...Is that the test fails to simulate the overall protective capability of the firewall. In order for the outbound traffic filter to be relevant, the offending software has to first get past the inbound protection as well as antivirus/antimalware protection that is resident on the machine. I think ZoneAlarm, AVG and others who provide a complete suite have a better solution than the best leak protection firewall out there, because in effect these programs never are allowed to execute in the first place.
Lets run these tests again, but first specify that you must accomplish the tests without physical access to the machine. Then lets compare how these products fare...
No, they don't. Because the Macbooks that compare pricewise and feature-wise to PC laptops are $1600 and up, and most kids in that demographic want a laptop that is sub-$1000. At MacMall you can't buy a Mac laptop with a 15" screen for under $1600. Some of them will buy units in the $1500-$2000 range but they are a minority.
Of course, if you are going to spend $2000 on a laptop, the line is very close - but when you mention the availability of running Windows in a dual boot setup on the Macbook, keep in mind you'll be shelling out even more money to buy the software.
If price were the only issue I'm sure you'd see Linux based cheapo boxes in this demographic as well but I doubt they have any greater marketshare than other markets.
In many ways Windows is still playing catchup to Mac. All those MacOS users who say OSX is better than Windows Because...yada yada... well now Vista incorporates many of those features which make OSX "cool".
Killer App? How about gaming/DX10? And in the corporate world it's all about user productivity - and when an OS makes advances in UI and security, that costs them less dollars in the long run.
Compare this to Apple's model, in which they keep the software prices reasonable and raise the price of hardware to increase profit margins.
Apple would certainly be accused of monopolistic practices if they had more market share. The point is that their overall pricing scheme is very similar to Microsoft's. At least Microsoft has taken the steps to provide options, although I agree that the high end is about $100 too expensive.
I think that by considering that there is a free alternative to Windows (linux) you must realize that price is not the only factor here. Product maturity, marketing, and application availability are also factors. Microsoft did not achieve market domination by charging high prices, and if you consider the history of Windows OS pricing, it hasn't changed much over the past 15 years especially when you consider inflation. Microsoft achieved what it has by producing a competitive if not superior product, and marketing itself to software and hardware developers in order to ensure that the desired range of applications would be available on their platform.
Linux vendors, by not charging for their product, have not been able to produce this marketing and development puch to ensure worldwide software and hardware vendor support. When it boils down to it, the very thing that makes Linux attractive (price) may be the factor that is holding down it's implementation.
You're absolutely right about people wanting a game that doesn't necessarily have an ending point. It was only a couple of months ago here on/. that there was a sizeable debate on whether games were too long or too short. It boils down to keeping peoples interest long enough to keep them playing it for more than a few days or weeks. If you have to keep repeating the same old storyline, it gets old pretty fast.
It's hardly an operating system. It's more like trying to combine all your data into one browser window. It is a unique idea - no application I'm aware of centralizes this functionality. Why noone has thought of it before, who knows. It seems like the only reason I'd want to use this would be to share files with other people. It wouldn't seem like it would be a big deal to write an application that showed you the files on your computer, give you the option to post them online to any web server of your choosing, and format them nicely with a web portal. Even filtering the site so that different sets of people would see different data would hardly seem to be a problem, as you can email a 'key' to them that sets their level of access.
As others have said, the most important thing to worry about would be security. What will prevent malicious code from altering your local files, or uploading sensitive data?
"Sedo told TechWeb that it had a process for pulling domain names but because of the sheer volume of domains on sale through its site it relied on trademark holders to notify it of potential problems. "We have more than six million domains for sale," said Jeremiah Johnston, Sedo's general counsel. "It's impossible for us to proactively filter sales.""
Do they think we're idiots or something? They are proactively registering the darn things to resell, and then the two-faced morons turn around and say they can't proactively filter sales of the same domains. I hope these companies do get sued into the ground, and I hope that the US can pass a law that makes this type of thing illegal.
"D: Type and Graphics. The graphics and sans serif font induce good Water flow."
Gee, I always wondered why viewing slashdot gave me the irresistable urge to pee.
The problem is, McAfee and Symantec's "security" products don't improve the security of the operating system at all. They are basically open ended coverups for every new problem that comes along.
There are already plenty of free security utilities out there that are equal to or better than the big two's products. As long as Windows has this open architecture that invites malicious software to compromise the OS kernel and it's low level operations, Symantec and McAfee will have plenty of market share. What they are really worried about is if Microsoft actually does a good job of keeping the OS secure to begin with, nobody will have a reason to buy their products. It has nothing to do with replacing built in products or services, because people will do that anyways. Essentially you're going to pay somebody, and most people aren't going to be excited about paying more money to MS.
Why aren't they crying foul about Mac OS and Linux because they have no market share there?
I think that the "people persons" are those who commit themselves less to math and more to social activities that they are more comfortable with. People who apply themselves to math skills at an early age are more likely to have both skill sets later on. I think that there are a lot of people who are handicapped in a way by their lack of math skills which may have well been caused by too much social emphasis early on.
The only question come 2008 is if AMD's roadmap to bring them back will be ahead of Intel's roadmap in 2008. For the forseeable future Intel is one upping AMD at every phase at least until the end of 2007. Every time AMD has a scheduled release Intel is releasing their next generation.
Apparently AMD is staking a good part of their future on the high end server market, where Intel has never been a huge player. However Intel does have something going for them in the small to midrange server market, as they emphasize power consumption and cost savings.
I fail to see why anyone would spend an extra $200, or 60% more than a regular x1900xtx card, to buy this card that averages less than 5% performance gain at best and in most cases less than 4%. Additionally, in many cases this card was outperformed by the 7950GX2 card that is only $40 more with no watercooling.
There is no way any mere mortal, gamer or otherwise, will be able to tell the difference between 79fps with the stock x1900xtx card, and 83fps with the fancy schmancy overclocked card. At some point you just have to realize that a card like this is just a marketing gimmick that plays to the guy who has to have the 'l33test' setup around.
Yes, obviously you've never installed the software, because it forces you to choose before proceeding with the installation.
It sounds to me like the author of the original article didn't do much research into the subject, rather like you said it's a media flame story. The author has been very responsive to issues concerning the installation of the sponsor program, and has gone to great lengths to ensure his sponsors are not malicious and that users must know that they are installing it to actually have it installed on the system. The whole story is flame bait and a non-issue for at least the past year.
I read the entire letter and the phonetic similarity argument is part of what makes it so ridiculous. If it was only the logo, they wouldn't be asking them to not use the domain names or corporate names. In fact, the letter never says "logo" they only refer to the trademark. Can I not use the letters "mac" simply because McDonalds has a product they call a big "mac"?? Oh wait Apple computers are called macs too, maybe they have a case...
Apple should be happy with the booming market share they have and not try to take advantage of their brand recognition to suppress products or services that benefit themselves in the long run. Nobody with half a brain is ever going to confuse "mypodder" or "podcast ready" with an ipod.
It is stupid. The stupidity is that these companies don't have "ipod" in their names at all. This whole "cause confusion" argument is so ridiculous, it's been tried many times before and it rarely works. Most likely they are counting on companies to back down just because they don't want a fight.
I think the 40 hour figure could safely be assumed to be an average. Sure, like so many posts here have stated, there are some folks (usually those who play a lot of games) who will finish in 10 or 20 hours. There's probably alot more folks who are going to take longer than 40 to beat it.
The other dynamic that I didn't see mentioned is how much time it takes to replay portions of the game after you die or get stuck. Sure you may have a segment that is supposed to take 20 minutes to complete, but if you die and have to play it over again 3 or 4 times, all of a sudden you're looking at an hour and a half to get to the next segment. Do this a few times and 40 hrs becomes 150 hours really quickly.
Yes, but average joe user is not going to find that. At least with windows, I can ask someone who is calling me for support to easily read me off what the error is so that I can give them an intelligent response. My point is not that you can't get at the info, the point is that Apple has dumbed it down to make it look less serious and so we assume it's less of a problem than when Windows crashes.
From the Article "to bring a wounded person back to Earth for treatment is both risky for them and expensive"
It sounds to me like to do surgery on them in space via a robotic interface controlled from earth would be even more risky and even more expensive. Of course, right now they don't have a very good way of getting someone back to earth quickly if they needed to. They don't have enough shuttle launch locations to prevent weather from fouling up a launch, and it could be days before a shuttle would be able to return, like the situation with flying debris that delayed this last shuttle re-entry.
Linux has the same problems with drivers crashing the OS that XP does. I've had plenty of experience with that, especially when trying to use it with more home user related devices. As a file server doing nothing but serving files, you never see it crash. But you never see Win 2000 or 2003 server crash when that's all it's doing either.
The only other solution, which Apple has historically adopted, is to maintain tight control over available hardware so that they can be trusted to not crash. They've opened it up more recently with the advent of USB and firewire devices. And when it does crash it just does a prettier job of it - Apple would never actually give the user information why it crashed like MS does...
I recall reading in an air and space smithsonian magazine article over 10 years ago about how the Russians had developed an air-to-air missile that could fire backwards at a pursuing aircraft. Is there any chance that the newer Russian fighters have this capability? Then again, where the heck do they get the money to buy these things, I can't imagine that they have very many...
Why can't they make an electronic voting machine that prints out a paper ballot? That way, people can look at the completed ballot and confirm its correctness on the electronic machine. You then turn in your completed paper ballot, which doesn't need to be scanned because it's already accounted for electronically.
I think that those of us who have fingers can very easily define 2+3=5. There's nothing abstract about it, as if the numbers '2' or '3' were some sort of concept which could be defined in multiple ways depending on perspective. Can I by thinking about it, have 7 fingers instead of 5?
DVDs look like ass at 720p compared to real HD content.
So how does a 3/2 (not really double, only 1.5 times) upscaled DVD compare to a downscaled HD-DVD on a 720p set?
I've been watching TV in 1080i since I got my first HD Tuner 4 years ago. And I really don't see a huge difference between HD broadcasts and DVD film. Granted, I'm not using a huge TV - my normal screen is on my desk and is 20", but I also have a projector that is 720p and quality is still very similar on an 80" projecter screen. I guess I'd have to see them side-by-side to really make a judgement.
Slashdot Mirror
...Is that the test fails to simulate the overall protective capability of the firewall. In order for the outbound traffic filter to be relevant, the offending software has to first get past the inbound protection as well as antivirus/antimalware protection that is resident on the machine. I think ZoneAlarm, AVG and others who provide a complete suite have a better solution than the best leak protection firewall out there, because in effect these programs never are allowed to execute in the first place.
Lets run these tests again, but first specify that you must accomplish the tests without physical access to the machine. Then lets compare how these products fare...
No, they don't. Because the Macbooks that compare pricewise and feature-wise to PC laptops are $1600 and up, and most kids in that demographic want a laptop that is sub-$1000. At MacMall you can't buy a Mac laptop with a 15" screen for under $1600. Some of them will buy units in the $1500-$2000 range but they are a minority.
Of course, if you are going to spend $2000 on a laptop, the line is very close - but when you mention the availability of running Windows in a dual boot setup on the Macbook, keep in mind you'll be shelling out even more money to buy the software.
Need I say more?
If price were the only issue I'm sure you'd see Linux based cheapo boxes in this demographic as well but I doubt they have any greater marketshare than other markets.
In many ways Windows is still playing catchup to Mac. All those MacOS users who say OSX is better than Windows Because...yada yada... well now Vista incorporates many of those features which make OSX "cool".
Killer App? How about gaming/DX10? And in the corporate world it's all about user productivity - and when an OS makes advances in UI and security, that costs them less dollars in the long run.
Compare this to Apple's model, in which they keep the software prices reasonable and raise the price of hardware to increase profit margins.
Apple would certainly be accused of monopolistic practices if they had more market share. The point is that their overall pricing scheme is very similar to Microsoft's. At least Microsoft has taken the steps to provide options, although I agree that the high end is about $100 too expensive.
I think that by considering that there is a free alternative to Windows (linux) you must realize that price is not the only factor here. Product maturity, marketing, and application availability are also factors. Microsoft did not achieve market domination by charging high prices, and if you consider the history of Windows OS pricing, it hasn't changed much over the past 15 years especially when you consider inflation. Microsoft achieved what it has by producing a competitive if not superior product, and marketing itself to software and hardware developers in order to ensure that the desired range of applications would be available on their platform.
Linux vendors, by not charging for their product, have not been able to produce this marketing and development puch to ensure worldwide software and hardware vendor support. When it boils down to it, the very thing that makes Linux attractive (price) may be the factor that is holding down it's implementation.
You're absolutely right about people wanting a game that doesn't necessarily have an ending point. It was only a couple of months ago here on /. that there was a sizeable debate on whether games were too long or too short. It boils down to keeping peoples interest long enough to keep them playing it for more than a few days or weeks. If you have to keep repeating the same old storyline, it gets old pretty fast.
It's hardly an operating system. It's more like trying to combine all your data into one browser window. It is a unique idea - no application I'm aware of centralizes this functionality. Why noone has thought of it before, who knows. It seems like the only reason I'd want to use this would be to share files with other people. It wouldn't seem like it would be a big deal to write an application that showed you the files on your computer, give you the option to post them online to any web server of your choosing, and format them nicely with a web portal. Even filtering the site so that different sets of people would see different data would hardly seem to be a problem, as you can email a 'key' to them that sets their level of access.
As others have said, the most important thing to worry about would be security. What will prevent malicious code from altering your local files, or uploading sensitive data?
"Sedo told TechWeb that it had a process for pulling domain names but because of the sheer volume of domains on sale through its site it relied on trademark holders to notify it of potential problems. "We have more than six million domains for sale," said Jeremiah Johnston, Sedo's general counsel. "It's impossible for us to proactively filter sales.""
Do they think we're idiots or something? They are proactively registering the darn things to resell, and then the two-faced morons turn around and say they can't proactively filter sales of the same domains. I hope these companies do get sued into the ground, and I hope that the US can pass a law that makes this type of thing illegal.
"D: Type and Graphics. The graphics and sans serif font induce good Water flow." Gee, I always wondered why viewing slashdot gave me the irresistable urge to pee.
The problem is, McAfee and Symantec's "security" products don't improve the security of the operating system at all. They are basically open ended coverups for every new problem that comes along.
There are already plenty of free security utilities out there that are equal to or better than the big two's products. As long as Windows has this open architecture that invites malicious software to compromise the OS kernel and it's low level operations, Symantec and McAfee will have plenty of market share. What they are really worried about is if Microsoft actually does a good job of keeping the OS secure to begin with, nobody will have a reason to buy their products. It has nothing to do with replacing built in products or services, because people will do that anyways. Essentially you're going to pay somebody, and most people aren't going to be excited about paying more money to MS.
Why aren't they crying foul about Mac OS and Linux because they have no market share there?
I think that the "people persons" are those who commit themselves less to math and more to social activities that they are more comfortable with. People who apply themselves to math skills at an early age are more likely to have both skill sets later on. I think that there are a lot of people who are handicapped in a way by their lack of math skills which may have well been caused by too much social emphasis early on.
You never know, Apple might be trying to trademark 'Slack'. In a few years, we might not be able to say it without paying...
The only question come 2008 is if AMD's roadmap to bring them back will be ahead of Intel's roadmap in 2008. For the forseeable future Intel is one upping AMD at every phase at least until the end of 2007. Every time AMD has a scheduled release Intel is releasing their next generation. Apparently AMD is staking a good part of their future on the high end server market, where Intel has never been a huge player. However Intel does have something going for them in the small to midrange server market, as they emphasize power consumption and cost savings.
I fail to see why anyone would spend an extra $200, or 60% more than a regular x1900xtx card, to buy this card that averages less than 5% performance gain at best and in most cases less than 4%. Additionally, in many cases this card was outperformed by the 7950GX2 card that is only $40 more with no watercooling.
There is no way any mere mortal, gamer or otherwise, will be able to tell the difference between 79fps with the stock x1900xtx card, and 83fps with the fancy schmancy overclocked card. At some point you just have to realize that a card like this is just a marketing gimmick that plays to the guy who has to have the 'l33test' setup around.
Yes, obviously you've never installed the software, because it forces you to choose before proceeding with the installation. It sounds to me like the author of the original article didn't do much research into the subject, rather like you said it's a media flame story. The author has been very responsive to issues concerning the installation of the sponsor program, and has gone to great lengths to ensure his sponsors are not malicious and that users must know that they are installing it to actually have it installed on the system. The whole story is flame bait and a non-issue for at least the past year.
I read the entire letter and the phonetic similarity argument is part of what makes it so ridiculous. If it was only the logo, they wouldn't be asking them to not use the domain names or corporate names. In fact, the letter never says "logo" they only refer to the trademark. Can I not use the letters "mac" simply because McDonalds has a product they call a big "mac"?? Oh wait Apple computers are called macs too, maybe they have a case...
Apple should be happy with the booming market share they have and not try to take advantage of their brand recognition to suppress products or services that benefit themselves in the long run. Nobody with half a brain is ever going to confuse "mypodder" or "podcast ready" with an ipod.
It is stupid. The stupidity is that these companies don't have "ipod" in their names at all. This whole "cause confusion" argument is so ridiculous, it's been tried many times before and it rarely works. Most likely they are counting on companies to back down just because they don't want a fight.
I think the 40 hour figure could safely be assumed to be an average. Sure, like so many posts here have stated, there are some folks (usually those who play a lot of games) who will finish in 10 or 20 hours. There's probably alot more folks who are going to take longer than 40 to beat it.
The other dynamic that I didn't see mentioned is how much time it takes to replay portions of the game after you die or get stuck. Sure you may have a segment that is supposed to take 20 minutes to complete, but if you die and have to play it over again 3 or 4 times, all of a sudden you're looking at an hour and a half to get to the next segment. Do this a few times and 40 hrs becomes 150 hours really quickly.
Yes, but average joe user is not going to find that. At least with windows, I can ask someone who is calling me for support to easily read me off what the error is so that I can give them an intelligent response. My point is not that you can't get at the info, the point is that Apple has dumbed it down to make it look less serious and so we assume it's less of a problem than when Windows crashes.
From the Article "to bring a wounded person back to Earth for treatment is both risky for them and expensive" It sounds to me like to do surgery on them in space via a robotic interface controlled from earth would be even more risky and even more expensive. Of course, right now they don't have a very good way of getting someone back to earth quickly if they needed to. They don't have enough shuttle launch locations to prevent weather from fouling up a launch, and it could be days before a shuttle would be able to return, like the situation with flying debris that delayed this last shuttle re-entry.
Linux has the same problems with drivers crashing the OS that XP does. I've had plenty of experience with that, especially when trying to use it with more home user related devices. As a file server doing nothing but serving files, you never see it crash. But you never see Win 2000 or 2003 server crash when that's all it's doing either.
The only other solution, which Apple has historically adopted, is to maintain tight control over available hardware so that they can be trusted to not crash. They've opened it up more recently with the advent of USB and firewire devices. And when it does crash it just does a prettier job of it - Apple would never actually give the user information why it crashed like MS does...
I recall reading in an air and space smithsonian magazine article over 10 years ago about how the Russians had developed an air-to-air missile that could fire backwards at a pursuing aircraft. Is there any chance that the newer Russian fighters have this capability? Then again, where the heck do they get the money to buy these things, I can't imagine that they have very many...
Why can't they make an electronic voting machine that prints out a paper ballot? That way, people can look at the completed ballot and confirm its correctness on the electronic machine. You then turn in your completed paper ballot, which doesn't need to be scanned because it's already accounted for electronically.
I think that those of us who have fingers can very easily define 2+3=5. There's nothing abstract about it, as if the numbers '2' or '3' were some sort of concept which could be defined in multiple ways depending on perspective. Can I by thinking about it, have 7 fingers instead of 5?
DVDs look like ass at 720p compared to real HD content.
So how does a 3/2 (not really double, only 1.5 times) upscaled DVD compare to a downscaled HD-DVD on a 720p set? I've been watching TV in 1080i since I got my first HD Tuner 4 years ago. And I really don't see a huge difference between HD broadcasts and DVD film. Granted, I'm not using a huge TV - my normal screen is on my desk and is 20", but I also have a projector that is 720p and quality is still very similar on an 80" projecter screen. I guess I'd have to see them side-by-side to really make a judgement.