General Motors has announced a plug-in hybrid SUV and Venture Vehicles is developing a fully electric 3 wheel vehicle.
I do not like either vehicle here, especially the SUV. Do they plan on making normal or small cars? Why waste technology on moving big hunks of junk or "strange" vehicles?
I so agree with number 3. All programs not in the repository need to compiled manually unless you can luckily find a binary for your Linux version (which may still not work). There are so many binary types and Ubuntu is messing with the Debian standards so that not all Debian apps can run on Ubuntu (other Linux distributions do this too to their base). Sometimes programs in the repository also don't run.
It will not be ready for the desktop until getting a binary off the internet is just that. Not compiling, not getting more parts from the repositories for your compiler so it can compile one program. If the Linux community can come up with one standard that will be most prevalent that would be good but that is also hard because there are so many distributions.
As far as me, I want Linux apps to install either by repository and work all the time or download from the internet with an installer similar to Windows. Why did Debian even make a Windows installer if Linux apps mostly do not even have these? The user will only be perplexed when he boot Linux and is like "why aren't other programs using wizards to install?".
I advocate Linux because I know free software is often better than commercial (Linux runs on old hardware no problem (try with Vista or XP), I do think that is good). I'm not any hippie.
DRM needs to be displayed to these "normal" users in such a way that even THEY can understand why most users are totally against it. Not many people here are on the side of the MPAA and such who are trying to force it down our throats (I'm on an XP/Kubuntu dual-booting machine, switching to Kubuntu (or something else with KDE soon)).
Very true. I work in a computer shop and at our rate at $225-$250 to fix spyware/virii problems, people are much more willing to buy a new PC. Our prices are just as good as what's around here, but I really wonder goes on in these people's minds when they wish to purchase a new PC instead of fixing the "old" one, often not very old at all (if it's a piece of crap eMachine, then it's understandable). IMO, any regular user (not playing PC games) can run XP fine with 1.3GHz (non-Celeron) and 256MB RAM (although I'd recommend 1GB to disable pagefile).
This is true. I use OpenOffice primarily now, but unfortunately on Windows (and until the "real" OS X version comes out), it will be opening and exiting slow. I disabled the splash (I hate splashes) and that certainly makes things "feel" faster but it really is not. It also takes up more RAM (disable Java in it to help a little). But at the very least it's free and the developers actually care about the users (unlike Microsoft apparently with Vista (why get rid of level up button Microsoft?!!!!!!!) and Office 2007 (I guess all those kids in college and high school learning Word and PowerPoint tricks are going to obsolete with 2007).
Microsoft is sort of doing what Apple has done several times. Radical changes. They are changing interfaces now to smoother-looking ones at the expense of the long-time user find them counter-intuitive. Apple has made Mac OS X (big change from OS 9, all menus were rearranged, some renamed) but at least it's easy (I used OS 9 a lot too, but who doesn't remember the stupid blank bomb screen when the system froze?). Apple has also switched to Intel processors, and has fully dropped support for "classic" apps on OS X Intel machines.
Microsoft has a much larger user base in my opinion. This is the reason why so many people are against Vista and new versions of programs (IE7 and WMP11, as if anyone used those anyway). Some people are totally embracing Vista and Office 2007 (I have to admit I liked some things in Office 2007, notably the hover preview).
Absolutely right. Some of the people arguing for Windows' sake (I have no idea why they are arguing anyway) have never used Mac OS X for more than a few minutes to play with its fancy graphics which Windows lacks normally (before Windows XP came out). These are people who saw a Mac at CompUSA and said "Oh cool, shiny graphics and look at that dock thing." They regarded it as pish-posh because of its shiny graphics.
I've been using Windows much longer than I've used Mac OS X. But I absolutely love OS X. It's so simple. It has a better security protocol in place than Windows does, and Vista asks you to Accept, not for a password. So now anyone who allows someone else to get onto their computer and does somethings will just be able to hit Run or Accept on any confirmation application (including most likely to disable UAC).
I work in a Windows shop (primarily even though I fix Mac OS X and Mac hardware problems all the time). I still can't believe people buy Windows PCs. They think for $400 (a piece of crap machine usually) is going to be easy to use. In my opinion, you get exactly what you pay for. Plug and play is nothing like what it sounds to be, and a lot of people want to use computers like appliances or like a typewriter. The machine to use when you need a piece of information, like weather, sports, news, music, and many other functions (like writing theses). But Windows AND Mac OS X are only BEGINNING to be designed in such a way (Mac OS X with Widgets and Windows Vista with Sidebar).
I'm not sure what the future holds, but I think when "non-geek"-type people just pony up the money and get a Mac and then find out how easy it is to plug in a camera and get photos (no extra software needed) and how easy it is to plug in a printer and print (usually no other software needed) they will go insane wondering what they were doing beforehand with Windows for so long. Even I had this slight kind of revelation when I used OS X extensively, however not so much because I think Windows is pretty simple (I must be a geek (Who doesn't know that Windows services executable paths are at HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\?)or something).
Like I said, I work at a computer shop. It's hard for people to believe that their "beloved" Windows PC has fallen to pieces even though all security software was installed. Some people are like "What's going on? I have Norton running all the time" or "How come Spysweeper didn't see it?" The word exploit is hard to explain to these people as well. And people get angry if you tell them that their security suite they just paid $200 or so for is just plain horrible. Us IT people I guess know that Norton and McAfee are absolutely horrible. And by the way, how the hell did SpySweeper (from WebRoot, great name by the way, more like WebRootkit) get top-ratings from CNet and PC Magazine?
Personally speaking, I use NOD32 and Spybot for my protection when I really need it (I have not received a virus and I have not caught wind of spyware in years now). Going back on UIs, NOD32 has an option to disable its custom interface (which does not simplify anything) which I use. Spybot will hopefully never adopt a non-standard interface (instead using an Outlook-like interface, another program I hate). Ad-aware uses one, but like I said, I can adapt extremely easily, but they have nothing to adapt from. Even Microsoft Word 2003 and XP have different-looking interfaces from other apps and Microsoft has further worsened the situation with Office 2007 and Windows Vista (they changed words, colors, etc for "simplification", when it really isn't, even for newbies or old-timers). All this simplification is going to cause a major split in computing, and I will happily join the Linux side of things (considering most of the apps I use are available for Linux). I hope Linux can keep a degree of complexity to it for those of us who like things that way:)
All OSes and GUIs have user interface guidelines. The problem I see with Windows right now is that we've got programs like Ad-aware, SpySweeper (two apps that a lot of people in my experience actually do buy), Norton AntiVirus (another one) and McAfee Security. These programs do some pretty important functions (firewall, antivirus, antispyware), and I even use Ad-aware at times. But ALL these apps have a COMPLETELY different interface from the standard UI. Most of us can easily adapt to any new interface because we get used to reading screens really really fast, but although I do not know, I'm assuming that most users get an interface screen up (like Norton Antivirus) and get confused easily because the UI is nothing like other programs.
What I don't understand is why the corporate versions do not have such a stupid and pointlessly graphical interface. It's because companies need stability and speed, something the consumer versions lack (especially ANY Norton software). Perhaps these companies should consider sticking with a standard UI. Just as the graphical-ness of Vista is entirely pointless and unnecessary (and IMO it's just going to make things worse), the graphical-ness of any security app is unnecessary. Perhaps a security app for an end-user should purposely look bland just to let them know that this program is entirely serious. McAfee colors their app red and has green icons and such. Norton has yellow. It slows down the program's performance (for sure, i.e. Norton ANYTHING), and confuses users IMO.
I work at a local computer shop and see problems regarding virii and spyware even though these people supposedly use Norton/McAfee and Ad-aware.
What are the real long term goals of space travel? A method of travel for vacation (that = $$$)? Is that all? Are we trying to get ready to move to another planet should a catastrophe occur? Escaping the supposed future apocalypse with space travel?
Everyone knows that one trip currently is worth about 4 good-size mansions. At the moment I don't see how it could get any cheaper (or why they would make it any cheaper, considering the funding).
I agree with the one of the posts I read about removing government out of the picture (in all countries). It should be a free enterprise to go to the moon and develop spacecrafts (perhaps with safety regulations laid out by NASA, much like airlines and Aviation Agency). If the government gets out of the picture, I think people will become more excited. A company that can use off-the-shelf parts for spacecrafts, train pilots, and whose focus is nothing but space travel will certainly excite people, especially if the price is reasonable. The price can certainly turn reasonable with time as people get more excited (and pay up).
What I find annoying is that when people hear NASA they only think moon, 1/4 of earth's gravity, and things like that. Nobody cares about what NASA does. They went to the moon a few times, really didn't find anything that interesting nor report it well, and they lost a few vehicles on Mars (shouldn't the government close NASA for wasting money then? Then again, what about CIA? Truth be told, they NEVER will).
And the other thing about other nations. Why should the US EVER intervene on other nations' space programs, such as China's or Russia's? And for that matter, why should the US EVER intervene on other nations' anything? And no, China's space program is nothing to be excited about. It's definitely going to be as good as NASA is now (and to that I say "Pfft").
There's not enough materials on earth to save everyone from a catastrophe which would destroy or damage Earth. And we're all going to die anyway, and the human race certainly cannot rule the earth forever, despite what many believe (dumb Christians/Republicans, and other religious groups).
There is no difference between running as Administrator and another "administrator" user name on Windows. All access is completely the same as Administrator; Administrator is just another name on Windows, it does nothing different than the next Administrator-based account. The only thing you risk if you run Administrator on Windows is if the Administrator account gets magically corrupted by something (maybe even yourself). To any average user, I would suggest to run as another name just so the Administrator account is for restoration purposes. It is true that regularly, the Administrator account can be blocked from system folders and such (every user name by default is blocked from "System Volume Information" where system restores get stored). You can take over, but what it really says to me is that the user Administrator is no different than any other account that has these privileges.
On root in Linux I understand that it can give certain access to apps that could hurt the system. Where are these programs? And if they are not malware, then what's the exact risk?
I so agree! Vista setup completely trashes whatever MBR you got there especially if it's Linux. My experience has been that if you try to install Vista with XP on a first partition, XP is no longer really functional anymore. Shortly after playing with Vista, I went into Partition Magic (bootable) and deleted the Vista partition, then did fixmbr and fixboot on XP restore mode (also bootable).
And I agree on the compatibility. Why does WMP get called WiMP? Because for one thing it promotes DRM (Apple's FairPlay on iTunes must be nicer than Microsoft's somehow, dunno), and secondly it promotes the WMA format. The whole PlaysForSure thing is never true. PlaysForSure from my experience seems to be only possible with the one and only MP3.
Internet Explorer by default asks you basically "Why are you trying to use another browser?!!!!!!!!" And same with Outlook Express.
If they improved in this one area, if they learned to play nice with other Operating Systems, they would not only be less hated in the IT community, but they would not be under fire so much in the anti-trust arena.
I agree with this to. But if I worked at MS and were asked to revamp "playing with others" after years of trying to push MS formats and software I would be puzzled as where to start. I'd probably start with adding compatibility in Notepad to read Linux and Mac-formatted text files, ODF support in Office and perhaps right in the OS with something like WordPad, built-in OGG (among others) support in WMP (and so forth on the Zune), and a lot of other file format discrepancies. Not sure at the moment what I would do after file formats other than stop promoting the default OS apps.
After a day of multiple memory leak issues (and still no updats even to this day!), I reverted to Firefox 1.5 as well. Plus my favorite theme is no longer being updated and it only works on Firefox 1.5. A few other plugins I use also stopped working (mostly ones that don't get listed at the main site). I got sick of it and I don't see what's wrong 1.5, unless you're a total moron.
Lately though I have been wondering what are the goals of the Firefox team. If Firefox becomes the most popular browser, then the attacks go straigt to Firefox then, no longer IE. Then I might feel like definitely switching to something like Opera or Maxthon (I hear both are really good). I'm already starting to get this feeling. Firefox is as good as Google anyway, if you ask me [/sarcasm].
"I am Michael Jones, the Chief Technologist of Google Earth, Google Maps, and Google Local search writing to the author(s) of the Gaia project ( http://gaia.serezhkin.com/) with an urgent concern. We have now become aware of your efforts and are concerned that you may not understand the developing global social impact of your engineering creativity."
Wow! I did not know there were this many themes, including ones that mimic Windows and Mac. I'm so switching to Kubuntu now just for KDE themes, especially the Aqua ones. Not kidding around, it attracts me to use Linux a whole lot more than looking at the ugly default Gnome theme, and I don't even like that GUI anyway.
Absolutely right. I think there should be an option, but who knows what'll happen.
I downgraded back to 1.5 for reasons other than the bugs (which I did experience), the close tab button position and the fact that some extensions and themes are not available for 2.0 (such as any Mac-style themes). When I downgraded, 1.5 reported that the dictionary is not compatible (dictionaries are only supported in 2.0+), but I'd rather sacrifice a dictionary that hardly does anything for stability and usability.
I recently downgraded to 1.5 again after experiencing numerous memory leaks with FF 2.0 just after closing it and while using a program such as Photoshop or Traktor DJ Studio. My mouse would be able to move but not be able to click, everything is frozen, Ctrl+Alt+Del works but when Task manager shows up the keyboard doesn't work otherwise and the mouse still won't click at all. And it seems the only way around it is either to log off or restart.
So when I downgraded, I ran Firefox (1.5), viewed some sites, then ran Traktor. I tried doing some mixing (to try to re-create the problem of 2.0) in Traktor, meanwhile leaving Firefox open. I closed Firefox while Traktor was running and playing. With FF 2.0 my mouse would immediately stop being able to click on anything and my keyboard would only do Ctrl+Alt+Del. But that didn't happen with 1.5. So I'm all happy about downgrading and keeping 1.5. There's no security issues if you're not retarded.
I used to agree with this, and am not a huge fan of Aero (finding some parts unnecessary). The best parts are the preview when you hover over the task bar (I use a Mac OS X theme on XP and use Visual Tool Tips to see previews on my "task bar"). When XP came out, I was extremely opposed to its new interface (changed to classic and used that for a long time). 4 years later I like themes (ones that emulate OS's only), 1 year after that I turn on a few XP visual effects; my system is looking pretty good.:D
I LOVE AQUA GUI, but OS X is not that great when it doesn't work with your system 100% (damn ATI).
People STILL use paging files? If you got 1GB of RAM or more, the pagefile becomes completely unnecessary unless maybe if you run a lot of stuff, but I do and my computer seems perfect without it (better than with it, and it saves space to not have it).
The problem here is if we're talking about fully flash hard drives. If you bought two, one for backup (even in a ghost or RAID ghost setting), how can you rely on the fact that one won't die when it was written onto the same exact number of times, byte for byte, and used for the same amount of time? It's similar to current HD's, but these tend to not break at the same time.
Flash also can only be written onto so many times before it's rewriting capabilities start to suffer badly (don't remember the exact number, but this is when flash drives die).
Slashdot Mirror
:D
I do not like either vehicle here, especially the SUV. Do they plan on making normal or small cars? Why waste technology on moving big hunks of junk or "strange" vehicles?
I got a tip. If you just bought a new PC, you probably got Norton with it (most likely for HP, Acer, Sony, etc). KILL IT. Speed problems solved.
I so agree with number 3. All programs not in the repository need to compiled manually unless you can luckily find a binary for your Linux version (which may still not work). There are so many binary types and Ubuntu is messing with the Debian standards so that not all Debian apps can run on Ubuntu (other Linux distributions do this too to their base). Sometimes programs in the repository also don't run.
It will not be ready for the desktop until getting a binary off the internet is just that. Not compiling, not getting more parts from the repositories for your compiler so it can compile one program. If the Linux community can come up with one standard that will be most prevalent that would be good but that is also hard because there are so many distributions.
As far as me, I want Linux apps to install either by repository and work all the time or download from the internet with an installer similar to Windows. Why did Debian even make a Windows installer if Linux apps mostly do not even have these? The user will only be perplexed when he boot Linux and is like "why aren't other programs using wizards to install?".
I advocate Linux because I know free software is often better than commercial (Linux runs on old hardware no problem (try with Vista or XP), I do think that is good). I'm not any hippie.
DRM needs to be displayed to these "normal" users in such a way that even THEY can understand why most users are totally against it. Not many people here are on the side of the MPAA and such who are trying to force it down our throats (I'm on an XP/Kubuntu dual-booting machine, switching to Kubuntu (or something else with KDE soon)).
Very true. I work in a computer shop and at our rate at $225-$250 to fix spyware/virii problems, people are much more willing to buy a new PC. Our prices are just as good as what's around here, but I really wonder goes on in these people's minds when they wish to purchase a new PC instead of fixing the "old" one, often not very old at all (if it's a piece of crap eMachine, then it's understandable). IMO, any regular user (not playing PC games) can run XP fine with 1.3GHz (non-Celeron) and 256MB RAM (although I'd recommend 1GB to disable pagefile).
This is true. I use OpenOffice primarily now, but unfortunately on Windows (and until the "real" OS X version comes out), it will be opening and exiting slow. I disabled the splash (I hate splashes) and that certainly makes things "feel" faster but it really is not. It also takes up more RAM (disable Java in it to help a little). But at the very least it's free and the developers actually care about the users (unlike Microsoft apparently with Vista (why get rid of level up button Microsoft?!!!!!!!) and Office 2007 (I guess all those kids in college and high school learning Word and PowerPoint tricks are going to obsolete with 2007).
Microsoft is sort of doing what Apple has done several times. Radical changes. They are changing interfaces now to smoother-looking ones at the expense of the long-time user find them counter-intuitive. Apple has made Mac OS X (big change from OS 9, all menus were rearranged, some renamed) but at least it's easy (I used OS 9 a lot too, but who doesn't remember the stupid blank bomb screen when the system froze?). Apple has also switched to Intel processors, and has fully dropped support for "classic" apps on OS X Intel machines.
Microsoft has a much larger user base in my opinion. This is the reason why so many people are against Vista and new versions of programs (IE7 and WMP11, as if anyone used those anyway). Some people are totally embracing Vista and Office 2007 (I have to admit I liked some things in Office 2007, notably the hover preview).
Absolutely right. Some of the people arguing for Windows' sake (I have no idea why they are arguing anyway) have never used Mac OS X for more than a few minutes to play with its fancy graphics which Windows lacks normally (before Windows XP came out). These are people who saw a Mac at CompUSA and said "Oh cool, shiny graphics and look at that dock thing." They regarded it as pish-posh because of its shiny graphics.
I've been using Windows much longer than I've used Mac OS X. But I absolutely love OS X. It's so simple. It has a better security protocol in place than Windows does, and Vista asks you to Accept, not for a password. So now anyone who allows someone else to get onto their computer and does somethings will just be able to hit Run or Accept on any confirmation application (including most likely to disable UAC).
I work in a Windows shop (primarily even though I fix Mac OS X and Mac hardware problems all the time). I still can't believe people buy Windows PCs. They think for $400 (a piece of crap machine usually) is going to be easy to use. In my opinion, you get exactly what you pay for. Plug and play is nothing like what it sounds to be, and a lot of people want to use computers like appliances or like a typewriter. The machine to use when you need a piece of information, like weather, sports, news, music, and many other functions (like writing theses). But Windows AND Mac OS X are only BEGINNING to be designed in such a way (Mac OS X with Widgets and Windows Vista with Sidebar).
I'm not sure what the future holds, but I think when "non-geek"-type people just pony up the money and get a Mac and then find out how easy it is to plug in a camera and get photos (no extra software needed) and how easy it is to plug in a printer and print (usually no other software needed) they will go insane wondering what they were doing beforehand with Windows for so long. Even I had this slight kind of revelation when I used OS X extensively, however not so much because I think Windows is pretty simple (I must be a geek (Who doesn't know that Windows services executable paths are at HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\?)or something).
Like I said, I work at a computer shop. It's hard for people to believe that their "beloved" Windows PC has fallen to pieces even though all security software was installed. Some people are like "What's going on? I have Norton running all the time" or "How come Spysweeper didn't see it?" The word exploit is hard to explain to these people as well. And people get angry if you tell them that their security suite they just paid $200 or so for is just plain horrible. Us IT people I guess know that Norton and McAfee are absolutely horrible. And by the way, how the hell did SpySweeper (from WebRoot, great name by the way, more like WebRootkit) get top-ratings from CNet and PC Magazine?
:)
Personally speaking, I use NOD32 and Spybot for my protection when I really need it (I have not received a virus and I have not caught wind of spyware in years now). Going back on UIs, NOD32 has an option to disable its custom interface (which does not simplify anything) which I use. Spybot will hopefully never adopt a non-standard interface (instead using an Outlook-like interface, another program I hate). Ad-aware uses one, but like I said, I can adapt extremely easily, but they have nothing to adapt from. Even Microsoft Word 2003 and XP have different-looking interfaces from other apps and Microsoft has further worsened the situation with Office 2007 and Windows Vista (they changed words, colors, etc for "simplification", when it really isn't, even for newbies or old-timers). All this simplification is going to cause a major split in computing, and I will happily join the Linux side of things (considering most of the apps I use are available for Linux). I hope Linux can keep a degree of complexity to it for those of us who like things that way
All OSes and GUIs have user interface guidelines. The problem I see with Windows right now is that we've got programs like Ad-aware, SpySweeper (two apps that a lot of people in my experience actually do buy), Norton AntiVirus (another one) and McAfee Security. These programs do some pretty important functions (firewall, antivirus, antispyware), and I even use Ad-aware at times. But ALL these apps have a COMPLETELY different interface from the standard UI. Most of us can easily adapt to any new interface because we get used to reading screens really really fast, but although I do not know, I'm assuming that most users get an interface screen up (like Norton Antivirus) and get confused easily because the UI is nothing like other programs.
What I don't understand is why the corporate versions do not have such a stupid and pointlessly graphical interface. It's because companies need stability and speed, something the consumer versions lack (especially ANY Norton software). Perhaps these companies should consider sticking with a standard UI. Just as the graphical-ness of Vista is entirely pointless and unnecessary (and IMO it's just going to make things worse), the graphical-ness of any security app is unnecessary. Perhaps a security app for an end-user should purposely look bland just to let them know that this program is entirely serious. McAfee colors their app red and has green icons and such. Norton has yellow. It slows down the program's performance (for sure, i.e. Norton ANYTHING), and confuses users IMO.
I work at a local computer shop and see problems regarding virii and spyware even though these people supposedly use Norton/McAfee and Ad-aware.
What are the real long term goals of space travel? A method of travel for vacation (that = $$$)? Is that all? Are we trying to get ready to move to another planet should a catastrophe occur? Escaping the supposed future apocalypse with space travel?
Everyone knows that one trip currently is worth about 4 good-size mansions. At the moment I don't see how it could get any cheaper (or why they would make it any cheaper, considering the funding).
I agree with the one of the posts I read about removing government out of the picture (in all countries). It should be a free enterprise to go to the moon and develop spacecrafts (perhaps with safety regulations laid out by NASA, much like airlines and Aviation Agency). If the government gets out of the picture, I think people will become more excited. A company that can use off-the-shelf parts for spacecrafts, train pilots, and whose focus is nothing but space travel will certainly excite people, especially if the price is reasonable. The price can certainly turn reasonable with time as people get more excited (and pay up).
What I find annoying is that when people hear NASA they only think moon, 1/4 of earth's gravity, and things like that. Nobody cares about what NASA does. They went to the moon a few times, really didn't find anything that interesting nor report it well, and they lost a few vehicles on Mars (shouldn't the government close NASA for wasting money then? Then again, what about CIA? Truth be told, they NEVER will).
And the other thing about other nations. Why should the US EVER intervene on other nations' space programs, such as China's or Russia's? And for that matter, why should the US EVER intervene on other nations' anything? And no, China's space program is nothing to be excited about. It's definitely going to be as good as NASA is now (and to that I say "Pfft").
There's not enough materials on earth to save everyone from a catastrophe which would destroy or damage Earth. And we're all going to die anyway, and the human race certainly cannot rule the earth forever, despite what many believe (dumb Christians/Republicans, and other religious groups).
Don't use Microsoft Office EVER.
There is no difference between running as Administrator and another "administrator" user name on Windows. All access is completely the same as Administrator; Administrator is just another name on Windows, it does nothing different than the next Administrator-based account. The only thing you risk if you run Administrator on Windows is if the Administrator account gets magically corrupted by something (maybe even yourself). To any average user, I would suggest to run as another name just so the Administrator account is for restoration purposes. It is true that regularly, the Administrator account can be blocked from system folders and such (every user name by default is blocked from "System Volume Information" where system restores get stored). You can take over, but what it really says to me is that the user Administrator is no different than any other account that has these privileges.
On root in Linux I understand that it can give certain access to apps that could hurt the system. Where are these programs? And if they are not malware, then what's the exact risk?
I so agree! Vista setup completely trashes whatever MBR you got there especially if it's Linux. My experience has been that if you try to install Vista with XP on a first partition, XP is no longer really functional anymore. Shortly after playing with Vista, I went into Partition Magic (bootable) and deleted the Vista partition, then did fixmbr and fixboot on XP restore mode (also bootable).
And I agree on the compatibility. Why does WMP get called WiMP? Because for one thing it promotes DRM (Apple's FairPlay on iTunes must be nicer than Microsoft's somehow, dunno), and secondly it promotes the WMA format. The whole PlaysForSure thing is never true. PlaysForSure from my experience seems to be only possible with the one and only MP3.
Internet Explorer by default asks you basically "Why are you trying to use another browser?!!!!!!!!" And same with Outlook Express. If they improved in this one area, if they learned to play nice with other Operating Systems, they would not only be less hated in the IT community, but they would not be under fire so much in the anti-trust arena.
I agree with this to. But if I worked at MS and were asked to revamp "playing with others" after years of trying to push MS formats and software I would be puzzled as where to start. I'd probably start with adding compatibility in Notepad to read Linux and Mac-formatted text files, ODF support in Office and perhaps right in the OS with something like WordPad, built-in OGG (among others) support in WMP (and so forth on the Zune), and a lot of other file format discrepancies. Not sure at the moment what I would do after file formats other than stop promoting the default OS apps.
After a day of multiple memory leak issues (and still no updats even to this day!), I reverted to Firefox 1.5 as well. Plus my favorite theme is no longer being updated and it only works on Firefox 1.5. A few other plugins I use also stopped working (mostly ones that don't get listed at the main site). I got sick of it and I don't see what's wrong 1.5, unless you're a total moron.
Lately though I have been wondering what are the goals of the Firefox team. If Firefox becomes the most popular browser, then the attacks go straigt to Firefox then, no longer IE. Then I might feel like definitely switching to something like Opera or Maxthon (I hear both are really good). I'm already starting to get this feeling. Firefox is as good as Google anyway, if you ask me [/sarcasm].
"I am Michael Jones, the Chief Technologist of Google Earth, Google Maps, and
Google Local search writing to the author(s) of the Gaia project (
http://gaia.serezhkin.com/) with an urgent concern. We have now become aware
of your efforts and are concerned that you may not understand the developing
global social impact of your engineering creativity."
MIKE JONES!
*gets his gat*
Second, what is Microsoft's new obsession with dark colors (black!, especially in Vista)? I guess Microsoft really is evil afterall.
Wow! I did not know there were this many themes, including ones that mimic Windows and Mac. I'm so switching to Kubuntu now just for KDE themes, especially the Aqua ones. Not kidding around, it attracts me to use Linux a whole lot more than looking at the ugly default Gnome theme, and I don't even like that GUI anyway.
I downgraded back to 1.5 for reasons other than the bugs (which I did experience), the close tab button position and the fact that some extensions and themes are not available for 2.0 (such as any Mac-style themes). When I downgraded, 1.5 reported that the dictionary is not compatible (dictionaries are only supported in 2.0+), but I'd rather sacrifice a dictionary that hardly does anything for stability and usability.
I recently downgraded to 1.5 again after experiencing numerous memory leaks with FF 2.0 just after closing it and while using a program such as Photoshop or Traktor DJ Studio. My mouse would be able to move but not be able to click, everything is frozen, Ctrl+Alt+Del works but when Task manager shows up the keyboard doesn't work otherwise and the mouse still won't click at all. And it seems the only way around it is either to log off or restart. So when I downgraded, I ran Firefox (1.5), viewed some sites, then ran Traktor. I tried doing some mixing (to try to re-create the problem of 2.0) in Traktor, meanwhile leaving Firefox open. I closed Firefox while Traktor was running and playing. With FF 2.0 my mouse would immediately stop being able to click on anything and my keyboard would only do Ctrl+Alt+Del. But that didn't happen with 1.5. So I'm all happy about downgrading and keeping 1.5. There's no security issues if you're not retarded.
$100 million is definitely not enough.
I used to agree with this, and am not a huge fan of Aero (finding some parts unnecessary). The best parts are the preview when you hover over the task bar (I use a Mac OS X theme on XP and use Visual Tool Tips to see previews on my "task bar"). When XP came out, I was extremely opposed to its new interface (changed to classic and used that for a long time). 4 years later I like themes (ones that emulate OS's only), 1 year after that I turn on a few XP visual effects; my system is looking pretty good. :D
I LOVE AQUA GUI, but OS X is not that great when it doesn't work with your system 100% (damn ATI).
Additionally, do you honestly think any company (Intel, Microsoft, Samsung) would back this technology if it was limited to R/W cycles in thousands?
YES!
"MONEY MONEY MONEY!" -- from the horse himself
People STILL use paging files? If you got 1GB of RAM or more, the pagefile becomes completely unnecessary unless maybe if you run a lot of stuff, but I do and my computer seems perfect without it (better than with it, and it saves space to not have it).
The problem here is if we're talking about fully flash hard drives. If you bought two, one for backup (even in a ghost or RAID ghost setting), how can you rely on the fact that one won't die when it was written onto the same exact number of times, byte for byte, and used for the same amount of time? It's similar to current HD's, but these tend to not break at the same time.
Flash also can only be written onto so many times before it's rewriting capabilities start to suffer badly (don't remember the exact number, but this is when flash drives die).