Hey Microsoft want a advertising campaign that will make everyone love vista? Give the Vista Home edition away to EVERYONE. make it free as a downloadable ISO without support on your website and overnight everyone will love you.
What percentage of people in the world do you think even know what a downloadable ISO is? It seems that most people who know what it is and would know how to use it are the same people who probably grabbed a pirated version online already anyway. And then complained that they don't like it.
So do you subtract the amount they're paid to bundle adverts? Do you subtract the support costs that would be required to support more options for purchase? You have to assume that Dell/IBM/HP/etc are all evaluating their full cost structure including those things. If so, is it possible the "Microsoft Tax" is actually a negative value meaning it's cheaper for IBM to sell a Windows machine and be paid by advertisers than it is to sell a machine with nothing on it? Again, not trying to troll... just seems like its become one of those buzzwords with no actual meaning any more.
Not trying to troll here, honest question. What does the "Microsoft Tax" mean when people talk about it now? According to wikipedia it originally talked about the "you can't sell other software" vendor agreements that Microsoft can no longer use. Now it seems people use it to mean "the extra amount I pay for a computer since it has windows". But is that the amount of money Microsoft actually makes or is it just the difference in cost to a vendor to have a single OS supported and pay Microsoft vs not paying Microsoft as much but having higher support costs with multiple OS's? Just curious since the usage appears fairly ambiguous lately.
It's an ad from Crispin Porter + Bogusky, the same company that brought back "the king" in the BK ads. What was your response the first time you saw one of those? Like most people probably "WTF?"
Were the BK ads eventually successful? Well, BK went from loses quarter after quarter to multiple quarters of continual growth after the ads ran. Granted the ads themselves weren't the only reason for BK success, but BK did experience positive results. Not saying I like this campaign (yet), but if it's got tons of people going out to look at the ad and having a conversation that doesn't start with "I hate Microsoft"... then it's not all bad.
Have you actually tried any of those shortcuts you say don't work anymore? ES still brings up paste special. EF still brings up find. They specifically left in most of the existing combinations so any you had memorized will still work. Yes, there are new ones too which match the organization in the ribbon more closely, but if you want to use ES... go ahead. It works.
The new interface was geared toward the beginner which represents a large portion of the market. At the same time they did stuff so as not to slow down the power users (like leaving in existing key combinations). I agree it's not perfect and I personally liked the old UI better. They're trying to walk that line between supporting a huge user base and not slowing down the people who know what they're doing. That's not always an easy task.
You're calculating the speed it would need to start at if all thrust were exerted at ground level and it had to coast up to space (again excluding air resistance). If on the other hand you apply thrust throughout the flight, space can be achieved without ever approaching 25,000 MPH. For instance, Space Ship One never flew 25,000 MPH yet it made it to space.
Also note that I don't believe he'll make it either, and I've always considered 80km to not really be space flight. Just pointing out that the facts you mentioned won't necessarily be the ones that stop the adventure.
IANAL, but wouldn't that be obstruction of justice and lead to legal sanctions against the university? ie, you have evidence of a potential crime (yes, mod me as flame bait for calling it a crime), a court tells you to hand it over, then you destroy said evidence. Sounds kind of like the definition of obstruction of justice.
By the logic that many are advocating here, we should be happy that so many people (both in Africa and the rest of the world) are dying because their parents are so stupid for believing rumors from questionable sources. Instead, shouldn't we be saddened that so many are negatively impacted and do everything we can to help people get the right information, and save lives? I'm not saying I want the government regulating youtube or anything... but come on, "good, they deserve it" can't be the right response either. People probably didn't say "I have a health problem" and turn to youtube. But if they happened to see the video because someone sent it to them, it can still have an impact by spreading false rumors that harm public health.
You want to fill a large hard drive without piracy? Set your DVR to record a bit of high-def programming. You'll fill up a TB before you know it. Especially if you're one of those people who like to record the whole series instead of deleting along the way. And believe me, the wife gets pissed when some of her episodes of "Private Practice" are missing.
The Zune is inferior (I'm assuming you mean to the iPod) because it has DRM... does the iPod not have DRM? Is the iPod DRM somehow less restrictive? If so, how? Honestly curious...
Threat modeling is usually more of a review of a feature design, and less about individual lines of code. The point is there *will* be bugs in any reasonably complex piece of code... how do you design in such a way that when those bugs do surface (or some of your design assumptions are proven false) there isn't a vulnerability there. That's where threat mitigation comes in. Just look at the WMF vulnerability. No matter how good or bad the code was for that feature, the design was flawed and that's what caused the main issue.
So I finally went and looked it up. The configurable limit is per process (URL:http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms72 4291.aspx/>), though the OS has a theoretical limit of 65k. Yeah, you can still spawn x processes which each grab y handles and hit that limit for the OS... of course you can also spawn x processes which each use y memory and starve the OS that way too.
Wow. You really want to be that pedantic? Yeah, I misspoke. (Yes, I was also typing, not speaking)
Of course, technically if you "install" the SP, but it's not "loaded", then its not doing you any good. First you "install" it, then the.dll's and other files included in the SP are "loaded" when you launch VS. There, I learned. Yay! =P
There's a configurable limit to the number of GDI handles that can be created at one time... I believe the default is 10,000 but my memory might be off. They're not automatically reclaimed (there's no garbage collector), but proper use of these handles is to release them when you're done with them, and you shouldn't be holding on to them for long periods.
Generally when you run out of handles it's because some program has a bug and is forgetting to release them, not because of the OS.
The specific window redraw issues in Visual Studio 2005 were fixed in VS SP1 (at least in my experience). The issues only showed up on Vista, but it appears it was actually a VS 2005 issue.
Anyone else picturing a line of people at the airport waiting for a long flight... each with a laptop and a 5 pound bag of sugar? And the TSA agents freaking out because everyone's stuff has a thin coating of white powder?
Re:Why you chain up your $500Million lawn ornament
on
3 Ton Meteorite Stolen
·
· Score: 1
Ebay has meteorites on sale for around $4 an ounce. That's still $384,000 for 3 tons, but a bit less than a half billion.
Same here. I use it on both my computers, so based on that anecdotal evidence the actual number they reported should be closer to 100%. I have no idea how they got the 25% figure. Must be FUD.
"just using MS software only uses 1 core by default"
Really depends on which software you're using. A lot of applications like Word, Excel, etc don't usually do process-intensive tasks and the act of spreading the work over multiple threads would actually decrease performance (there is overhead for each thread, context switches, etc). Those apps are more often IO-bound... either waiting for user IO or disk IO. However, if you're using software like SQL Server which performs tasks that do benefit from multiple concurrent threads, it does use multiple cores out of the box. (Yes, it's actually just using multiple threads out of the box, but Windows tosses those to multiple cores... trying not to be too pedantic here)
Also if you're manually setting the affinity of processes, you're probably inadvertently decreasing your performance. Windows will spread processing across multiple cores by default (not only using 1 core like you say). When you specifically set the affinity, you're not really moving the process to a different core so much as saying "don't use this core even if it's not being used by anything else."
Multi-threading with IO intensive applications should make use of IO completion ports in Windows. That will give you much better perf than trying to manually control which core you explicitly want a thread running on. Keep in mind that IO is orders of magnitude slower than processing, and more often than not that's now the bottleneck in systems. Check out http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sysinternals/info rmation/IoCompletionPorts.mspx/ for more info. Unfortunately, there are a lot of applications out there (both from MS and other vendors) that do multi-threading poorly. Hopefully if MS re-writes some of the Windows infrastructure to make multi-threading easier for applications we'll see better apps that more properly take advantage of the hardware that's out there.
More likely they're just issues that were mitigated as a side effect of the overall increased security in Vista. That's why minimizing attack surfaces is good even if you don't know of any vulnerabilities (yet). You also see similar patterns in new vulnerabilities between 2000 and XP SP 2.
So it wasn't an accident even though they weren't aware of the vulnerabilities at the time.
Slashdot Mirror
Your advice is not helpful. What percentage of fools think they are fools?
Hey Microsoft want a advertising campaign that will make everyone love vista? Give the Vista Home edition away to EVERYONE. make it free as a downloadable ISO without support on your website and overnight everyone will love you.
What percentage of people in the world do you think even know what a downloadable ISO is? It seems that most people who know what it is and would know how to use it are the same people who probably grabbed a pirated version online already anyway. And then complained that they don't like it.
So do you subtract the amount they're paid to bundle adverts? Do you subtract the support costs that would be required to support more options for purchase? You have to assume that Dell/IBM/HP/etc are all evaluating their full cost structure including those things. If so, is it possible the "Microsoft Tax" is actually a negative value meaning it's cheaper for IBM to sell a Windows machine and be paid by advertisers than it is to sell a machine with nothing on it? Again, not trying to troll... just seems like its become one of those buzzwords with no actual meaning any more.
Not trying to troll here, honest question. What does the "Microsoft Tax" mean when people talk about it now? According to wikipedia it originally talked about the "you can't sell other software" vendor agreements that Microsoft can no longer use. Now it seems people use it to mean "the extra amount I pay for a computer since it has windows". But is that the amount of money Microsoft actually makes or is it just the difference in cost to a vendor to have a single OS supported and pay Microsoft vs not paying Microsoft as much but having higher support costs with multiple OS's? Just curious since the usage appears fairly ambiguous lately.
It's an ad from Crispin Porter + Bogusky, the same company that brought back "the king" in the BK ads. What was your response the first time you saw one of those? Like most people probably "WTF?"
Were the BK ads eventually successful? Well, BK went from loses quarter after quarter to multiple quarters of continual growth after the ads ran. Granted the ads themselves weren't the only reason for BK success, but BK did experience positive results. Not saying I like this campaign (yet), but if it's got tons of people going out to look at the ad and having a conversation that doesn't start with "I hate Microsoft"... then it's not all bad.
Have you actually tried any of those shortcuts you say don't work anymore? ES still brings up paste special. EF still brings up find. They specifically left in most of the existing combinations so any you had memorized will still work. Yes, there are new ones too which match the organization in the ribbon more closely, but if you want to use ES... go ahead. It works.
The new interface was geared toward the beginner which represents a large portion of the market. At the same time they did stuff so as not to slow down the power users (like leaving in existing key combinations). I agree it's not perfect and I personally liked the old UI better. They're trying to walk that line between supporting a huge user base and not slowing down the people who know what they're doing. That's not always an easy task.
You use the freely available Windows driver development kit (DDK) and/or Windows driver kit (WDK). http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/DevTools/ddk/default.mspx/
You're calculating the speed it would need to start at if all thrust were exerted at ground level and it had to coast up to space (again excluding air resistance). If on the other hand you apply thrust throughout the flight, space can be achieved without ever approaching 25,000 MPH. For instance, Space Ship One never flew 25,000 MPH yet it made it to space.
Also note that I don't believe he'll make it either, and I've always considered 80km to not really be space flight. Just pointing out that the facts you mentioned won't necessarily be the ones that stop the adventure.
IANAL, but wouldn't that be obstruction of justice and lead to legal sanctions against the university? ie, you have evidence of a potential crime (yes, mod me as flame bait for calling it a crime), a court tells you to hand it over, then you destroy said evidence. Sounds kind of like the definition of obstruction of justice.
Explained by Raymond Chen: http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2004/03/24/95235.aspx
"The reason is that Notepad has to edit files in a variety of encodings, and when its back against the wall, sometimes it's forced to guess."
Massive numbers of children in rural Africa are dying from malaria because their parents heard rumors that mosquito nets are bad. Many lives could be saved if we work to fight the disinformation and rumors and just get people to use mosquito nets. http://www.gallup.com/poll/25849/Rural-Africans-Least-Likely-Malaria-Protection.aspx/
By the logic that many are advocating here, we should be happy that so many people (both in Africa and the rest of the world) are dying because their parents are so stupid for believing rumors from questionable sources. Instead, shouldn't we be saddened that so many are negatively impacted and do everything we can to help people get the right information, and save lives? I'm not saying I want the government regulating youtube or anything... but come on, "good, they deserve it" can't be the right response either. People probably didn't say "I have a health problem" and turn to youtube. But if they happened to see the video because someone sent it to them, it can still have an impact by spreading false rumors that harm public health.
You want to fill a large hard drive without piracy? Set your DVR to record a bit of high-def programming. You'll fill up a TB before you know it. Especially if you're one of those people who like to record the whole series instead of deleting along the way. And believe me, the wife gets pissed when some of her episodes of "Private Practice" are missing.
I'm also confused that if both Windows & Linux are "growing"... what is shrinking? Just the proprietary UNIX distributions from HP & IBM?
The Zune is inferior (I'm assuming you mean to the iPod) because it has DRM... does the iPod not have DRM? Is the iPod DRM somehow less restrictive? If so, how? Honestly curious...
Threat modeling is usually more of a review of a feature design, and less about individual lines of code. The point is there *will* be bugs in any reasonably complex piece of code... how do you design in such a way that when those bugs do surface (or some of your design assumptions are proven false) there isn't a vulnerability there. That's where threat mitigation comes in. Just look at the WMF vulnerability. No matter how good or bad the code was for that feature, the design was flawed and that's what caused the main issue.
So I finally went and looked it up. The configurable limit is per process (URL:http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms72 4291.aspx/>), though the OS has a theoretical limit of 65k. Yeah, you can still spawn x processes which each grab y handles and hit that limit for the OS... of course you can also spawn x processes which each use y memory and starve the OS that way too.
Wow. You really want to be that pedantic? Yeah, I misspoke. (Yes, I was also typing, not speaking)
.dll's and other files included in the SP are "loaded" when you launch VS. There, I learned. Yay! =P
Of course, technically if you "install" the SP, but it's not "loaded", then its not doing you any good. First you "install" it, then the
There's a configurable limit to the number of GDI handles that can be created at one time... I believe the default is 10,000 but my memory might be off. They're not automatically reclaimed (there's no garbage collector), but proper use of these handles is to release them when you're done with them, and you shouldn't be holding on to them for long periods.
Generally when you run out of handles it's because some program has a bug and is forgetting to release them, not because of the OS.
The specific window redraw issues in Visual Studio 2005 were fixed in VS SP1 (at least in my experience). The issues only showed up on Vista, but it appears it was actually a VS 2005 issue.
a milyId=BB4A75AB-E2D4-4C96-B39D-37BAF6B5B1DC&displa ylang=en/ and see if it fixes the issue.
Try loading the SP from http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?F
Anyone else picturing a line of people at the airport waiting for a long flight... each with a laptop and a 5 pound bag of sugar? And the TSA agents freaking out because everyone's stuff has a thin coating of white powder?
Ebay has meteorites on sale for around $4 an ounce. That's still $384,000 for 3 tons, but a bit less than a half billion.
Same here. I use it on both my computers, so based on that anecdotal evidence the actual number they reported should be closer to 100%. I have no idea how they got the 25% figure. Must be FUD.
Specifically check out the "Slice" from Virgin Mobile. Looks very similar to the Motorola F3.
"just using MS software only uses 1 core by default" Really depends on which software you're using. A lot of applications like Word, Excel, etc don't usually do process-intensive tasks and the act of spreading the work over multiple threads would actually decrease performance (there is overhead for each thread, context switches, etc). Those apps are more often IO-bound... either waiting for user IO or disk IO. However, if you're using software like SQL Server which performs tasks that do benefit from multiple concurrent threads, it does use multiple cores out of the box. (Yes, it's actually just using multiple threads out of the box, but Windows tosses those to multiple cores... trying not to be too pedantic here) Also if you're manually setting the affinity of processes, you're probably inadvertently decreasing your performance. Windows will spread processing across multiple cores by default (not only using 1 core like you say). When you specifically set the affinity, you're not really moving the process to a different core so much as saying "don't use this core even if it's not being used by anything else." Multi-threading with IO intensive applications should make use of IO completion ports in Windows. That will give you much better perf than trying to manually control which core you explicitly want a thread running on. Keep in mind that IO is orders of magnitude slower than processing, and more often than not that's now the bottleneck in systems. Check out http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sysinternals/info rmation/IoCompletionPorts.mspx/ for more info. Unfortunately, there are a lot of applications out there (both from MS and other vendors) that do multi-threading poorly. Hopefully if MS re-writes some of the Windows infrastructure to make multi-threading easier for applications we'll see better apps that more properly take advantage of the hardware that's out there.
More likely they're just issues that were mitigated as a side effect of the overall increased security in Vista. That's why minimizing attack surfaces is good even if you don't know of any vulnerabilities (yet). You also see similar patterns in new vulnerabilities between 2000 and XP SP 2. So it wasn't an accident even though they weren't aware of the vulnerabilities at the time.