criticize.
That's what I said: "Symantec is on the list" - guess I could have specified WHICH list, but I figured the context would show I meant the list of products that passed.
Symantec is on the list. These days, Symantec = Norton = Symantec, IIRC.
Windows XP was released October 2001, XP SP1 in September, 2002. It sounds like Vista SP1 is going to be out faster than XP SP1 was, but not by a large margin.
Hell, I still have a laptop running ME
You lose your "power user" claims with that one - someone that voluntarily runs ME, the worst OS that has ever existed? I like XP and I plan to upgrade to Vista pretty quick because I've liked the pre-release versions, but I cringe any time I even hear about ME.
And proprietary yes men need a better rallying cry than 'buy it because everyone else does'.
So because I decide to use a system you don't like and then I defend that choice, that makes me someone's yes man? Is the only way to operate the freedom of choice done by making the same decisions you make? Interesting view of freedom.
And knocking for spelling is so 1980's. Get with the Blackberry age and buy a clue.
The Blackberry age? Blackberry's came around a bit after the 80's. And I'd like to think that people who feel they have something to say believe their message to have enough merit that they want to say it well. Oh, and you once more misspelled compatible.
I'd rather have a choice that's compatibile with most than no choice thats only compatible with one.
You must have missed my repeated mentions of the Office 2007 compatibility pack.
You choose your slave master, I'll choose freedom.
You take your choice of office system WAY too seriously. And see above comment about how we exercise our freedom to decide these things.
Good point. I retract my original comment.
Well all of this surveillance is the fault of the tin-foil-hat people. Their campaign has been far too successful and there are too many people these days wearing their hats. The aliens, working through human government leaders, need new ways to monitor our brainwave patterns. These kinds of things are just a start of the next phase of their new monitoring tactic. If you want to see less of these cameras, stop wearing your tin foil hats!
I'm not worried about working with anyone else, just with myself. And Microsoft has released a compatibility pack that can be installed on older versions of Office so that they can work with the new format, expanding the field of people I could work with if I needed to. (See http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/products/HA10168 6761033.aspx)
People who sit on the bleeding edge can't complain about incompatibility because they are merely a small percentage.
The ramifications of being a small percentage is something Linux users need to learn. But if you will kindly re-read my post you will not find complaining but observation, as well as asking if anyone happened to know if I was wrong.
However, should the source code be open, they can do something about that compatability and try to fix it themselves.
Open source advocates really need a better rallying cry than this. (And better spelling - compatability?)
or the parent company decides to get off it's multi-billion dollar ass and make a product thats backwards compatible.
See previously mentioned compatibility pack.
Perhaps for others it's not a concern but for me it is a little more of one. I like Office 2007 and have been using it since the early Beta release so all of my documents over the last several months are in the new format. When I occasionally work in Linux I'm not able to interact with those files. My fault for using an uncommon format, but I'm nonetheless interested in finding those filters.
oooh I can't wait to see it come out in beta!
Have you tried any Office 2007 files yet? I haven't seen any of the open source suites release filters to work with those files. Granted the releases aren't public yet but the betas have been around long enough that I'm surprised that it isn't out there. Or perhaps someone here can tell me where to find them?
To me this is one thing that makes Office 2007 great. With Word all the tools are right there easy to see in front of me. I didn't use a lot of stuff in previous versions because I never took the time to go digging for them. My fault, yes, but Office 2007 has removed my need to dig and makes it easy for me to access tools that I'm now finding to be pretty useful.
Come now, Google don't do evil.
a fairly clear disinterest in Wii as a platform for his company's products is shown.
"You keep using that word. I do not think it mean what you think it mean."
Disinterest? So his company has a complete lack of bias or compulsion one way or another? I suspect the submitter meant lack of interest or uninterested.
I'd imagine far more people downloaded the different betas than will buy a copy online. The internet survived the betas well enough. Those tubes are made of tough stuff. As for reinstall, I'd imagine the download is something like an ISO file. It has to be burned to DVD to be usable, just like the betas. Then all you do is keep the burned DVD, perhaps keeping the file on the computer as a backup.
Explain to me how you prove that no Korans were flushed down the toilets at Gitmo.
First, because I trust the word of my government much more than the word of terrorists and their lawyers. I don't recall the specific evidence given to show that the accusations were false, but I remember finding it convincing enough.
I don't even know what to say except that you'll be one of the first against the wall when the revolution comes.
I wouldn't be the first to give my life for my country.
Why do people feel the need to be so "smart" about this? Why is it cool to use your half-formed scientific knowledge to criticise something you clearly know nothing about?
You mean like the vast majority of people on both sides of the debate, most slashdotters included?
Glad to know I am finally making a difference in something. :)
And, name me one thing that Apple has done that involves DRM, besides the iTunes Music Store. You can't, because they haven't done ANYTHING. And the music store only has DRM at the insistence of the record labels.
What else do you want? iTunes is the medium through which they provide all the entertainment that people want, which means that all of it is under DRM. Looking at it this way, everything Apple has done regarding popular multimedia entertainment has been through DRM. And even worse, many of the capibilities are only available via Apple hardware and software. Yes, you can use iTunes on a PC or Laptop but that's as far as it goes. In my book this makes Apple more restrictive, not less. But it makes sense, hardware is one place where Apple makes money. I don't fault them for defending their business, but I won't pretend they are somehow more user friendly.