I use Delphi 6 and have done so since it was released. It even works in Vista. I really don't see it being dead as much as it is starting to get a little long in the tooth. I dare not switch to Delphi 7 or later because some projects simply will not build properly and it scolds you for using pointers. Other than that Delphi works a charm. Most components still support Delphi 6 including Indy.
Now, now, no need to be rude just because you were caught out talking utter rubbish.
You said "precisely zero", you're wrong, that and other reports of malware on the Mac prove it. You're the one talking rubbish. If you want to make friends go to MySpace.
So come on, show us some evidence of _real malware_ that's affecting significant numbers of those 5 million Macs that Apple sold last year. I eagerly await your response.
Again, you said "precisely zero" not "significant numbers". You can't change your argument half way through. Just pick your words more carefully. Avoid dealing in absolutes. Better luck next time.
A fancy computer that does not do the task you want it to is not doing you any good.
But it is doing what the customer wants. They want a baseline configuration and any programs that don't work with their configuration aren't allowed.
You're trying so hard to turn this around and make it about Microsoft but they have little to do with it. This is the federal government making up these rules. If they don't want to allow program X because program X doesn't support feature Y then that's nobody's problem but the authors of program X.
The proposed flexibility will inevitably sink to Dell software install options and people who want to get work done with specialized programs will be forced off Windoze or suffer with second rate software on expensive hardware.
Oh please, don't act like open source doesn't exist in Win32. If you think program X is "second rate" then make a better version. I know of several free compilers if you'd like me to point you to them.
--
Everytime someone buys a Windows PC, a twitter dies.
so please explain why, after eight years on the market, Macs running OS X have precisely zero infections
Because you're either a liar or a moron.
Back in 2004 this trojan was found in the wild. Yes that's "in the wild", not some proof of concept crap. This is an actual backdoor running out there on more than 1 Mac. There are other worms and viruses but again because so few people run a Mac it's not widespread. This was 2004, Apple's market share is growing, they are getting more and more bugs and being worse about fixing them. If Mac is getting burned this bad at only 6.38% market share I really shudder to think how bad it would be if they ever got really big.
Using a Mac and claiming you're more secure is like moving to the woods and claiming your crime rate is lower.
You mean like opening a spread sheet or word document? Like playing a video? Launching a game? Listening to mp3s in Winamp? Opening your browser? Opening an image in Photoshop? Editing in VirtualDub? Adobe Audition? No it doesn't prompt for any of that stuff, you know.. what 90% of people are doing... For those of you using regedit, you'll have to deal with the popups or turn it off.
All your FUD aside, there is one program that is broken in Vista, that's WinRAR. It always asks for administrator privileges. That's obviously an issue with WinRAR though.
I'm not talking about any single commercial in particular. As a general take on all of the commercials combined the message is basically thus; if you switch from Windows to Mac OS X you will never have to worry about any security issues ever. Wrong. There is no security magic bullet. Contrary to whatever that kid from Jeepers Creepers says.
As for Vista's new security, it's basically a take on ProcessGuard which I have used and loved for a long time. Every executable file you run is hashed and then compared to the database. If that executable is not in the database or has a hash different than what is listed it triggers a prompt.
In other words, just like the Windows firewall, Vista's new security feature is a watered down version of better and more popular security software. The difference is that now every clueless Joe Sixpack that buys a Vista PC will have these things included instead of having to buy it separately. That's damn good news for the internet. Fewer zombies, less identity theft. It would be nice to never get another hacker paying for auctions with a stolen paypal account, to never have your IRC server dropped by a spoiled child, no more SMTP relays pumping millions of spam emails. Oh that would be such a dream. That will probably never happen but the fewer idiots getting owned, the better for the rest of us.
So what do you think those other 42 vulnerabilities do? Make your Mac smell like sunshine?
Windows has 93.05%* market share. Mac has 6.38%* market share. That means there are almost 15 times the amount people possibly trying to break Windows security yet it has less vulnerabilities and took less time to release patches.
In fact Mac users were left vulnerable on average over 2 months longer than Windows users. This is not a small margin and this is definitely not what Apple's commercials are selling people.
The tragedy of what was done to the Native Americans isn't that Europeans came in and conquered them. It's the way they were treated afterwards. I don't think anyone can read about the Trail of Tears and not feel something. You can't confuse war with murder. There is a difference.
That being said. What's done is done. It should be remembered so we learn from those horrible mistakes. It shouldn't be a constant source of guilt to be used against people that had no part in it. The same goes for slavery, genocide and all the other ignorant suffering we've inflicted on each other.
The harassment dished out to me personally is part of that.
No, that's because you make yourself an easy target. Posting long-winded rants using slang like "M$" and "Windoze" is a good way to do it. Grow up already.
I'd like to add that even if the people that posted Viacom content on YouTube didn't remove the advertisements, it would still be impossible for Viacom to turn around and charge their sponsors for those ads. If Viacom doesn't make enough money then they stop making content.
What needs to happen is that Viacom and Google make some sort of arrangement so that Viacom can get revenue from copyrighted content on YouTube. That way everyone wins; Viacom, Google and the consumers. In this billion dollar winner-take-all lawsuit somebody is going lose and if it's Google, we are back where we started. Which is, Viacom not meeting the consumers demand for their content.
I say, spending more than 3 years arguing, cajoling, and gaining concessions for consumer rights, when so many others were so willing to trample all over them, just to gain access to the major record labels collections, is ample argument that Steve Jobs and Apple has always seen DRM as a deterrent to where their vision of digital media will be in the future.
Then why does Apple slap DRM even on indie artists without labels that require DRM?
I'll tell you why. Because it would cost more to make the changes to iTunes. It would also be more confusing to the customers and potential lost sales. Apple doesn't care about noble aspirations. They care about the bottom line. We all know this except for the few apologists that insist otherwise.
These are the same apologists that claim Apple wants to get rid of DRM because they care about the customer. No, Apple wants to get rid of DRM because it costs more, is complicated and overly ineffective. That's good for us but don't fool yourself. If Apple saw itself coming out better in the long run with DRM it wouldn't change a thing. Apple is not concerned with consumer rights. They are concerned with Apple's right to make lots of money and if they can spin it so that people like you buy into "Apple loves me" then even better.
You hear "me too" but I hear "this is how it's done".
Under all that make-up is a monster truck. While I enjoy my high-res games with SLI, media center is in the background recording Mythbusters. That's something you can't do in OS X. As a bonus, now Windows actually looks good while doing it. This is the worst thing that could ever happen to OS X. Now there's basically zero incentive to switch.
Yes I'm sure. I have one for testing purposes. I've seen transparency but what Aero does is almost like this glass effect. It's the best eye candy on any desktop I've seen yet. For whatever that's worth.
That's kind of ironic since adoption of Vista means more people needing newer processors which means more business for Intel. However, since this is coming from the Register, I'll have to assume that they were making the decision based on an IT stand point and not a marketing stand point. That just gives more credibility to the decision.
***WARNING PERSONAL OPINIONS AHEAD***
Speaking as a Vista owner, unless you're building a new PC from scratch with hardware that says "Vista capable" on the box, forget it. Upgrading from XP is like playing russian roulette. Unless you have a dual-core, at least 2GB ram, high end video card and a TV tuner there's not even a reason to upgrade. You're just getting a buggier version of XP. If however you do have a high-end system then it is very sweet. Every time I use Vista Media Center I'm impressed. Aero is just beautiful. It was hard to bite the bullet and give up my Windows standard theme. Now that I have though it makes OS X look like an afterthought. Just like we have the endless "is Linux ready for the desktop" articles we can now look forward to "is Vista ready for the workstation" articles. Wee!
I have to ask, what's so good about an office produce that makes it worth more than a grand... and what's special about "Ultimate"?
It has fewer menus grayed out.
No but seriously, the Ultimate versions of Windows share a common theme, which is merging business features together with home features. It's really a waste of money for most people that just want to write an essay or edit spreadsheets. It's all just a big grab for more money and it seems to be working very well.
If violence is illegal then what's the problem? Are they saying that the cameraman is an accomplice to the attack? Can't they already cover egger-ons as an accessory to the crime? I'm not sure how the laws work over there but it seems like a round about way to tackle the issue. I'll never understand why politicians push such broad reaching laws for very narrow problems. Wait let me rephrase that, I'll never understand why HONEST politicians do that.
I wasn't aware that Canada lets all US movie studios come up there and shoot movies for free. I just figured that all the crew up there were actually spending money on local labor, food, electricity and whatever else is needed to shoot a film.
But I do find it ironic that we steal your best actors and comedians only to send them back up there to shoot the films but that's the way of business. If you can pull off Toronto as Tokyo then you go for it.
Your oil is a fungible commodity. Ignoring that, if your government wanted to then it could sell oil directly to the US under some sort of contract that stipulated usage. You'd have to sell it pretty cheap otherwise the US would simply go elsewhere. However, it seems that Canada is in it for the money just like the rest of the world.
Slashdot Mirror
I use Delphi 6 and have done so since it was released. It even works in Vista. I really don't see it being dead as much as it is starting to get a little long in the tooth. I dare not switch to Delphi 7 or later because some projects simply will not build properly and it scolds you for using pointers. Other than that Delphi works a charm. Most components still support Delphi 6 including Indy.
Everyone has to reinvent every wheel or put themselves at the mercy of their non free competitors.
If you have problems reinventing the wheel, I doubt programming would be your chosen profession.
If you're too lazy then go flip burgers.
SIMMA DOWN NOW! YA HERE?
Now, now, no need to be rude just because you were caught out talking utter rubbish.
You said "precisely zero", you're wrong, that and other reports of malware on the Mac prove it. You're the one talking rubbish. If you want to make friends go to MySpace.
So come on, show us some evidence of _real malware_ that's affecting significant numbers of those 5 million Macs that Apple sold last year. I eagerly await your response.
Again, you said "precisely zero" not "significant numbers". You can't change your argument half way through. Just pick your words more carefully. Avoid dealing in absolutes. Better luck next time.
A fancy computer that does not do the task you want it to is not doing you any good.
But it is doing what the customer wants. They want a baseline configuration and any programs that don't work with their configuration aren't allowed.
You're trying so hard to turn this around and make it about Microsoft but they have little to do with it. This is the federal government making up these rules. If they don't want to allow program X because program X doesn't support feature Y then that's nobody's problem but the authors of program X.
The proposed flexibility will inevitably sink to Dell software install options and people who want to get work done with specialized programs will be forced off Windoze or suffer with second rate software on expensive hardware.
Oh please, don't act like open source doesn't exist in Win32. If you think program X is "second rate" then make a better version. I know of several free compilers if you'd like me to point you to them.
--
Everytime someone buys a Windows PC, a twitter dies.
Are there even 1.2 million Macs in operation? Haha...
Using a Mac and claiming you're more secure is like moving to the woods and claiming your crime rate is lower.
so please explain why, after eight years on the market, Macs running OS X have precisely zero infections
Because you're either a liar or a moron.
Back in 2004 this trojan was found in the wild. Yes that's "in the wild", not some proof of concept crap. This is an actual backdoor running out there on more than 1 Mac. There are other worms and viruses but again because so few people run a Mac it's not widespread. This was 2004, Apple's market share is growing, they are getting more and more bugs and being worse about fixing them. If Mac is getting burned this bad at only 6.38% market share I really shudder to think how bad it would be if they ever got really big.
Using a Mac and claiming you're more secure is like moving to the woods and claiming your crime rate is lower.
Every time you do something to the system?
You mean like opening a spread sheet or word document? Like playing a video? Launching a game? Listening to mp3s in Winamp? Opening your browser? Opening an image in Photoshop? Editing in VirtualDub? Adobe Audition? No it doesn't prompt for any of that stuff, you know.. what 90% of people are doing... For those of you using regedit, you'll have to deal with the popups or turn it off.
All your FUD aside, there is one program that is broken in Vista, that's WinRAR. It always asks for administrator privileges. That's obviously an issue with WinRAR though.
I'm not talking about any single commercial in particular. As a general take on all of the commercials combined the message is basically thus; if you switch from Windows to Mac OS X you will never have to worry about any security issues ever. Wrong. There is no security magic bullet. Contrary to whatever that kid from Jeepers Creepers says.
As for Vista's new security, it's basically a take on ProcessGuard which I have used and loved for a long time. Every executable file you run is hashed and then compared to the database. If that executable is not in the database or has a hash different than what is listed it triggers a prompt.
In other words, just like the Windows firewall, Vista's new security feature is a watered down version of better and more popular security software. The difference is that now every clueless Joe Sixpack that buys a Vista PC will have these things included instead of having to buy it separately. That's damn good news for the internet. Fewer zombies, less identity theft. It would be nice to never get another hacker paying for auctions with a stolen paypal account, to never have your IRC server dropped by a spoiled child, no more SMTP relays pumping millions of spam emails. Oh that would be such a dream. That will probably never happen but the fewer idiots getting owned, the better for the rest of us.
Indeed, the ONLY thing that this study shows is that the Apple ads are full of shit.
Linux all the way baby!
So what do you think those other 42 vulnerabilities do? Make your Mac smell like sunshine?
Windows has 93.05%* market share. Mac has 6.38%* market share. That means there are almost 15 times the amount people possibly trying to break Windows security yet it has less vulnerabilities and took less time to release patches.
In fact Mac users were left vulnerable on average over 2 months longer than Windows users. This is not a small margin and this is definitely not what Apple's commercials are selling people.
*OS Marketshare
Why oh why can't we have Flip3D and the mini-tab-previews without Aero?! Please don't tell me it's not possible to render the classic theme with WDM!
The tragedy of what was done to the Native Americans isn't that Europeans came in and conquered them. It's the way they were treated afterwards. I don't think anyone can read about the Trail of Tears and not feel something. You can't confuse war with murder. There is a difference.
That being said. What's done is done. It should be remembered so we learn from those horrible mistakes. It shouldn't be a constant source of guilt to be used against people that had no part in it. The same goes for slavery, genocide and all the other ignorant suffering we've inflicted on each other.
but when it comes to being 'tolerant' of the faith of the majority of Americans
"Let's don't become so tolerant than we tolerate intolerance." -Bill Maher
Religions that seek to spread the message of inferiority in atheists, women and homosexuals are incompatible with civilized society.
It's also just plain silly.
The harassment dished out to me personally is part of that.
No, that's because you make yourself an easy target. Posting long-winded rants using slang like "M$" and "Windoze" is a good way to do it. Grow up already.
I'd like to add that even if the people that posted Viacom content on YouTube didn't remove the advertisements, it would still be impossible for Viacom to turn around and charge their sponsors for those ads. If Viacom doesn't make enough money then they stop making content.
What needs to happen is that Viacom and Google make some sort of arrangement so that Viacom can get revenue from copyrighted content on YouTube. That way everyone wins; Viacom, Google and the consumers. In this billion dollar winner-take-all lawsuit somebody is going lose and if it's Google, we are back where we started. Which is, Viacom not meeting the consumers demand for their content.
I say, spending more than 3 years arguing, cajoling, and gaining concessions for consumer rights, when so many others were so willing to trample all over them, just to gain access to the major record labels collections, is ample argument that Steve Jobs and Apple has always seen DRM as a deterrent to where their vision of digital media will be in the future.
Then why does Apple slap DRM even on indie artists without labels that require DRM?
I'll tell you why. Because it would cost more to make the changes to iTunes. It would also be more confusing to the customers and potential lost sales. Apple doesn't care about noble aspirations. They care about the bottom line. We all know this except for the few apologists that insist otherwise.
These are the same apologists that claim Apple wants to get rid of DRM because they care about the customer. No, Apple wants to get rid of DRM because it costs more, is complicated and overly ineffective. That's good for us but don't fool yourself. If Apple saw itself coming out better in the long run with DRM it wouldn't change a thing. Apple is not concerned with consumer rights. They are concerned with Apple's right to make lots of money and if they can spin it so that people like you buy into "Apple loves me" then even better.
Agreed. Windows has all the elegance and comfort of a monster truck...
Cute but face it, Aqua is last generation, Aero is superior. Wait for OS X to update its technology then you can switch your snobby attitude back on.
As for games and recording TV, that's why I have a Playstation and a DVR. My computers are for work, my couch is for TV and games.
Yea why spend less money to get it all in one package when you could overpay for it.
And, as far as games are concerned, I would much rather go outside for a walk.
Enjoy your walk. I have a feeling you'll be doing a lot of it to save on gas while paying off your credit card bill.
You hear "me too" but I hear "this is how it's done".
Under all that make-up is a monster truck. While I enjoy my high-res games with SLI, media center is in the background recording Mythbusters. That's something you can't do in OS X. As a bonus, now Windows actually looks good while doing it. This is the worst thing that could ever happen to OS X. Now there's basically zero incentive to switch.
Are sure you ever used a Mac before?
Yes I'm sure. I have one for testing purposes. I've seen transparency but what Aero does is almost like this glass effect. It's the best eye candy on any desktop I've seen yet. For whatever that's worth.
That's kind of ironic since adoption of Vista means more people needing newer processors which means more business for Intel. However, since this is coming from the Register, I'll have to assume that they were making the decision based on an IT stand point and not a marketing stand point. That just gives more credibility to the decision.
***WARNING PERSONAL OPINIONS AHEAD***
Speaking as a Vista owner, unless you're building a new PC from scratch with hardware that says "Vista capable" on the box, forget it. Upgrading from XP is like playing russian roulette. Unless you have a dual-core, at least 2GB ram, high end video card and a TV tuner there's not even a reason to upgrade. You're just getting a buggier version of XP. If however you do have a high-end system then it is very sweet. Every time I use Vista Media Center I'm impressed. Aero is just beautiful. It was hard to bite the bullet and give up my Windows standard theme. Now that I have though it makes OS X look like an afterthought. Just like we have the endless "is Linux ready for the desktop" articles we can now look forward to "is Vista ready for the workstation" articles. Wee!
I have to ask, what's so good about an office produce that makes it worth more than a grand... and what's special about "Ultimate"?
It has fewer menus grayed out.
No but seriously, the Ultimate versions of Windows share a common theme, which is merging business features together with home features. It's really a waste of money for most people that just want to write an essay or edit spreadsheets. It's all just a big grab for more money and it seems to be working very well.
If violence is illegal then what's the problem? Are they saying that the cameraman is an accomplice to the attack? Can't they already cover egger-ons as an accessory to the crime? I'm not sure how the laws work over there but it seems like a round about way to tackle the issue. I'll never understand why politicians push such broad reaching laws for very narrow problems. Wait let me rephrase that, I'll never understand why HONEST politicians do that.
I wasn't aware that Canada lets all US movie studios come up there and shoot movies for free. I just figured that all the crew up there were actually spending money on local labor, food, electricity and whatever else is needed to shoot a film.
But I do find it ironic that we steal your best actors and comedians only to send them back up there to shoot the films but that's the way of business. If you can pull off Toronto as Tokyo then you go for it.
Your oil is a fungible commodity. Ignoring that, if your government wanted to then it could sell oil directly to the US under some sort of contract that stipulated usage. You'd have to sell it pretty cheap otherwise the US would simply go elsewhere. However, it seems that Canada is in it for the money just like the rest of the world.