You want to drive people away from atheism and lend credence to GP's "science worshiper" comment? This is how to do it.
I'm not a fan of religion myself... but posts like this show a level of fanaticism that far outweighs the what average religious folks are willing to do in terms of "forcing... belief down the throats of others".
This aside from the fact that you read an awful lot into his post. (Then again, reading his web site... I can kinda understand it;)
Over-the-air TV has been giving away their content for free for at least 6 decades now, by allowing advertisers to pay for it. They're still doing that.
Lots of companies have been giving away content for free on the internet, using the same model, for over a decade now.
I would happily pay a subscription fee to get content without commercials. I recently canceled my sat. radio because they started playing advertisements on some channels - I pay a premium to get/away/ from the constant bombardment of ads. When someone expects me to both put up with the ads, and also pay a premium price, I walk away - there's precious little for sale that's worth the expense of having billy blanks bellowing his latest snake oil at me.
Your definition of "for free" is valid only if your time and attention have no value to you.
I would say anybody who is aware that there are apps that they can't download (and thus likely to complain about it) are also aware of the restrictions from the outset. The Aunt Tillies of the world use the app store and have no idea that they're "missing" anything.
You miss my point. Why buy the phone if you know it is restricted in this way? And having bought the phone, how can you realistically complain about it, since you knew what you were getting when you made the purchase?
Maybe it will be better if I make a car analogy. I hate car analogies, but they seem popular. Let's say I buy a car that has a computer. But that computer only lets me download programs approved by the car manufacturer. So then I get mad and say, "I want to download whatever I want!" even though I knew before I bought the car that it had this limitation.
No, wait, that was the same thing disguised as an analogy! Sneaky, sneaky...
Anyway, it's not that people have no 'right" to complain - we always have the right to whine. But we also have the right to be told that the thing we're whining about is called "consequences of actions".
You're pretty much completely missing my point. Let me re-iterate: based on my experience with their past behavior (browsers), it is not outside the realm of possibility that MS is doing something to entice game developers and/or video card makers to solely develop for directX.
You mean like advancing Direct 3d to contain new features with every major release, while Khronos dropped nearly every new feature from the long-awaited OpenGL 3.0 spec?
File systems lack tons of features that iTunes has, like album art, smart playlists, easy device synchronization
Easy synchronization - you mean like when I plug my device in, and because the network location that I store my music on is temporarily unavailable, iTunes deletes everything on my device because it can't find the source music? Yep, that's serious ease of use right there...
(Yes, I know this is a setting. But once I turn off that setting, it's no longer "easy synchronization" it's "manually managed synchronization".)
And I was seriously considering getting an iPhone to go with my iPod and iEverythingElse... but I'm not going to even think about it until Apple fixes whatever the hell is going on with the App Store.
That's the only choice that makes sense. I am not able to comprehend how people can buy a device that is rigidly controlled by the manufacturer, then be surprised/offended when that manufacturer actually exercises that control.
How is it censorship? You (not you specifically, but "you the iphone purchasers" ) bought the iPhone. You approved whatever restrictions they want to place on you by making that purchase. You have already told them they can do whatever they want on your ^H^H^H^H their phone. Having done this, what right do you have to complain when they actually do place restrictions? If you didn't like it, why did you buy a phone that inherently includes these artificial limitations?
Every time someone buys an iPhone, they are telling Apple that they are OK with the stranglehold Apple has on the platform. The worst part is, most of them don't realize it.
But what I said was "development and execution" not "deployment and execution". ANd in any case, it bears no relation to firefox - nor would I as an end user have any reason to suspect it would alter my FF install based on the summary provided.
How about being able to trust that when MS installs ".Net Framework 3.5 SP1" it's a service pack to the framework that I use for development and execution of applications, without having to worry that they might bundle something else in with that update, completely unrelated to what they tell me they install?
Not only has Firefox worked better in every single case, the users are stunned when I tell them that if Firefox does manage to crash, it won't take the rest of their work with it, unlike Internet Explorer.
I daresay that you're spreading a bit of FUD here. I don't think crashing IE has caused general system crashes (and loss of work in other programs) since Windows ME or so. I love firefox myself, but I'm going to convince others to use it on its merits, not on the basis of incorrect facts about the competition.
As to the rest: the problem is that most PC users don't have anyone willing to show them other options; or to demonstrate why they should use them. Most don't even know anybody in a position to.
It was probably done to piss you off. I mean - you, specifically. Taco woke up one day, and said "I'm going to make a series of changes that will break the site. It will affect tens of thousands of people, but all I care about is that it pisses BitZtream off".
The funny thing about your post is that in another conversation here, I'm getting flamed as an anti-windows shill because I dared to complain about the holy child, Windows 7;)
Win update: I didn't use Vista except on other people's systems. IN that case, it's obnoxious there too.
Explorer going crazy: try moving around, deleting , modifying thousands of files for a half hour or so. Win XP was good with this, but Win7 - not so much.
Crashes: can't help that, my experience varies. The same PC I ran XP on (not top of the line, but not crappy either) has my high-memory usage apps crashing more often -- and I run several high memory usage apps.
Search service: I just find it useless. I actually let it go ahead and index everything, and added my additional directories... but was disappointed with the results. LIke I said, I'd be happy if it would just index filenames.
Little mention: Perhaps. Or perhaps there actually/has/ been a massive PR push from MS, since so many of these blogs and news article posts are worded very closely to each other.
I will say: now that the "honeymoon" period has worn off, the search results/are/ improving. It was really bad up through last week, but now I am getting slightly more luck.
I never claimed otherwise. But my point is that stating (or implying) Windows is buggy and inherently insecure is as valid as is saying Linux is inherently hard to use. Both were true many years ago. More recently... not so much.
Really? I remember that Windows NT & Sons had a too classical and nearly eternal flaw, which did not give a chance for a guaranteed secure environment - the internal messaging between progs. I met it a few times and it was really painful.
Indeed, every system has flaws - sometimes severe. I think the internal messaging weaknesses got corrected in the WIn2003 timeframe, IIRC.
Besides, you don't make backbones on Windows or *nixes. Anyway you don't use *just* Windows or *nix
Crashes: I use a lot of high-memory usage software that are pretty hard on the CPU as well (game development, compilation, 3d development, etc). More to come on this in the next section.
Memory: I'm not talking about the OS speeding things up - Superfetch, disk caching etc. The ACTUAL usage is nearly 100% (all 2GB) -- and I'm not complaining about that. I'm complaining about the 60 processes that are running and taking up 600-800MB after the PC has been running for a while, and I have shut down ALL applications.
In terms of real-life impacts: win XP sucked at knowing when to page stuff out to disk, so I inevitably disabled the page file. (I know this is a huge "no-no" but I literally never have any problems with it, as long as I watch my overall memory usage.) Due to whatever underlying changes that they have made, I can no longer disable the swap space. If I do, my hi-memory usage applications crash frequently, instead of just a bit more often than on XP (which is what happens when I enable it).
So on XP, I am able to run my five core apps, which takes me right up to my 2GB line - and I can run there all day. Under Win7, I can run my heaviest and my lightest app; or a couple of my midrange apps; but that's it. Going over that causes them to fail with memory issues.
Like I said - Win7 is improved over XP in swap space usage. It's not as painful to enable it as it used to be with the applications I run, and it does help (but not eliminate) the issues. ANd I will be upgrading memory - but the point is I was able to run under XP without needing to, and 2GB is not an inconsequential amount of memory.
[quote]I will definitely concede on the search function. Its just as retarded as it was in Vista. Just turning off the indexer goes a long way. I would like to see that be the default on a new install. For myself, this is probably the most annoying thing about vista/win7.[/quote]
That's what I ultimately did. I like the/idea/ of the search, but... *shrugs*. Like I said, if it would just index all of the files by name on the C: drive, I'd be a happy person.
Actually, that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about - but nice try. I'm talking about memory used for applications and services. Not system cache. Not disk cache. Not superfetch -- these things don't report as "in use" by applications. My actual usage is 100% of my 2GB RAM, but I'm not complaining about that - I know why it's happening, and it's a Good Thing.
But people like you have been posting this bogus reply since Vista comes out - do you really believe Vista doesn't ahve a massive memory footprint?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not a fan of religion myself... but posts like this show a level of fanaticism that far outweighs the what average religious folks are willing to do in terms of "forcing ... belief down the throats of others".
This aside from the fact that you read an awful lot into his post. (Then again, reading his web site... I can kinda understand it ;)
Over-the-air TV has been giving away their content for free for at least 6 decades now, by allowing advertisers to pay for it. They're still doing that. Lots of companies have been giving away content for free on the internet, using the same model, for over a decade now.
I would happily pay a subscription fee to get content without commercials. I recently canceled my sat. radio because they started playing advertisements on some channels - I pay a premium to get /away/ from the constant bombardment of ads. When someone expects me to both put up with the ads, and also pay a premium price, I walk away - there's precious little for sale that's worth the expense of having billy blanks bellowing his latest snake oil at me.
Your definition of "for free" is valid only if your time and attention have no value to you.
Clearly money well spent.
I would say anybody who is aware that there are apps that they can't download (and thus likely to complain about it) are also aware of the restrictions from the outset. The Aunt Tillies of the world use the app store and have no idea that they're "missing" anything.
Maybe it will be better if I make a car analogy. I hate car analogies, but they seem popular. Let's say I buy a car that has a computer. But that computer only lets me download programs approved by the car manufacturer. So then I get mad and say, "I want to download whatever I want!" even though I knew before I bought the car that it had this limitation.
No, wait, that was the same thing disguised as an analogy! Sneaky, sneaky...
Anyway, it's not that people have no 'right" to complain - we always have the right to whine. But we also have the right to be told that the thing we're whining about is called "consequences of actions".
You're pretty much completely missing my point. Let me re-iterate: based on my experience with their past behavior (browsers), it is not outside the realm of possibility that MS is doing something to entice game developers and/or video card makers to solely develop for directX.
You mean like advancing Direct 3d to contain new features with every major release, while Khronos dropped nearly every new feature from the long-awaited OpenGL 3.0 spec?
File systems lack tons of features that iTunes has, like album art, smart playlists, easy device synchronization
Easy synchronization - you mean like when I plug my device in, and because the network location that I store my music on is temporarily unavailable, iTunes deletes everything on my device because it can't find the source music? Yep, that's serious ease of use right there...
(Yes, I know this is a setting. But once I turn off that setting, it's no longer "easy synchronization" it's "manually managed synchronization".)
And I was seriously considering getting an iPhone to go with my iPod and iEverythingElse ... but I'm not going to even think about it until Apple fixes whatever the hell is going on with the App Store.
That's the only choice that makes sense. I am not able to comprehend how people can buy a device that is rigidly controlled by the manufacturer, then be surprised/offended when that manufacturer actually exercises that control.
How is it censorship? You (not you specifically, but "you the iphone purchasers" ) bought the iPhone. You approved whatever restrictions they want to place on you by making that purchase. You have already told them they can do whatever they want on your ^H^H^H^H their phone. Having done this, what right do you have to complain when they actually do place restrictions? If you didn't like it, why did you buy a phone that inherently includes these artificial limitations?
I'm an Apple fanboy and even I'm sick of this.
Every time someone buys an iPhone, they are telling Apple that they are OK with the stranglehold Apple has on the platform. The worst part is, most of them don't realize it.
I think you have a case of Vendor Confusion (VC) -- which is better than VD. Nonetheless - I complain about it when Sun does it too.
But what I said was "development and execution" not "deployment and execution". ANd in any case, it bears no relation to firefox - nor would I as an end user have any reason to suspect it would alter my FF install based on the summary provided.
How about being able to trust that when MS installs ".Net Framework 3.5 SP1" it's a service pack to the framework that I use for development and execution of applications, without having to worry that they might bundle something else in with that update, completely unrelated to what they tell me they install?
New Slashdot rule, forget TFA, don't even read the discussion until the 2nd or 3rd time around
What do you mean, "new"?
Not only has Firefox worked better in every single case, the users are stunned when I tell them that if Firefox does manage to crash, it won't take the rest of their work with it, unlike Internet Explorer.
I daresay that you're spreading a bit of FUD here. I don't think crashing IE has caused general system crashes (and loss of work in other programs) since Windows ME or so. I love firefox myself, but I'm going to convince others to use it on its merits, not on the basis of incorrect facts about the competition.
As to the rest: the problem is that most PC users don't have anyone willing to show them other options; or to demonstrate why they should use them. Most don't even know anybody in a position to.
It was probably done to piss you off. I mean - you, specifically. Taco woke up one day, and said "I'm going to make a series of changes that will break the site. It will affect tens of thousands of people, but all I care about is that it pisses BitZtream off".
The funny thing about your post is that in another conversation here, I'm getting flamed as an anti-windows shill because I dared to complain about the holy child, Windows 7 ;)
Explorer going crazy: try moving around, deleting , modifying thousands of files for a half hour or so. Win XP was good with this, but Win7 - not so much.
Crashes: can't help that, my experience varies. The same PC I ran XP on (not top of the line, but not crappy either) has my high-memory usage apps crashing more often -- and I run several high memory usage apps.
Search service: I just find it useless. I actually let it go ahead and index everything, and added my additional directories... but was disappointed with the results. LIke I said, I'd be happy if it would just index filenames.
Little mention: Perhaps. Or perhaps there actually /has/ been a massive PR push from MS, since so many of these blogs and news article posts are worded very closely to each other.
I will say: now that the "honeymoon" period has worn off, the search results /are/ improving. It was really bad up through last week, but now I am getting slightly more luck.
I never claimed otherwise. But my point is that stating (or implying) Windows is buggy and inherently insecure is as valid as is saying Linux is inherently hard to use. Both were true many years ago. More recently... not so much.
Really? I remember that Windows NT & Sons had a too classical and nearly eternal flaw, which did not give a chance for a guaranteed secure environment - the internal messaging between progs. I met it a few times and it was really painful.
Indeed, every system has flaws - sometimes severe. I think the internal messaging weaknesses got corrected in the WIn2003 timeframe, IIRC.
Besides, you don't make backbones on Windows or *nixes. Anyway you don't use *just* Windows or *nix
Agreed, that's why I put it in quotes.
Well played.
So on XP, I am able to run my five core apps, which takes me right up to my 2GB line - and I can run there all day. Under Win7, I can run my heaviest and my lightest app; or a couple of my midrange apps; but that's it. Going over that causes them to fail with memory issues.
Like I said - Win7 is improved over XP in swap space usage. It's not as painful to enable it as it used to be with the applications I run, and it does help (but not eliminate) the issues. ANd I will be upgrading memory - but the point is I was able to run under XP without needing to, and 2GB is not an inconsequential amount of memory.
[quote]I will definitely concede on the search function. Its just as retarded as it was in Vista. Just turning off the indexer goes a long way. I would like to see that be the default on a new install. For myself, this is probably the most annoying thing about vista/win7.[/quote]
That's what I ultimately did. I like the /idea/ of the search, but... *shrugs*. Like I said, if it would just index all of the files by name on the C: drive, I'd be a happy person.
But people like you have been posting this bogus reply since Vista comes out - do you really believe Vista doesn't ahve a massive memory footprint?
Oh, stop. A Windows "backbone" can be made just as secure by a competent admin as a *nix "backbone" can.
First post.
I do not think that phrase means what you think it means.