You do have to wonder what exactly you're paying for when you buy a Windows license. I mean, given that you can have a superior operating system, plus a suite of software that runs well on it, for free. Microsoft's only leverage is their platform's ability to run a wider range of third party software, which the latest incarnation doesn't even do that well.
This I/O Prioritization Scheme is a new one on me. Can it be tweaked?
I think my main point is that *on the same machine* Ubuntu is glaringly quicker than Vista. I want to switch permanently but need a bunch of windows-only apps for my work. If I was braver I'd wipe Vista totally and run XP under Xen or something.
The problem isn't running apps - in fact Office 2007 runs much MUCH better on Vista than on the last Xp machine I used where it was a total dog - it's core OS operations, which don't seem to have been included in those tests. Anyone seen benchmarks for speed of file copying, etc?
I am not a Linux or Mac fanboi. I have been using Windows exclusively for the past 8 years or so. My problem with Vista used to be the DRM. Then I bought a laptop with it pre-installed. Now I don't think about that; my complaint is with the general slowness, even with all the fancy interface stuff turned off. 2 hours to unzip a file that WinRAR handled in a couple of minutes? Several minutes to move files from one place on the same hard disk to another? I encounter that kind of thing every day.
It's not the hardware, either. Ubuntu (which I am trying to migrate towards) is lightning fast on the same machine.
Plus the general user is going to continually fall over permissions issues. Sometime I am refused permission to move a folder from one place in my Documents folder to another.
Of course, eventally these things will be ironed out, but by then it may be too late. Competition is much stiffer now.
If you're talking about Windows Me, then the word was right. Difference is, Win2000 and then XP both came out in quick succession, within 2 years of that disaster. Vista has been 5+ years in development, is palpably worse than XP (I know; I'm using it right now), and they have no other OS on the horizon that I know of. If MS produce a Vista killer within the next year or two I will eat both my words and my hat.
Too late for that. The word is out that "the new version of Windows" (many people still seem not to know its name) is not as good as XP, and understanding is growing that OSX and Ubuntu are better alternatives, apart from a lack of some popular software (though notably not Office, iTunes, Firefox or Photoshop).
As pointed out already, visrutalization [I know I mistyped it, but it looks interesting so I'm leaving it] is a partial solution, but whatever feeble steps Microsoft take to stem that, momentum is buildng for the alternatives. At some point, perhaps quite soon, it will be worthwhile for many more software vendors to release Mac (and possibly Linux) versions of their products, much as in recent years it has become essential for web devlopers to support standards, due to the decline in popularity of IE (unless they work for Yahoo).
In short, the decline of Windows is already well underway.
It seems you've never used eBay. When you make a bid, the system generates - if possible - an automatic, lower bid for you that trumps all other bids. It is the difference between this amount and the amount you actually bid that causes the confusion. I wonder how people would feel if eBay changed their software so that your maximum amount became your actual bid, with no automatic bidding?
Yep, the Qt plugin for Firefox is a piece of crap. Anyone know of an alternative plugin to play mp3s (I mean, how often do you come across an embedded quicktime file these days)?
Agree, totally. Perhaps the NoScript developers should draw up a whitelist which is generally agreed to be safe, with an option to install alongside the extension.
Well, it was a poor design decision of the Slashdot developers to put the nav content at the top of the markup - standard practise with CSS layouts is for the repetitive stuff to go at the end - but otherwise the markup is clean, semantic and accessible. CSS has so many benefits I can't begin to list them all here, but I bet the Slashdot sysadmin is happy with reduced server loads, so you were defnitely abusing the word "laden". And using tables for layout is a bastardisation of HTML, so hardly qualifies as "pure".
I admire your wilfulness in persisting with an intentionally under-specced browser, but you can hardly expect the rest of us to join you back in 1996.
"This hideous CSS-laden version of slash is a big step down from the previous pure html version"
Wonderful mis-use of "laden" and "pure".
The AJAX-y comment system is far better than the old multiple-page-load model, and I suspect you know it. The point being, as you said yourself, that a site has to work without javascript. But it doesn't have to work *well*.
You might find they've fixed that. NoScript is under very active development and release a couple of updates a month. I have to agree with all the positive things that are said about it. I tend to enable scripting permanently only for trusted sites which I know require javascript (and smile a smug standardista smile to myself to think that I would never let a bit of javascript functionality go un-fall-backed).
You see a lot less ads with NoScript, too.
That's a little harsh. He's a good storyteller but a godawful scriptwriter. He should rough out the storyline, then get Joss Whedon to write the script.
It's great that there's a QT alternative; I have been using the Real Alternative for years for obvious reasons. But I find VLC plays QT files just fine; better, in fact, than Apple's player. An old PC of mine used to struggle to play a.mov file fullscreen, but VLC made light work of it.
You can say it, but I can't use it because I'm up to FF 2.0 and this extension is badly in need up updating.
However, you're right that cookie management has become yet another necessity for sane surfing. Cookie Safe seems to be the modern equivalent. Gonna give it a go.
It's only a problem for the supplier of X. It would be quite healthy for the rest of us to be left to make up our minds, or to simply not care, whether we prefer X or Y.
Slashdot Mirror
...because email is so over, Grandpa
The kids I know borrow an adult's email address to start these things. I've leant mine out to what I think are trustworthy kids for this purpose.
If it were only "nearly immune" to *all* antibiotics, it would have been wiped out by now.
You do have to wonder what exactly you're paying for when you buy a Windows license. I mean, given that you can have a superior operating system, plus a suite of software that runs well on it, for free. Microsoft's only leverage is their platform's ability to run a wider range of third party software, which the latest incarnation doesn't even do that well.
This I/O Prioritization Scheme is a new one on me. Can it be tweaked?
I think my main point is that *on the same machine* Ubuntu is glaringly quicker than Vista. I want to switch permanently but need a bunch of windows-only apps for my work. If I was braver I'd wipe Vista totally and run XP under Xen or something.
The problem isn't running apps - in fact Office 2007 runs much MUCH better on Vista than on the last Xp machine I used where it was a total dog - it's core OS operations, which don't seem to have been included in those tests. Anyone seen benchmarks for speed of file copying, etc?
I am not a Linux or Mac fanboi. I have been using Windows exclusively for the past 8 years or so. My problem with Vista used to be the DRM. Then I bought a laptop with it pre-installed. Now I don't think about that; my complaint is with the general slowness, even with all the fancy interface stuff turned off. 2 hours to unzip a file that WinRAR handled in a couple of minutes? Several minutes to move files from one place on the same hard disk to another? I encounter that kind of thing every day.
It's not the hardware, either. Ubuntu (which I am trying to migrate towards) is lightning fast on the same machine.
Plus the general user is going to continually fall over permissions issues. Sometime I am refused permission to move a folder from one place in my Documents folder to another.
Of course, eventally these things will be ironed out, but by then it may be too late. Competition is much stiffer now.
If you're talking about Windows Me, then the word was right. Difference is, Win2000 and then XP both came out in quick succession, within 2 years of that disaster. Vista has been 5+ years in development, is palpably worse than XP (I know; I'm using it right now), and they have no other OS on the horizon that I know of. If MS produce a Vista killer within the next year or two I will eat both my words and my hat.
"...the power of Microsoft will start to degrade"
Too late for that. The word is out that "the new version of Windows" (many people still seem not to know its name) is not as good as XP, and understanding is growing that OSX and Ubuntu are better alternatives, apart from a lack of some popular software (though notably not Office, iTunes, Firefox or Photoshop).
As pointed out already, visrutalization [I know I mistyped it, but it looks interesting so I'm leaving it] is a partial solution, but whatever feeble steps Microsoft take to stem that, momentum is buildng for the alternatives. At some point, perhaps quite soon, it will be worthwhile for many more software vendors to release Mac (and possibly Linux) versions of their products, much as in recent years it has become essential for web devlopers to support standards, due to the decline in popularity of IE (unless they work for Yahoo).
In short, the decline of Windows is already well underway.
It seems you've never used eBay. When you make a bid, the system generates - if possible - an automatic, lower bid for you that trumps all other bids. It is the difference between this amount and the amount you actually bid that causes the confusion. I wonder how people would feel if eBay changed their software so that your maximum amount became your actual bid, with no automatic bidding?
Yep, the Qt plugin for Firefox is a piece of crap. Anyone know of an alternative plugin to play mp3s (I mean, how often do you come across an embedded quicktime file these days)?
Agree, totally. Perhaps the NoScript developers should draw up a whitelist which is generally agreed to be safe, with an option to install alongside the extension.
Well, it was a poor design decision of the Slashdot developers to put the nav content at the top of the markup - standard practise with CSS layouts is for the repetitive stuff to go at the end - but otherwise the markup is clean, semantic and accessible. CSS has so many benefits I can't begin to list them all here, but I bet the Slashdot sysadmin is happy with reduced server loads, so you were defnitely abusing the word "laden". And using tables for layout is a bastardisation of HTML, so hardly qualifies as "pure". I admire your wilfulness in persisting with an intentionally under-specced browser, but you can hardly expect the rest of us to join you back in 1996.
Nice going, Slashdot. Modded up for thinking CSS is an 'absurd fad'.
You almost had me take the bait.
"This hideous CSS-laden version of slash is a big step down from the previous pure html version"
Wonderful mis-use of "laden" and "pure".
The AJAX-y comment system is far better than the old multiple-page-load model, and I suspect you know it. The point being, as you said yourself, that a site has to work without javascript. But it doesn't have to work *well*.
You might find they've fixed that. NoScript is under very active development and release a couple of updates a month. I have to agree with all the positive things that are said about it. I tend to enable scripting permanently only for trusted sites which I know require javascript (and smile a smug standardista smile to myself to think that I would never let a bit of javascript functionality go un-fall-backed). You see a lot less ads with NoScript, too.
... is a reasonable OSS replacement for Dreamweaver.
That's a little harsh. He's a good storyteller but a godawful scriptwriter. He should rough out the storyline, then get Joss Whedon to write the script.
Use netvibes instead. You can export all your feeds/tabs as an OPML file, and re-import it into netvibes or another feed reader if you want.
Maybe Apple will settle, to increase the likelihood of a much larger bomb being dropped on Microsoft.
It's great that there's a QT alternative; I have been using the Real Alternative for years for obvious reasons. But I find VLC plays QT files just fine; better, in fact, than Apple's player. An old PC of mine used to struggle to play a .mov file fullscreen, but VLC made light work of it.
Maybe it's time to ban advertising.
You can say it, but I can't use it because I'm up to FF 2.0 and this extension is badly in need up updating.
However, you're right that cookie management has become yet another necessity for sane surfing. Cookie Safe seems to be the modern equivalent. Gonna give it a go.
While you're at it, why not hide the http referrer as well.
It's only a problem for the supplier of X. It would be quite healthy for the rest of us to be left to make up our minds, or to simply not care, whether we prefer X or Y.