If you're buying your first computer, are you really going to know the difference between XP and Vista? Are you really going to MISS XP enough to want it that much?
Your logic makes no sense. So what if you've got MORE space to deal with, how is that a bad thing? How is that a limitation? That's like saying faster processors are a bad thing because it makes programmers lazy. It's read speeds are a limitation for games on the PS3, but you didn't even mention that.
Don't forget, a small yet common oversight in the console wars is the 360's GPU - it's actually FASTER than the PS3's, plus the 360 has a dedicated hardware scaling unit (which is why you can output at 1080p on the 360 with just about any game). The CELL is a fantastic piece of kit and I'm glad I've got access to it, but right now a lot of it's power is being used to offset the slower GPU.
This is why nearly all multiplatform games perform just as good on one console over the other.
Would you feel better if they gave it a different name? The Final Fantasy games don't follow on from one another, they occasionally have similar themes or side-characters, but that's it. Think of it more like a branding, like Ferrari or Ford.
Source? I've not heard anything except rumour and speculation on a blu-ray equipped 360.
A more logical assumption was that Square realised that there'd be a fucktonne more money to be made from going multi-platform. I don't think they ever cited the optical drive as a limitation, they just loved Sony (hence why FFXII never appeared on the Xbox for example), but even if that WAS their reasoning, I'd say Microsoft told them about the new game installs you can now do and they decided it'd be ok.
Does it matter that the infection is removed upon shutdown? Assuming the author doesn't just overwrite a bootloader or something just as sinister, even temporary access to a fresh boot of a LiveCD could still be enough to swipe some credit card details or something. ANY kind of system access is bad, no matter how long it might last.
I'm not disagreeing that Linux from 4 years ago is probably still leaps and bounds ahead of Windows today in terms of security, but bugs will be found that can give an outside user access to the system. It's not a case of if, but when.
Security should never be stagnant, just as nobody should ever think "ok I'm behind a router, I'm safe", nobody should ever think "I'm running Linux, I'm safe". You should always assume that there WILL be an exploit out there that can own you and do what you can to prevent it - mostly, just patching and staying up to date is enough, even on a windows box, but if that's not an option then you should always be extra vigilant, no matter what OS you're running.
Exactly. Saying an unpatched OS is vulnerable to attack is like saying an unlocked Car is liable to be stolen. I'm not even sure what it is they're trying to prove - that Microsoft can't bend time and space and retroactively patch ALL XP disks every time they release an update?
This actually got me thinking, even Linux has it's vulnerabilities from time to time, but I could argue it's MORE vulnerable because of all those Ubuntu Live CD's people have lying around. I've known a few people that have resorted to one of these Live CD's in times of dire need (i.e. when windows has decided to break) and one guy even used one for a few months because his HDD died on him - but how do you patch THOSE? Luckily, Linux is pretty good at not getting owned so it's a bit of a non-issue at the moment, but I dare say it's only a matter of time before someone starts targeting them as well.
How can you say this shows no improvement over the last 4 years when the test subject was an UNPATCHED version of Windows? The article wasn't even particularly clear if it was good ol' Vanilla XP or XP SP2 or whatever.
I'm curious, I always assumed that the main Bottleneck WAS the Hard drive. Do the things you mentioned really add that much time to the startup of a computer? My computer's hard drive gets heavily accessed right up to when I see the desktop, surely having the system already in RAM would cut down startup times significantly?
I like how you've immediately assumed that I'm simply impatient just because YOU'VE never experienced what I'm referring to. I notice in the list of electronic devices you have, none of them are Satellite/Cable boxes or Tivo-like devices. I have one such device, it's a Cable box with a hard drive built into it and it takes a solid 2-3mins to start up. Sure, that's not a big deal, it doesn't really bother me that much since I'm only missing 2-3mins of crap TV, but what does bother me is that the people who make it (Virgin Media, in case you're wondering - and it's British Company, don't want you assuming I'm making something up just because you may not have heard of it) say that you're not supposed to turn it off anyway. Why would I want to keep such a box on 24/7 if I'm not even going to use it half of the time? Makes sense if I want to record something, sure, but I rarely record something every single day, or during the night when I'm asleep - so why not turn it off? It saves me money on electric and it saves the environment a little. But I digress, the point is there ARE set-top boxes out there that take a long time to boot, so don't be so ignorant. Besides, that was just ONE example where this technology could actually prove useful, I don't see you suggesting anything better.
True, it's probably not a good idea to have ALL your memory as this stuff, but why not have say, the core OS files (The ones that wont contain any important, private data) stored in this type of memory for that near-instant-on effect? In theory, the OS could stay in RAM and just do a quick verification check to make sure it's not damaged/corrupted in some way (and since it's ALREADY in RAM, it should be lightning quick) and then reload any files that have been, then boom, you're at your desktop in a matter of seconds. Plus, I doubt it'll actually be as fast as regular RAM anyway, that would be too good to be true, so chances are we'll just see this as a companion to good ol' DDR3/4/WhateverExistsAtTheTime.
It would certainly benefit the likes of embedded devices, set-top boxes and such that are starting to really take the piss with their multi-minute startup times.
That's probably because if you had the source to 1.6, you could probably improve it beyond that of CSS (perhaps not graphically, mind you) which Valve still sells.
I'm all for having a "lol" at stupidly overcomplicated systems being used for the most mundane of tasks, but this article is a little sketchy on some of the details. For example, one line states "Why not program some stripped down embedded system for that task?" when it doesn't even indicate what version of Windows the system he's talking about uses - there IS an embedded version of Windows available for such tasks, you know. The article is still a good read, though, but I'd take what it's saying with a pinch of salt and don't just immediately start bashing Microsoft, after all it's not their fault if a sysadmin makes a stupid design choice or 10.
I'd love to, but unfortunately I don't really have the time to properly sit down and get used to a new OS. I have far too many things to be doing and can only really migrate piece by piece. At least if I can get used to working with Open Source equivalents to all of the applications I need to do whatever work I have, then eventually changing the OS isn't going to affect that too much. That's the theory, anyway. I've tried just "switching" like that many times before and all it's done is just frustrate me as Linux is just so different from what I'm used to. Not knowing how to do even the simplest of tasks, such as mounting a Hard Drive (something I could do on windows with my eyes closed), just makes me feel stupid and completely puts me off.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh go on then.
If you're buying your first computer, are you really going to know the difference between XP and Vista? Are you really going to MISS XP enough to want it that much?
An Internet connection.
10 cls
20 Print "First"
30 Print "Post"
40 goto 10
Your logic makes no sense. So what if you've got MORE space to deal with, how is that a bad thing? How is that a limitation? That's like saying faster processors are a bad thing because it makes programmers lazy.
It's read speeds are a limitation for games on the PS3, but you didn't even mention that.
I would, but I'd say I'm still more a 360 fan than a PS3 fan, so I'll just point you here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_big_planet
Gran Turismo? The biggest selling franchise on Playstation?
Killzone 2?
Little Big Planet?
Don't forget, a small yet common oversight in the console wars is the 360's GPU - it's actually FASTER than the PS3's, plus the 360 has a dedicated hardware scaling unit (which is why you can output at 1080p on the 360 with just about any game).
The CELL is a fantastic piece of kit and I'm glad I've got access to it, but right now a lot of it's power is being used to offset the slower GPU.
This is why nearly all multiplatform games perform just as good on one console over the other.
Would you feel better if they gave it a different name? The Final Fantasy games don't follow on from one another, they occasionally have similar themes or side-characters, but that's it.
Think of it more like a branding, like Ferrari or Ford.
Source?
I've not heard anything except rumour and speculation on a blu-ray equipped 360.
A more logical assumption was that Square realised that there'd be a fucktonne more money to be made from going multi-platform. I don't think they ever cited the optical drive as a limitation, they just loved Sony (hence why FFXII never appeared on the Xbox for example), but even if that WAS their reasoning, I'd say Microsoft told them about the new game installs you can now do and they decided it'd be ok.
Does it matter that the infection is removed upon shutdown? Assuming the author doesn't just overwrite a bootloader or something just as sinister, even temporary access to a fresh boot of a LiveCD could still be enough to swipe some credit card details or something.
ANY kind of system access is bad, no matter how long it might last.
I'm not disagreeing that Linux from 4 years ago is probably still leaps and bounds ahead of Windows today in terms of security, but bugs will be found that can give an outside user access to the system. It's not a case of if, but when.
Security should never be stagnant, just as nobody should ever think "ok I'm behind a router, I'm safe", nobody should ever think "I'm running Linux, I'm safe".
You should always assume that there WILL be an exploit out there that can own you and do what you can to prevent it - mostly, just patching and staying up to date is enough, even on a windows box, but if that's not an option then you should always be extra vigilant, no matter what OS you're running.
Exactly. Saying an unpatched OS is vulnerable to attack is like saying an unlocked Car is liable to be stolen.
I'm not even sure what it is they're trying to prove - that Microsoft can't bend time and space and retroactively patch ALL XP disks every time they release an update?
This actually got me thinking, even Linux has it's vulnerabilities from time to time, but I could argue it's MORE vulnerable because of all those Ubuntu Live CD's people have lying around. I've known a few people that have resorted to one of these Live CD's in times of dire need (i.e. when windows has decided to break) and one guy even used one for a few months because his HDD died on him - but how do you patch THOSE?
Luckily, Linux is pretty good at not getting owned so it's a bit of a non-issue at the moment, but I dare say it's only a matter of time before someone starts targeting them as well.
How can you say this shows no improvement over the last 4 years when the test subject was an UNPATCHED version of Windows?
The article wasn't even particularly clear if it was good ol' Vanilla XP or XP SP2 or whatever.
You don't talk about "them", especially now that they've got a weapon that can penetrate the trusty tinfoil hat.
Apparently tagging it with the word "typo" will alert them to the mistakes. Yet 50million comments wont.
Create a script that scans slashdot for a new article and posts a "frosty piss" comment.
Honestly, I'm surprised it hasn't been done yet.
I'm curious, I always assumed that the main Bottleneck WAS the Hard drive. Do the things you mentioned really add that much time to the startup of a computer?
My computer's hard drive gets heavily accessed right up to when I see the desktop, surely having the system already in RAM would cut down startup times significantly?
I like how you've immediately assumed that I'm simply impatient just because YOU'VE never experienced what I'm referring to.
I notice in the list of electronic devices you have, none of them are Satellite/Cable boxes or Tivo-like devices.
I have one such device, it's a Cable box with a hard drive built into it and it takes a solid 2-3mins to start up.
Sure, that's not a big deal, it doesn't really bother me that much since I'm only missing 2-3mins of crap TV, but what does bother me is that the people who make it (Virgin Media, in case you're wondering - and it's British Company, don't want you assuming I'm making something up just because you may not have heard of it) say that you're not supposed to turn it off anyway.
Why would I want to keep such a box on 24/7 if I'm not even going to use it half of the time? Makes sense if I want to record something, sure, but I rarely record something every single day, or during the night when I'm asleep - so why not turn it off? It saves me money on electric and it saves the environment a little.
But I digress, the point is there ARE set-top boxes out there that take a long time to boot, so don't be so ignorant.
Besides, that was just ONE example where this technology could actually prove useful, I don't see you suggesting anything better.
True, it's probably not a good idea to have ALL your memory as this stuff, but why not have say, the core OS files (The ones that wont contain any important, private data) stored in this type of memory for that near-instant-on effect? In theory, the OS could stay in RAM and just do a quick verification check to make sure it's not damaged/corrupted in some way (and since it's ALREADY in RAM, it should be lightning quick) and then reload any files that have been, then boom, you're at your desktop in a matter of seconds.
Plus, I doubt it'll actually be as fast as regular RAM anyway, that would be too good to be true, so chances are we'll just see this as a companion to good ol' DDR3/4/WhateverExistsAtTheTime.
It would certainly benefit the likes of embedded devices, set-top boxes and such that are starting to really take the piss with their multi-minute startup times.
That's probably because if you had the source to 1.6, you could probably improve it beyond that of CSS (perhaps not graphically, mind you) which Valve still sells.
Cynical? Naaaaaw...
Except that they never actually intended to buy the island and made it quite clear on the site that they didn't intend on doing it.
I'm all for having a "lol" at stupidly overcomplicated systems being used for the most mundane of tasks, but this article is a little sketchy on some of the details.
For example, one line states "Why not program some stripped down embedded system for that task?" when it doesn't even indicate what version of Windows the system he's talking about uses - there IS an embedded version of Windows available for such tasks, you know.
The article is still a good read, though, but I'd take what it's saying with a pinch of salt and don't just immediately start bashing Microsoft, after all it's not their fault if a sysadmin makes a stupid design choice or 10.
I'd love to, but unfortunately I don't really have the time to properly sit down and get used to a new OS.
I have far too many things to be doing and can only really migrate piece by piece.
At least if I can get used to working with Open Source equivalents to all of the applications I need to do whatever work I have, then eventually changing the OS isn't going to affect that too much. That's the theory, anyway.
I've tried just "switching" like that many times before and all it's done is just frustrate me as Linux is just so different from what I'm used to. Not knowing how to do even the simplest of tasks, such as mounting a Hard Drive (something I could do on windows with my eyes closed), just makes me feel stupid and completely puts me off.
Forgot to tick the box, didn't you?