That's b/c iWork ships as a demo on most Macs nowadays. It's fully installed, but only works for a few months (1-3 I think) w/o you paying for it. From Apple's POV, it's easier from a logistical standpoint (iWork is a pretty low seller) to only have 1 version, and ship you a "Demo" w/ an activation key.
The other tenets they published today handle that too (Read them here). I agree that it is done to appease the courts, but I'm worried that since it's voluntary, in 2-3 years, they can start fudging/revising these "tenets". So I'd strongly suggest someone mirror that page in a hurry, lest they pull an Animal Farm on us.
Unfortunately, this article seems to have only hit the tip of the iceberg. The full list of commitments is at an official MS site
Now, I'm as realistic as the next guy, but these look pretty nice. The big ones are 5 and 9, which make it look like MS won't hit back against any manufacturer for bundling Linux on a desktop. It also allows for OEMs to remove WMP11 and IE7 from Vista if they'd rather bundle something else, or just bundle both, at no extra cost.
The dogcow was the Clarus symbol way back in the day. It was some strange creature that looked like a cross between a dog and a cow.
Sacrificial entrails refers to pagan rituals involving killing an animal (generally a sheep or goat) and studying the entrails in some strange ritual that was supposed to provide information about the future.
Microsoft has promised to continue to sell XP to OEMs and retail for a year post-Vista, and to system builders for two-years post-Vista. They can't wrap up support while they still sell it. They'll still be selling it (with very few takers) until Q1 2009, assuming no delays. Based on Win98 and WinME, it'll have support for 12-24 months after that. So we'll see XP supported when Blackcomb/Vienna is rolling out.
That ain't my point. I'm talking about FFx2 or FFx3 Firefox's extensions are nice, but to the average consumer, the steps required to set up a spell checker or adblocker are too tough. If Firefox makes it a 1-2-3 proposition, it'll grow in market share.
We need a Windows version with some of the extensions pre-bundled. Set up the AdBlock and Spell Checking, and dispatch that version. That way it consists of Download -> Install -> Doubleclick -> Browsing!!
Well, guess what, Windows XP is still here and I doubt anyone in here can actually give me a good reason why we HAVE TO get Vista right away. I wouldn't mind waiting another year.
Every month that goes by without Vista is another month for Linux to improve, and is another month for Apple to work on Leopard (and maybe beat Vista out with it). Point is, MS has competition, which is picking up speed. MS wants to cut that off as soon as possible, and regulate them back to 1-2 percent each.
Well, having seen spammer message boards, and based on the descriptions most anti-virus companies or researchers post, it seems unlikely that this'll be bringing new virus code to hackers (since they can already get info on almost anything already exploited), it's mostly just effectively telling everyone where pre-existing viruses are.
Of course if the military does a code audit on Linux they would have contribute back the patches so it is a win win situation.
Only if they distribute it outside their organization, which in this case could be probably construed as the US government and the military and national guard.
I think the real question is "How accurate is it?" I mean that in the sense that "false positives" could be the basis of a slander lawsuit, and "false negatives" are even more dangerous than no warning.
I mean, Joe Average, assuming we get him to eventually worry about malware, might look at the SOAP thing, not see a warning, and assume that means it's a safe site (which may or may not be true). Then he'll get nailed, thinking other precautions are unnecessary.
If I cared to learn enough about it, I could do it myself. If it was that important to me, I could also offer small donations to speed that process along. It's great for a company that wants an improvement (speed here), is big enough to be willing to pay a bit for it, but isn't big enough to ask MS to do it.
This'll now be a high priority - beating.Net speed-wise - in the next few releases, such that by Christmas, we'll see *AMP performance picking up, whereas we have to wait on MS for.Net
1) Firefox Plus - comes with extensions pre-bundled, like AdBlock, quicktime/WMP, whatever a basic user could use but might not have the guts (or forethought) to go get.
2) Firefox Basic - straight-up Firefox like we have now, add-your-own extensions, etc.
This way, Firefox can claim as features the pre-bundled extensions, and it compares better to IE when the user-installed packages are installed. Assume users won't maintain Firefox (by adding useful extensions), so allowing users to get all the extension features immediately after launch is good.
The in-page UI widgets (buttons, textfields and so on) also look and feel more normal in IE than in Firefox.
That sounds like "It does something slightly differently from the market leader, therefore it's wrong", which is a [poor] reason not to adopt something (familiarity), but not an objective reason why IE is better.
If you go for a number-based versioning system, you have to make big jumps. It's hard for Joe Average to see the difference between 1.3.7 and 1.3.8 and 1.4, but 1.0 to 1.5 to 2.0 is an easily understood gap.
I think you meant "Aero Glass" - the highest end feature. But the low-end sticker "Vista Capable" requires a DX9 card with 32 MB of VRAM, according to wikipedia. And that's the ultimate low-end.
I mean, it doesn't do a video card, and apparently even the lowest Vista settings need a video card (at least 64MB VRAM, right?). OR do I misunderstand things?
Slashdot Mirror
That's b/c iWork ships as a demo on most Macs nowadays. It's fully installed, but only works for a few months (1-3 I think) w/o you paying for it. From Apple's POV, it's easier from a logistical standpoint (iWork is a pretty low seller) to only have 1 version, and ship you a "Demo" w/ an activation key.
The other tenets they published today handle that too (Read them here). I agree that it is done to appease the courts, but I'm worried that since it's voluntary, in 2-3 years, they can start fudging/revising these "tenets". So I'd strongly suggest someone mirror that page in a hurry, lest they pull an Animal Farm on us.
Unfortunately, this article seems to have only hit the tip of the iceberg. The full list of commitments is at an official MS site
Now, I'm as realistic as the next guy, but these look pretty nice. The big ones are 5 and 9, which make it look like MS won't hit back against any manufacturer for bundling Linux on a desktop. It also allows for OEMs to remove WMP11 and IE7 from Vista if they'd rather bundle something else, or just bundle both, at no extra cost.
The dogcow was the Clarus symbol way back in the day. It was some strange creature that looked like a cross between a dog and a cow.
Sacrificial entrails refers to pagan rituals involving killing an animal (generally a sheep or goat) and studying the entrails in some strange ritual that was supposed to provide information about the future.
In February, Steve Jobs promised a complete transition by year's end. And as the transition was announced at WWDC, it'd be fitting to end it there.
And don't forget Pros using Apple apps - they're UB already.
Microsoft has promised to continue to sell XP to OEMs and retail for a year post-Vista, and to system builders for two-years post-Vista. They can't wrap up support while they still sell it. They'll still be selling it (with very few takers) until Q1 2009, assuming no delays. Based on Win98 and WinME, it'll have support for 12-24 months after that. So we'll see XP supported when Blackcomb/Vienna is rolling out.
Ars Review
They basically say it runs Firefox and Solitaire, but that's it. "Lots of promise, but needs work".
That ain't my point. I'm talking about FFx2 or FFx3 Firefox's extensions are nice, but to the average consumer, the steps required to set up a spell checker or adblocker are too tough. If Firefox makes it a 1-2-3 proposition, it'll grow in market share.
We need a Windows version with some of the extensions pre-bundled. Set up the AdBlock and Spell Checking, and dispatch that version. That way it consists of Download -> Install -> Doubleclick -> Browsing!!
Google doesn't search Facebook profiles or cache them, as far as I know (and I've tried to Google for my own).
Well, guess what, Windows XP is still here and I doubt anyone in here can actually give me a good reason why we HAVE TO get Vista right away. I wouldn't mind waiting another year.
Every month that goes by without Vista is another month for Linux to improve, and is another month for Apple to work on Leopard (and maybe beat Vista out with it). Point is, MS has competition, which is picking up speed. MS wants to cut that off as soon as possible, and regulate them back to 1-2 percent each.
Well, having seen spammer message boards, and based on the descriptions most anti-virus companies or researchers post, it seems unlikely that this'll be bringing new virus code to hackers (since they can already get info on almost anything already exploited), it's mostly just effectively telling everyone where pre-existing viruses are.
Of course if the military does a code audit on Linux they would have contribute back the patches so it is a win win situation.
Only if they distribute it outside their organization, which in this case could be probably construed as the US government and the military and national guard.
I know what it is. I was making a joke, since "wimp" in American English can mean a weak person, giving a bad implication to the software combination.
I think the real question is "How accurate is it?" I mean that in the sense that "false positives" could be the basis of a slander lawsuit, and "false negatives" are even more dangerous than no warning.
I mean, Joe Average, assuming we get him to eventually worry about malware, might look at the SOAP thing, not see a warning, and assume that means it's a safe site (which may or may not be true). Then he'll get nailed, thinking other precautions are unnecessary.
In any case, the only thing I can figure about the quote is that Google indexing these sites helps to spread the malware around.
Only if you're looking for it in the first place (like if your a hacker). It doesn't affect Joe-Average.
I also use a WIMP setup
Someone needs to be fired in the marketing department...
If I cared to learn enough about it, I could do it myself. If it was that important to me, I could also offer small donations to speed that process along. It's great for a company that wants an improvement (speed here), is big enough to be willing to pay a bit for it, but isn't big enough to ask MS to do it.
This'll now be a high priority - beating .Net speed-wise - in the next few releases, such that by Christmas, we'll see *AMP performance picking up, whereas we have to wait on MS for .Net
1) Firefox Plus - comes with extensions pre-bundled, like AdBlock, quicktime/WMP, whatever a basic user could use but might not have the guts (or forethought) to go get.
2) Firefox Basic - straight-up Firefox like we have now, add-your-own extensions, etc.
This way, Firefox can claim as features the pre-bundled extensions, and it compares better to IE when the user-installed packages are installed. Assume users won't maintain Firefox (by adding useful extensions), so allowing users to get all the extension features immediately after launch is good.
The in-page UI widgets (buttons, textfields and so on) also look and feel more normal in IE than in Firefox.
That sounds like "It does something slightly differently from the market leader, therefore it's wrong", which is a [poor] reason not to adopt something (familiarity), but not an objective reason why IE is better.
If you go for a number-based versioning system, you have to make big jumps. It's hard for Joe Average to see the difference between 1.3.7 and 1.3.8 and 1.4, but 1.0 to 1.5 to 2.0 is an easily understood gap.
Don't forget Pigeon Rank
I think you meant "Aero Glass" - the highest end feature. But the low-end sticker "Vista Capable" requires a DX9 card with 32 MB of VRAM, according to wikipedia. And that's the ultimate low-end.
Vista?
I mean, it doesn't do a video card, and apparently even the lowest Vista settings need a video card (at least 64MB VRAM, right?). OR do I misunderstand things?