Microsoft did this with Windows XP and Windows Vista, too. These are targeted at emerging markets as a low-cost alternative to a full-blown edition of Windows. These are NOT targeted towards consumers in Western/developed markets.
It's not a bold move, it's not targeted at notebooks, and it's not new. This article is bullshit.
If the achievements thing will actually stick around. While funny, it really is kind of interesting, in a sick, metagaming way. Sort of like Achievement Unlocked.
1) Do people trust a memtest86 error to mean a bad memory module or motherboard or CPU?
Yes. I do, anyway; I've never had it report a false-positive, and it's always been one of the three (and even if it was cosmic rays, it wouldn't consistently come up bad, then, would it?). Then again, it could also mean that you could be using RAM requiring a higher voltage than what your motherboard is giving it. If it's brand-name RAM, you should look up the model number and see what voltage the RAM requires. Things like Crucial Ballistix and Corsair Dominator usually require around 2.1v.
2) When I check my email on my desktop 16GB PC next year, should I be running ECC memory?
Depends. If you're doing really important stuff then sure. ECC memory is quite a boon in that case. If you're just using your desktop for word processing and web browsing, it's a waste of money.
Sure, they have backstory, but as far as the in-game story goes, it may as well just be a news report of what's going on while you're grinding. Everyone goes through the same quests, everyone saves (x location) from (y enemy), gets praise from (z NPC) and goes on to the next quest that everyone's already done. The only time this is any different is when an expansion is released, and then you can count on not everyone having done every quest for maybe about a week.
You pay for the game, you pay for the expansions, and you pay for every month you sink into the damned game. You're in no way involved in any moving plot, and you're in no way involved in anything epic that's truly yours. There is zero gameplay, and there is zero point to the game, especially since the game "doesn't really start" until you reach level 60 and start going on raids that thousands of people have already done before you. There's no glory, no nothing. Just boredom and a lighter wallet.
Guess they're doing their part to stimulate the economy.
Thank you. I just made another reply pretty much saying what you said, but in a much less concise manner. Excellent job. This article is nothing but FUD, and it's not even really very intelligent FUD, either. I'm a little saddened that not many others seem to have picked up on any of this, but rather just went along for the lynching of Win7 for the hell of it.
This is an anecdote from a user. Nowhere is there an article or anything like that - Just an anecdote.
Vista incorporates the same thing in a lot of cases. Remember the whole "network performance drops to 10% when playing an MP3" bit? Doesn't make it any nicer, but a lot of the things they're talking about here are already "features" in Vista. Still, things like audio loopback support can be enabled at the driver level, like with my Auzentech X-Fi Prelude's drivers for Vista, and if you use ASIO (which bypasses the kernel wherever possible) or something other than DSound, you'll probably retain your audio quality. So for people who actually need that sort of thing, they're already using the workaround (ASIO is very popular for professional use since its goal is to minimize latency in audio playback/recording, with the added effect of skipping any software/kernel processing, thus giving the cleanest signal). It's very possible, too, that the audio drivers being used were coded incorrectly, especially in the case of onboard audio. Downsampling and upsampling in software (especially in "realtime") is a nightmare for audio quality (ask any Soundblaster Live! user), and those beta drivers could have had a stopgap implementation of it.
And as for the Photoshop bit, that's probably more to do with Photoshop, as I doubt Windows 7 has a vast database of checksums for each and every program's files. And if it does, then wow. I'd like to point out that "Local Settings" doesn't exist in Vista OR Windows 7 (it's there for compatibility purposes, and will prevent the user from doing anything to it), and it's actually located in the Appdata\Local folder of your user folder.
Basically, what I'm saying is that these guys are just idiots (or maybe that should just read "this guy is an idiot"). Without any solid evidence that these things are actually Windows 7's fault, I'm having a hard time swallowing it, and I'm surprised (well, not really) at how many have jumped on the opportunity to spread the "love".
Come on. Do you really think he designers didn't think of this? That you're that much more clever than an IBM engineering team? I seriously doubt the system isn't designed with some sort of "one at a time, please" filtering. Typical Slashdot "I am smarter than the universe" attitude.
If that's the case, then I'd imagine that it would be very easy for a sniper to fire one shot, watch for the dodge, and quickly follow up with a second shot to compensate for the movement. With a semi-automatic sniper rifle like the Dragunov (most likely to be encountered), Mk14/M21, PSG-1/MSG-90, and so on, that follow-up shot could happen practically as quickly as the shooter can adjust his aim and pull the trigger, which could cleanly counteract any such "one at a time, please" filtering. Which in essence would actually make a sniper's job easier.
As the other reply to your comment goes (and I agree with it), it's more a question of whether or not it's actually ever going to be useful and is just a patent than whether or not future US/NATO troops will be able to dodge one, two, three, or any arbitrary number of bullets by using a magical electro-shock armour that makes them dance out of the way.
You know, that's actually an awesome idea. I mean, if they CAN detect incoming bullets in something the size of a suit of armour, then surely a vehicle could mount something a lot more sensitive and a lot more accurate (and with a lot more computational power). The only real problem would be soldiers would need to carry an IFF transmitter to prevent them from being lit up if they happen to be firing in the direction of said vehicle (for whatever reason; Like for example a saboteur about to set a charge on the vehicle, or if they're firing at an enemy from a position behind the vehicle).
Well, for starters, if it's jolting your muscles, it would make it [b]very[/b] difficult to sprint to/dive for cover when the suit is in "get out of the way of this projectile. No, this one. No, that one. No, this one over here. Dance!" mode.
Actually, a version of dd compiled for Windows does exist, with pseudo devices/dev/zero and/dev/random for just this purpose. Of course, you can't do this to the system drive in Windows - it has to be unmounted first. In addition, I don't believe it supports anything beyond the partition level - So doing it to a whole hard drive may not work. I haven't really tested it to see how far it'll go, but it does work.
I would like to point out one very critical thing:
If a hospital's computer network has infected computers currently sitting on a botnet, what's to stop the owner of said botnet from using the tunnel into said network to procure sensitive information, such as medical records, social insurance / social security numbers, and more? Add that to the fact that it's very possible to spread the infection through the internal network, and you're looking at something much more like that car bomb than the fire truck.
What you're saying would be partially true if you were talking about general malware such as adware/spyware (in MOST cases, like Antivirus 2009), but a zombified computer is very dangerous in an environment with sensitive information and equipment (especially since a high degree of control can be exerted over the system as a zombie), and constitutes a breach in security and confidentiality, and should be treated with the same degree of seriousness as if the pasty white dude behind it was physically sitting at the computer, sifting through the file system.
This isn't a huge problem in private SOHO networks (though I'd want it off ASAP), but corporate and public service/government networks can hold confidential information that may facilitate identity theft or extortion/blackmail. Ideally, these networks should be shielded against such attacks, and as such, shouldn't be susceptible to any collateral damage caused by a counterattack by good Samaritans.
Almost makes me pine for the days of the CRT.... Well, maybe not exactly. I don't want to imagine how heavy a 24" or larger CRT would be, but I'd love for another technology not locked to a single native resolution to break through the never-ending sea of fixed-pixel devices. For now, I just run my LCD in the scaled "maintain aspect" mode on my Radeon and enjoy the black borders on non-native resolutions. Better than that nice blurry stretch effect I'd get otherwise!
Honestly, this very reason, along with a smoking fast startup speed, is why I use Chrome for general browsing and Firefox for web development.
Off-topic and interestingly, the ad on top of this page is for Google Chrome.... Even more interestingly (or maybe just bizarrely), it's a static image, but it's being conveyed using SWF. Seems like Google is starting to step forward a little more boldly on Chrome as a serious product.
You do realize that the entire Afghani people aren't responsible for Osama Bin Laden's actions, nor 9/11, right?
Hell, it's like the USA as a whole saying to the African-American populous, "You know what? We freed you from slavery, and like every race, not all of you are model citizens. Some of you have committed murder - And on white people, your former slavers, no less! So we're going to keep a close eye on all of you, and the moment something goes wrong, you're to blame. Got it?"... Wait, that actually already happens.
Damn, that's stupid. What a pitiful state of mind.
Isn't that people are stupid, but that the HD content we currently have isn't exactly HD. Even the snazziest Blu-Ray displays in places like the Sony Store or any big electronics retailer seem to have really nice-looking visuals, but they also seem to have a big problem not only with interlacing(?! Isn't this 1080p?!), but also with video compression artifacts. In many cases, when I look at the TV's on display, I can't usually tell that what I'm looking at is HD, unless the video's been specifically tailored to show off the resolution. TV broadcasts (the few that are HD around here), Blu-Ray movies (especially live action), doesn't matter. It all looks quite muddy, and I'm distracted often by the block and ring artifacting, just as I was when DVD was first released.
I don't have an HDTV or an HD player, myself, so I'm not intimately familiar with how current movies are being compressed on the disc, but... Don't they have any room to turn up the bitrate a little? I mean, sure, it's not reasonable to expect an uncompressed image (though I'd really like it), but seriously, the video compression quality sucks.
You can have as high a resolution as you want, but when artifacts are large enough to casually notice, you've defeated the purpose of that resolution; I would have rathered a cleaner lower-definition source than that.
What you don't understand is that it would only be true if everyone were running on some sort of mythical unmetered/uncapped, non-speed-limited connection from fairyland.:P Unfortunately, in the land of the living, ISP's limit the amount of throughput and generally limit the amount of total bandwidth usage on a per-month basis. My connection is a 10mbit with a 100GB cap. I should be able to use all of that connection that I'm paying for, but unfortunately for me, people keep crying about how bandwidth is going down the tubes.
It's not my fault for using a service that I'm paying for - It's the ISPs' fault for providing a service that their networks cannot handle. Upgrading their networks is the logical solution, but instead, the bandwidth restrictions simply get tighter (for example, as of about three months ago, there was no monthly bandwidth allowance on my connection).
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft did this with Windows XP and Windows Vista, too. These are targeted at emerging markets as a low-cost alternative to a full-blown edition of Windows. These are NOT targeted towards consumers in Western/developed markets.
It's not a bold move, it's not targeted at notebooks, and it's not new. This article is bullshit.
Of all the comments so far, halfway down the page, this one makes the most sense.
A sincere thanks. The rest of them were starting to hurt my brain.
Errata:
"neokushan"
Should be:
"Runefox"
And lo, so did neokushan receive two 5: Funny moderations.
It powers implants and feeds on glucose in the blood? Excellent news for us diabetics! Hell, screw the implants!
If the achievements thing will actually stick around. While funny, it really is kind of interesting, in a sick, metagaming way. Sort of like Achievement Unlocked.
Nor can I.
Yes. I do, anyway; I've never had it report a false-positive, and it's always been one of the three (and even if it was cosmic rays, it wouldn't consistently come up bad, then, would it?). Then again, it could also mean that you could be using RAM requiring a higher voltage than what your motherboard is giving it. If it's brand-name RAM, you should look up the model number and see what voltage the RAM requires. Things like Crucial Ballistix and Corsair Dominator usually require around 2.1v.
Depends. If you're doing really important stuff then sure. ECC memory is quite a boon in that case. If you're just using your desktop for word processing and web browsing, it's a waste of money.
Sure, they have backstory, but as far as the in-game story goes, it may as well just be a news report of what's going on while you're grinding. Everyone goes through the same quests, everyone saves (x location) from (y enemy), gets praise from (z NPC) and goes on to the next quest that everyone's already done. The only time this is any different is when an expansion is released, and then you can count on not everyone having done every quest for maybe about a week.
You pay for the game, you pay for the expansions, and you pay for every month you sink into the damned game. You're in no way involved in any moving plot, and you're in no way involved in anything epic that's truly yours. There is zero gameplay, and there is zero point to the game, especially since the game "doesn't really start" until you reach level 60 and start going on raids that thousands of people have already done before you. There's no glory, no nothing. Just boredom and a lighter wallet.
Guess they're doing their part to stimulate the economy.
Thank you. I just made another reply pretty much saying what you said, but in a much less concise manner. Excellent job. This article is nothing but FUD, and it's not even really very intelligent FUD, either. I'm a little saddened that not many others seem to have picked up on any of this, but rather just went along for the lynching of Win7 for the hell of it.
This is an anecdote from a user. Nowhere is there an article or anything like that - Just an anecdote.
Vista incorporates the same thing in a lot of cases. Remember the whole "network performance drops to 10% when playing an MP3" bit? Doesn't make it any nicer, but a lot of the things they're talking about here are already "features" in Vista. Still, things like audio loopback support can be enabled at the driver level, like with my Auzentech X-Fi Prelude's drivers for Vista, and if you use ASIO (which bypasses the kernel wherever possible) or something other than DSound, you'll probably retain your audio quality. So for people who actually need that sort of thing, they're already using the workaround (ASIO is very popular for professional use since its goal is to minimize latency in audio playback/recording, with the added effect of skipping any software/kernel processing, thus giving the cleanest signal). It's very possible, too, that the audio drivers being used were coded incorrectly, especially in the case of onboard audio. Downsampling and upsampling in software (especially in "realtime") is a nightmare for audio quality (ask any Soundblaster Live! user), and those beta drivers could have had a stopgap implementation of it.
And as for the Photoshop bit, that's probably more to do with Photoshop, as I doubt Windows 7 has a vast database of checksums for each and every program's files. And if it does, then wow. I'd like to point out that "Local Settings" doesn't exist in Vista OR Windows 7 (it's there for compatibility purposes, and will prevent the user from doing anything to it), and it's actually located in the Appdata\Local folder of your user folder.
Basically, what I'm saying is that these guys are just idiots (or maybe that should just read "this guy is an idiot"). Without any solid evidence that these things are actually Windows 7's fault, I'm having a hard time swallowing it, and I'm surprised (well, not really) at how many have jumped on the opportunity to spread the "love".
Whee, FUD!
Fuck the extremists, I'd fly a plane into these things.
This design give me the creeps, not to mention its obvious shortcomings as pointed out by the surprisingly intelligent first post.
If that's the case, then I'd imagine that it would be very easy for a sniper to fire one shot, watch for the dodge, and quickly follow up with a second shot to compensate for the movement. With a semi-automatic sniper rifle like the Dragunov (most likely to be encountered), Mk14/M21, PSG-1/MSG-90, and so on, that follow-up shot could happen practically as quickly as the shooter can adjust his aim and pull the trigger, which could cleanly counteract any such "one at a time, please" filtering. Which in essence would actually make a sniper's job easier.
As the other reply to your comment goes (and I agree with it), it's more a question of whether or not it's actually ever going to be useful and is just a patent than whether or not future US/NATO troops will be able to dodge one, two, three, or any arbitrary number of bullets by using a magical electro-shock armour that makes them dance out of the way.
You know, that's actually an awesome idea. I mean, if they CAN detect incoming bullets in something the size of a suit of armour, then surely a vehicle could mount something a lot more sensitive and a lot more accurate (and with a lot more computational power). The only real problem would be soldiers would need to carry an IFF transmitter to prevent them from being lit up if they happen to be firing in the direction of said vehicle (for whatever reason; Like for example a saboteur about to set a charge on the vehicle, or if they're firing at an enemy from a position behind the vehicle).
Well, for starters, if it's jolting your muscles, it would make it [b]very[/b] difficult to sprint to/dive for cover when the suit is in "get out of the way of this projectile. No, this one. No, that one. No, this one over here. Dance!" mode.
Actually, a version of dd compiled for Windows does exist, with pseudo devices /dev/zero and /dev/random for just this purpose. Of course, you can't do this to the system drive in Windows - it has to be unmounted first. In addition, I don't believe it supports anything beyond the partition level - So doing it to a whole hard drive may not work. I haven't really tested it to see how far it'll go, but it does work.
I would like to point out one very critical thing:
If a hospital's computer network has infected computers currently sitting on a botnet, what's to stop the owner of said botnet from using the tunnel into said network to procure sensitive information, such as medical records, social insurance / social security numbers, and more? Add that to the fact that it's very possible to spread the infection through the internal network, and you're looking at something much more like that car bomb than the fire truck.
What you're saying would be partially true if you were talking about general malware such as adware/spyware (in MOST cases, like Antivirus 2009), but a zombified computer is very dangerous in an environment with sensitive information and equipment (especially since a high degree of control can be exerted over the system as a zombie), and constitutes a breach in security and confidentiality, and should be treated with the same degree of seriousness as if the pasty white dude behind it was physically sitting at the computer, sifting through the file system.
This isn't a huge problem in private SOHO networks (though I'd want it off ASAP), but corporate and public service/government networks can hold confidential information that may facilitate identity theft or extortion/blackmail. Ideally, these networks should be shielded against such attacks, and as such, shouldn't be susceptible to any collateral damage caused by a counterattack by good Samaritans.
Almost makes me pine for the days of the CRT. ... Well, maybe not exactly. I don't want to imagine how heavy a 24" or larger CRT would be, but I'd love for another technology not locked to a single native resolution to break through the never-ending sea of fixed-pixel devices. For now, I just run my LCD in the scaled "maintain aspect" mode on my Radeon and enjoy the black borders on non-native resolutions. Better than that nice blurry stretch effect I'd get otherwise!
Holy brain implosion, Batman!
Honestly, this very reason, along with a smoking fast startup speed, is why I use Chrome for general browsing and Firefox for web development.
Off-topic and interestingly, the ad on top of this page is for Google Chrome. ... Even more interestingly (or maybe just bizarrely), it's a static image, but it's being conveyed using SWF. Seems like Google is starting to step forward a little more boldly on Chrome as a serious product.
You do realize that the entire Afghani people aren't responsible for Osama Bin Laden's actions, nor 9/11, right?
Hell, it's like the USA as a whole saying to the African-American populous, "You know what? We freed you from slavery, and like every race, not all of you are model citizens. Some of you have committed murder - And on white people, your former slavers, no less! So we're going to keep a close eye on all of you, and the moment something goes wrong, you're to blame. Got it?" ... Wait, that actually already happens.
Damn, that's stupid. What a pitiful state of mind.
Presumably, slightly more than a GMA 950. :P
Isn't that people are stupid, but that the HD content we currently have isn't exactly HD. Even the snazziest Blu-Ray displays in places like the Sony Store or any big electronics retailer seem to have really nice-looking visuals, but they also seem to have a big problem not only with interlacing(?! Isn't this 1080p?!), but also with video compression artifacts. In many cases, when I look at the TV's on display, I can't usually tell that what I'm looking at is HD, unless the video's been specifically tailored to show off the resolution. TV broadcasts (the few that are HD around here), Blu-Ray movies (especially live action), doesn't matter. It all looks quite muddy, and I'm distracted often by the block and ring artifacting, just as I was when DVD was first released.
I don't have an HDTV or an HD player, myself, so I'm not intimately familiar with how current movies are being compressed on the disc, but... Don't they have any room to turn up the bitrate a little? I mean, sure, it's not reasonable to expect an uncompressed image (though I'd really like it), but seriously, the video compression quality sucks.
You can have as high a resolution as you want, but when artifacts are large enough to casually notice, you've defeated the purpose of that resolution; I would have rathered a cleaner lower-definition source than that.
What you don't understand is that it would only be true if everyone were running on some sort of mythical unmetered/uncapped, non-speed-limited connection from fairyland. :P Unfortunately, in the land of the living, ISP's limit the amount of throughput and generally limit the amount of total bandwidth usage on a per-month basis. My connection is a 10mbit with a 100GB cap. I should be able to use all of that connection that I'm paying for, but unfortunately for me, people keep crying about how bandwidth is going down the tubes.
It's not my fault for using a service that I'm paying for - It's the ISPs' fault for providing a service that their networks cannot handle. Upgrading their networks is the logical solution, but instead, the bandwidth restrictions simply get tighter (for example, as of about three months ago, there was no monthly bandwidth allowance on my connection).
Death by asphyxiation upon being crushed by the world's remaining supply of AOL disks.