This is where you are wrong. China censors the Internet. Norton censors their site. Freedom of speech does not apply to Norton's site. If China was a state in the US, it would apply to their actions.
See the difference? Norton's forums and site are privately owned property - owned by Norton. Norton isn't censoring my site which may or may not say bad things about them. They are censoring their own. The first would be a violation of Freedom of Speech in the US. The second would not be.
The easiest step to combat current day technology for in seat recording is a bank of IR emitters aimed at the audience area.
Do you realize how cheap - and easy - it is to blind most CCD cameras? A decent sized bank would make it look like the cameras were pointing at the sun.
With stadium seating, this is very easy to accomplish even with the placement of the movie screen (ie: so the emitters are not in front of or blocking the view of the screen).
The most people would then get (recorded onto a cam) is a crappy audio track and a nice white image.
The red dots, a.k.a. cigarette burns, are not to combat movie piracy. They are to inform the projectionist (where they have non-automated systems or dont do a "full movie splice" of all the reels) that it is time to change reels.
Unless of course there is something new out there that happens to resemble the cigarette burns and has a different purpose - but I have yet to see anything of the sort that is not simply the cue for the projectionist that a reel is about to end.
Besides, from what I have seen, it seems that most bootlegs aren't filmed with a hand-held recorder anymore. And those that are, seem to be filmed from the recording booth with a direct line-in from the sound outputs in the booth.
This is "technology" that would have been helpful five or ten years ago. Now... I think it a waste of money and an unneccesary burden on everyone involved in implementing this stupidity.
If you have a Vista license, your key is good for the 32-bit or 64-bit version of whatever edition you have; in fact, the retail version comes with both on the disc, if I'm not mistaken. So if you buy a Vista license, you can always upgrade to a 64-bit OS.
With XP, however, the 64-bit versions are distinct (and rare!) editions. Even if you know of a place that still sells (or ever sold) x64 XP, I wouldn't suggest it for most people, since it never has been and never will be broadly used or supported. It's doomed to obscurity.
Ah! Thanks for the clarification. Misunderstood what you were intending to convey in your earlier post. Sorry.
Oh, and PAE would never have solved the issue. It was always just a short-term work-around. It allows Windows to access more RAM, but the individual apps are still limited to a 32-bit address space.
Well, if used a certain way (and with drivers and hardware that support it), it would allow for moving hardware address space out of the 4GB area. Suddenly using a 1GB+ video card doesnt consume a ton of "system" memory.
And of course, there are apps that take advantage of it... though yeah, most client users wont be running them...
Ummm... you totally neglected to address one key point...
"So, what you are saying is that because new machines are so cheap, it shouldnt matter that Vista needs so much more resources than XP, yet doesnt accomplish the "drastically more" that should be expected due to the resource requirements increase? Because of course, every geek throws out their old hardware as soon as something new comes in of course. "
Instead, the closest answer you made was: "Tell me, or at least ask yourself, have you used Vista as a primary machine with all of its (nowadays reasonable) requirements met? And tried your software out? And all your hardware? Have you ever done that?"
That's like saying "Promise a Ferrari, and end up making a Pinto, but that's ok, because you cant really drive as fast as you used to because of the increased traffic and bottlenecks on the road..." (not the best anaology - but why waste the time when all I am sure to get back is an obnoxious rant?)
But, I guess (you) simply getting really obnoxious is an acceptable answer instead... or you like getting modded as troll... either way, to each their own.
I define that as an obsolete machine. For $800 I can get you a tower with 2 gigs of ram, at least 500 gigs of hard drive, a decent dual core cpu and a moderate video card. Add $200 for a monitor and $100 for peripherals. thats an $1100 machine.
I call that low end. Seriously guys, you are geeks, get with the friggin program!
So, what you are saying is that because new machines are so cheap, it shouldnt matter that Vista needs so much more resources than XP, yet doesnt accomplish the "drastically more" that should be expected due to the resource requirements increase? Because of course, every geek throws out their old hardware as soon as something new comes in of course.
Well, not me... I keep my hardware till it dies. Yes, I might get new, top of the line stuff, but that doesnt mean my old stuff suddenly gets kicked to the curb (at least not until I start running out of space for it - at which time it is oldest/most archaic first).
So... that's kinda absurd reasoning on your part, if you ask me - which I know you didnt.;-)
"We can't buy XP from DELL, so we had to buy vista and the software won't work".
That's moronic for a number of reasons.
1. They already had XP licenses - just reinstall XP on the machines, install on one + drivers and you can probably ghost the rest. Simple.
(1) Not in compliance with the license agreement. The copy of XP that came with the earlier machines is only licensed to those machines
(2) Many machines come with restore sets (not an XP disk and a driver disk), unless the old machines were also DELL, chances are they did not come with XP disks.
(3) If they are ever audited by Microsoft, they stand to lose lots of money.
(4) Many companies insist (for legal and other reasons) to remain in compliance with such licensing mandates (see #1 above).
(5) With the number of machines "phoning home" about XP being reinstalled on different hardware, and calls being needed to activate it on the new hardware, I am sure it would raise a red flag at Microsoft (heck, ONE customer's pirated (from China) XP install did that here - fortunately, we had already documented it and sent a letter, which they managed to process a couple weeks later).
2. Use MS product key change app to fix individual licenses if it wasn't a corporate XP
3. They could have used their old hardware until a better solution became known.
Not necessarily. Some companies budget money for use by a certain time frame. If the money does not get spent for that purpose in that time frame, it "disappears" (gets reallocated), and the people in the company wanting/responsible for such purchase desires have to "reapply" for the funds and hope it gets passed in the next budget. I deal with quite a few companies like that. All of their computer expenditures get voted on, and have a time frame. If the money is not spent for that purpose by the time frame expiration, they lose it and have to re-request it in the next budget period, and it then needs to get re-voted on.
But I know what you mean. They expect things to work and when it doesn't then more time, effort and money is wasted on stupidity.
And... for those other people (not the poster I am replying to) who call "FUD" because Dell does sell XP systems, keep in mind that Dell does not offer XP on all of their systems, and various lines that were available with XP suddenly became Vista only once Vista was released - perhaps the machines the company wanted (or needed) fit that category? I can think of quite a few machines I would love to have XP preinstalled on - but cant get them that way because it is no longer an option on those models.
It's kind of weird how much Slashdot's anti-Microsoft crowd seems to worship XP.
And this whole "Vista downgrade" thing is getting old. How can you honestly claim that switching to an operating system that only supports 3GB of RAM is an upgrade? Unless you're suggesting that people switch to x64 XP, but nobody in their right mind would really suggest that.
Ummm... Vista 32bit doesnt support more than 3GB of RAM either. 3.17 supposedly (though that arbitrary number is of course incorrect). A patch that Microsoft released would make Vista 32bit report a full 4GB of RAM - but the usable amount did not change. The issue at hand is that both Vista 32 and XP 32 support 4GB but need to map hardware address spaces into that 4GB region, leaving 3.something GB left. Inotherwords, on the same hardware, Vista 32bit and XP 32bit will have the same amount of memory available for Windows and programs. Vista 32bit RTM will report the usable memory (lets say on a 4GB system: 4GB (minus) hardware address space), while Vista SP1 32 bit will report 4GB (and still have the same 3.??GB available).
This document (which is oddly not quite accurate) shows as much for each in standard mode:
Certain memory areas were expanded (such as for kernel use). But otherwise, the 4GB (or a little over 3GB after mapping hardware) limit still exists in Vista 32bit.
Now... the other factor. Windows Vista 64bit ranges from 8GB (Basic) or 16GB (Premium) or 128GB (Business, Enterprise and Ultimate only) of memory access - while Windows XP 64bit is 128GB period. Inotherwords, buy XP 64 and you have 128GB available. For Vista 64, you have to buy one of the more expensive versions to achieve the same.
PAE mode, though it would solve the issue, is artificially limited for broader compatibility with drivers and software more likely to be running on a client station (inotherwords, only works in server versions of Windows, and though enableable in client versions, doesnt do much of anything beneficial when it comes to expanding memory limits above 4GB on 32bit versions of Windows client).
Another breakdown (a little more concise) about memory limits for the various versions of Windows is located here:
Perfect. This should be modded +6 Brilliant in light of all the Vista UI proponents who seemingly dont know (or have choosen to forget) about such easily available functionality for XP.
Which brings us right back to (for those you responded to - not you) why the vast resource requirements in comparison to a similarly configured XP? SuperFetch is far from the only culprit.
You might also want to check your drivers out. I have no issues copying/moving large files. It sounds like something that would be related to a drive controller, or possibly DMA has been disabled.
Actually, it's a known bug in Vista RTM, which they tried fixing in SP1. While they did not entirely fix it, it is improved (supposedly greatly). The issue seems to stem around the methods it uses to move certain media files (images, music, etc) - seemingly because they have no idea of how to handle threads to do so - or because they forgot how simple it is to actually attach the thumbnail/sample information as an extended attribute that gets moved with the file (a'la HPFS and OS/2) - even though at some time they were well aware of how to do such.
Thus file copying (when media files are involved) has issues (usually performance, sometimes failure) due to the methods they are using in trying to handle both the copy/move and the thumbnailing (or other media information - such as audio file info).
Very simple fix, which they have known how to implement for 16 years, yet still use an increasingly archaic method of achieving such functions...
I installed it at home. I got a new computer with >4GB of RAM. And MS doesn't sell XP 64 anymore, so I installed Vista 64.
The UI is a ton better than XP.
Yes, it does have problems, sometimes it even burps while copying files, which is bizarre to me, since it's such a basic function.
But all in all it's pretty good, and I could hardly see going back to XP now.
Honestly, my biggest problem with Vista is that it appears MS is going to strand us Vista users and come out with Windows 7 next year with no affordable upgrade path.
Yeah, MS did some stupid stuff. Tying Direct X 10 to Vista was just one of them. But XP is past its prime.
XP isnt past it's prime. I'm not sure why you were modded the way you were... but...
Let's see. Vista is pretty good, even though it cant even properly handle such basic things as copying files (which has worked since DOS 1.0), and it requires greater than 4GB of RAM for you to rate it as "pretty good"
OK... even though that all baffles me - especially since it doesnt touch on any reason why Vista is better than XP (other than your personal preference for the Vista GUI, which you can "get" for XP (without as much overhead) using third party apps)... lets go on to...
Honestly, my biggest problem with Vista is that it appears MS is going to strand us Vista users and come out with Windows 7 next year with no affordable upgrade path.
Next year? Windows 7 will be out next year? Somehow I doubt that. They've announced numerous time frames... none of which are the Oct 2009 rumor that is floating around. Then, factor in, even if tomorrow MS said Oct 2009, you then have to translate their calendar to the "Earth Standard" calendar - which means the date translates into "Maybe 2010 or 2011" just like every other release date promise...
OR... Windows 7 will come out by EOY 2009 (or shortly after) because simply it's just a touched up version of Windows Vista... in which case, my bigger concern would not be that you are going to get "stranded" as a Vista user - it would be that you are going to allow yourself to get ripped off by buying Windows 7 even though it's just a slightly modified, repackaged Windows Vista...
Well, Windows doesnt cut the load we need to handle, and since the latest AMP stack is virtually always available for OS/2 (and I've got a bunch of IBM servers that OS/2 is fine tuned for), I can get the benefit of AMP, the unbeatable (in the PC server world) performance of Domino GoWebserver on OS/2 (for a subset of those servers that arent running Apache), take advantage of one of the few fully featured REXX implementations (including WPS, OS, and networking integration) and fully utilize my hardware with an OS tuned to use all the hardware's added features...
Like any other tool, it just happens to be the best for my job, and easiest (and compared to some OS's like Windows, the cheapest) to maintain. Heck, my "ancient" Netfinity 7000 M10 still does the vast majority of my hosting...
It really depends on your definition (or use) of (the word) stability.
Fragmentation may not make the machine crash in the normal sense, but on a server that is near it's capacity already (capacity as measured by timeouts of various server daemons), it can impact stability - for instance when a database connection is dropped because of a timeout in reading the data and so on. A drive that is not fragmented (ie: a file system that does not fragment as horrendously as NTFS, or one kept defragmented) will not run into those issues nearly as soon.
In today's world of SATA and IDE servers, the issue is more critical as well, as there is more CPU overhead during disk access by the file system and disk drivers.
So, you are probably correct when it comes to crashes and such of the hardware or OS... but fragmentation does play a decent role when it comes to a high use server (or similar client applications) where "tons" of concurrent disk reads occur.
And of course, the difference in performance on such scenarios can be staggering. In a web server or SQL server environment, on a "big" server where there can often be "tons" of files for "tons" of sites/clients, the impact is easily measurable. Our server has over a million files on one partition - for which we cannot determine what will be accessed when (ie: no "smart" or dedicated caching of 99% of them), and because of the sheer volume/size of the partition, it is also "impossible" to cache them all - or even a large percentage (ever try to set up a half terabyte disk cache? I know I couldnt even begin to afford to - even if I found boards that supported that much) - which means that data in the cache will expire or be pushed out by other requests long before the cache becomes fully beneficial for 99% of the reads. While a read-ahead cache helps (ie: disk reads are still faster than our WAN bandwidth), it only helps so much because the individual files on the server are often many times larger than the machine's full installed memory amount.
These are areas where I have seen marked differences in NTFS, JFS and HPFS386. HPFS386 handles the load (a few hundred to a thousand concurrent web/ftp connections) far better because it barely ever fragments. NTFS is abysmal in this area. JFS is barely better, but handles writing quicker (as it does not pre-allocate storage space based off size - which is helpful for a lot of concurrent write operations as overhead is reduced somewhat).
Currently, most of our web serving is done via an HPFS386 partition as it is quicker and less resource intensive - and the partition still shows no noticeable fragmentation... while much of our FTP data resides on a JFS partition because, unlike HPFS386, it can handle files larger than 2GB and partitions faaaar larger than 64GB.
The particular file system limitations aside, I can definitely tell you, JFS is far less happy trying to read a bunch of large fragmented files at the same time as HPFS386 is at reading a bunch of large non-fragmented files.
Of course, I tend to have more CPU power than I need, and span certain services on different drives and file systems as appropriate... but then again, I am not an Amazon or Slashdot or whatever where ya never know what the peak traffic tomorrow may be. Even the best planned server implementations for companies that cannot always judge "Gee, this is the max traffic I ever expect to see, lets make the server 4 times as powerful as need be" isn't always good enough, as something can - and probably will happen to push the server beyond even reasonable expectations times four.
We've seen that happen here quite often - "The Slashdot Effect" - and while a file system that does not fragment isn't the sole answer, it does increase a server's ability to handle high loads without timeout issues while waiting for data from a fragmented drive.
So, to summarize, reading a few fragmented files at any given time may not show any serious or even noticeable drops in performance - but, reading a LOT of fragmented files at the same time will be quite noticeable (compared to defragmented files on a better file system).
Thanks for the translation, but, that still doesnt change my point... they did not contact the authorities before the meeting. And now that this has made news, unless the "bad guys" dont read the paper, it will probably be that much harder to capture them.
Had the authorities been there and been involved, these criminals would already be behind bars, and their asset/info/computers/whatever would theoretically already be on the way to being seized - instead of the current more likely possibility where the criminals are now in hiding and the info is moved, destroyed, hidden or who knows what?
Works wonderfully as all divs using code like the gp poster indicated in FF2, FF3, Safari, and Opera and is a total mess in IE6, works in IE7 in compatibility mode (or is otherwise a different kind of mess than IE6). Adding more complexity to it would make scrollbars appear or (when they were supposed to be there) disappear in IE6 - as well as move whole div sections to the wrong place.
I could have fixed it by adding a bunch of IE6 specific classes and a browser detect in Javascript... and the meta tag that IE7 requires...
Or, I could opt for a very simple table layout with a couple divs in it that work in all browsers without a bunch of extraneous code specifically to fix IE issues (in the hopes that IE8 doesnt require yet more fixes or metatags or such).
So... which is smarter to choose? Div's because everyone says so, or the far easier method (to maintain as well as to code) that mixed tables with div elements that work cross-browser?
Yes, it is easy enough to fix for all and still use divs for everything (and yes, I know how)... but it was also far easier to simply use a few tables and be done with it... now, and for the future (unlike some other sites I have done that have required changes for IE7 because I went the all div route).
Anyone who is a decent freelance web developer will tell you that the quickest, easiest, and most cross-browser capable method of coding a site is the best. They will not tell you that you should only use one subset of html/css/xhtml over another regardless of those requirements.
Yeah, minus the fact that different versions of IE will render just slightly more complex versions of that differently than Firefox, Safari and Opera (who all agree on how it should be rendered). As is the case with many div attributes. So, no, the code isn't that simple except in the most simplistic of uses - thus saying "Go 100% DIVs!!!" is a bad idea.
Yes (using entirely div's), it can be done, but in slightly more complex cases, a table is far easier to do, far quicker to do, a little bit less code (or a tiny bit more at worst) and works in IE5/6/7/8, Firefox 1.x and up, Opera, Safari and more.
Heck, there are even some differences in the way that FF 1-2 and FF3 render certain CSS and html code (Amazon's associates page comes to mind - which is (or was) a mess in FF3 (maybe they have finally fixed it to be FF3 friendly)), while the minor table code needed for what the poster discussed will work in all using the simple, generic, long since established HTML code.
I use DIVs a lot. I enjoy their flexibility. I hate having to make sure I have every damn IE hack for certain improperly supported DIV attributes or in the javascript code that modifies those attributes. For me, it makes a lot more sense to mix and match the two depending on what outcome I want.
IE8 is adding to that complexity - because as "standards compliant" as they want to pretend it is, it simply isnt - not unless you enable a certain menu option for "compatibility" - and if you dont, certain things that worked fine in IE5, IE6, and IE7 (like certain SMF forum "functions" (ie: certain submit buttons and pop-ups)) will not work properly in IE8.
So, with tables still working and not "broken" in IE8, why not use them (mixed with DIVs where appropriate and safe to use) for layout instead of having to worry about what new attribute or piece of code IE8 or some other browser will break?
.
More simply put... a web designer should use the tools (language components included) best suited to (a) what they want to accomplish, (b) what time frame they have, and (c) what is the least failure-proof across browsers. Inotherwords, dont rule out tables (or anything else that is still part of the html spec and so fully supported) because some book or website or guide someplace says that you should (in favor of some newer coding methods). Use your brain instead and pick the best method for what you need to accomplish.
Slander is pretty difficult to prove and prosecute. Switching the argument to Libel, which is written, I would imagine that a countersuit concerning false claims of infringement would require you to prove that the RIAA acted in bad faith; i.e. accused you of infringement while knowing you had not infringed.
If a countersuit like that were launched, they would likely hide behind whatever organisations they use to find people to sue, claiming that they were told you infringed, and believed it, thus acted in good faith.
Such a case would drag on until you ran out of money and settled.
There's the beauty though - if someone with enough dough actually takes on such a suit against them. If it can prove their methods are not valid, even if the RIAA passes the buck off to MediaSentry, it will mean that they cannot knowingly use the service of an entity that uses similar (and similarly flawed) methodologies. In the long run, a big win - though possibly not for the person bringing suit - *if* the RIAA can claim (believably) they had no idea the information wasnt sufficient to point a finger at someone.
Inotherwords, the RIAA may get off the hook - but it will probably be at the expense of them never being able to use MediaSentry (or similar) again.
The thing I see though is enough people have pointed out the fallacies of their "facts" and "methods" enough times, it would be really hard for them to pretend (ie: "claim") they had no knowledge their "evidence" well... wasnt real evidence.
Either way, the "little thing" going on in NC and elsewhere may be the beginning of the end of MediaSentry anyway. So, this isnt a battle (refuting the RIAA's methods and evidence) that I would wish on anyone regardless of how financially prepared they were for the nonsense that would ensue.
I'm not trying to be an RIAA apologist. I'm just wondering if there's any course of action they could taken whereby their IP was protected and they weren't demonized by all of us.
Hmmm... having MediaSentry apply for the appropriate licenses to conduct investigations? Having MediaSentry truly disclose their methods and the code they use for peer review?
The first is a no-brainer, which they still avoid (and if I were a state government, after they have wantonly violated such a licensing requirement, I'd never issue them one now) and the second would of course probably discredit their evidence hands down....
But nonetheless, the first action alone would end a lot of their problems on this front. Yet they still dont do it. I'm sure they are making a ton from their illegal actions... one tiny step in some percentage of the 50 states and they wouldnt be in this problem.
Of course, then there are all of their "attack servers" with their DDOS attacks on places they think are hosting music... those are criminal violations with stiff penalties if convicted. It's time someone steps up to the plate and buries them for those actions as well...
Sometimes... I guess it depends on how computer savvy he is.
I use a SanDisk MP3 player, which plays MP3s and non-protected WMAs (though I exclusively have MP3s on it). If I run into something in some other format such as Ogg, FLAC, etc; I just turn it into an MP3. Now, I have it easy... I mostly run OS/2 (and dabble in everything else)... so I just right click on the file, and select "Convert to MP3" and drag the MP3 version to the SanDisk... but it's just as simple to do from the commandline or with various programs.
I'm guessing that even though most dont have such easy GUI integration, that every other operating system has got to have some GUI based utility available freely that will convert such formats to MP3.
The same goes for video. For newer formats, I have it all tied to mEncoder - again making it a simple GUI right-click, convert to flv/mpg/avi/DiVX/etc (or run it through the commandline for special case transcoding)... for other operating systems, I know there are a ton of free GUI apps that will do the same thing - I actually use a couple of them in Windows when I wanna do (a) something special where it is easier than knowing the commandline parameters or looking them up; or (b) am running multiple transcodes across the OS/2 boxes and the Windows box at the same time (we often run into a time crunch when releasing new episodes of Star Trek New Voyages, and I am responsible for creating the final delivery files; so often I need a few running at the same time).
Thus again, just a tiny bit of computer knowledge makes whatever player one has a moot point to what formats they get their music (or videos) in. The only selection criteria I could see is thus, (1) do I want something that does videos as well, (2) what other features do I want (radio, streaming, web functions, messaging, "direct" access to certain paid services such as iTunes, etc) and (3) price. What format the stuff comes in is irrelevant to what player I choose unless I was one of those people who buys DRM'd music - which with the failure of so many DRM music shops, I'd say is a declining number of people - and besides, even if the player supports DRM'd music, that generally does not prevent it from playing MP3s, which virtually any non-DRMd music in virtually any format can be easily converted to no matter what the computer OS is.
Google hits my server regularly - but doesnt use much bandwidth in doing so. But then again, I run Google ads on my sites, so they monitor the content to show more relevant ads. Considering most sites are 80% graphical, 20% html/css/javascript; these requests are no big deal.
When it comes to them indexing the site for their search engine, a simple directive in the robots.txt file to tell them how frequently you wish them to stop by is all that is needed - and is spelled out numerous places on the Internet (of course, including on their own pages). Any webmaster who is not aware of that (especially since Yahoo's bot is at least 20 times worse per my server records for www.startreknewvoyages.com where it would be 10-15 GoogleBots and 200-300 YahooBots) just doesnt know what they are doing. Both Google and Yahoo honor it (the "how many times in x minutes to visit flag in robots.txt). The only reason I put it in was for Yahoo, followed someplace inbetween by Microsoft, and in least invasive position at a fraction of the number of simultaneous bots, Google.
I dont care how many pages they index, but Google's bots at least seem a lot smarter. Often I would have 10 or more Yahoobots reading the exact same page.
Their overall traffic use (all combined) was nothing compared to normal site traffic from the same number of "requesters"
First you didn't say IBM PC. You said "PC" which means personal computer and can mean any brand.
Ooops... sorry, but that is what I did mean. I grew up in a time when PC only meant IBM PC - before the term was "diluted" to mean other things. Heck, even in this day and age, when people say "I need to buy a new PC" they mean IBM compatible, running Windows, Linux or OS/2 machine - and say "I need to buy a Mac" when they mean a PC running MacOSX.
I'm sure you understood the distinction and are just being difficult though.
Second, the others OSes were negligible? Hardly. The Apple II OS dominated from the years 1978 to 1982. The Commodore OS was the #1 OS from 1983 to 1989.
And those are conservative estimates in comparison to other sites.
That is not "neglibible" and should not be so casually ignored.
The fact is that a monopoly means 100% dominance (or in practical terms: 99.9%), but Microsoft did not dominate in either the 80s or 90s. Even today MS only controls 89%..... not a monopoly. If you want to say "almost a monopoly" that's fine, but don't redefine words like the book 1984. The word "monopoly" means a specific thing and Microsoft does not have one.
Likewise even if Google-Yahoo merged, you still do NOT have a monopoly. There are lots of other search engines out there.
Define it as you like, but what matters is how the government defines it. They do not require a 100% dominance in a market to consider a company a monopoly - hence this whole Google thing - as well as their Antitrust actions against IBM in the past. Neither had 100% or 99.9% dominance in their markets.
You pointed out one definition (albeit an ancient one) - while I pointed out one that conforms to (a) the government's use of the term, and thus (b) how it applies to the situation we are discussing.
Or did you by some chance miss the whole issue this thread is discussing?
The term "monopoly" has evolved, both in it's accepted definitions, and in the way it is used by the government of the USA. The definition I found and selected is far more appropriate to this discussion than your myopic, limited, outdated, and inapplicable choice of definitions.
And here... just for you, let me rephrase part of my original post.
"In the IBM PC compatible marketplace, Microsoft has had a monopoly (based off the accepted definition in use by the government of the USA, as well as the newer accepted definitions in the English language) for over 25 years - just as IBM did in the past in various of their business ventures".
Happy? Refute that - instead of arguing over semantics that you fully understood my intent with.
But then again, I dont seem to be the only one who has posted similar responses to you (about your poor, inapplicable choice of definitions and such)... so I guess you are just really enjoying this for the sake of arguing nonsense.
Slashdot Mirror
This is where you are wrong. China censors the Internet. Norton censors their site. Freedom of speech does not apply to Norton's site. If China was a state in the US, it would apply to their actions.
See the difference? Norton's forums and site are privately owned property - owned by Norton. Norton isn't censoring my site which may or may not say bad things about them. They are censoring their own. The first would be a violation of Freedom of Speech in the US. The second would not be.
If you mean this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coded_Anti-Piracy
Yet to see one. Should be easy to combat.
Thats just the first step.
The easiest step to combat current day technology for in seat recording is a bank of IR emitters aimed at the audience area.
Do you realize how cheap - and easy - it is to blind most CCD cameras? A decent sized bank would make it look like the cameras were pointing at the sun.
With stadium seating, this is very easy to accomplish even with the placement of the movie screen (ie: so the emitters are not in front of or blocking the view of the screen).
The most people would then get (recorded onto a cam) is a crappy audio track and a nice white image.
The red dots, a.k.a. cigarette burns, are not to combat movie piracy. They are to inform the projectionist (where they have non-automated systems or dont do a "full movie splice" of all the reels) that it is time to change reels.
Unless of course there is something new out there that happens to resemble the cigarette burns and has a different purpose - but I have yet to see anything of the sort that is not simply the cue for the projectionist that a reel is about to end.
Besides, from what I have seen, it seems that most bootlegs aren't filmed with a hand-held recorder anymore. And those that are, seem to be filmed from the recording booth with a direct line-in from the sound outputs in the booth.
This is "technology" that would have been helpful five or ten years ago. Now... I think it a waste of money and an unneccesary burden on everyone involved in implementing this stupidity.
Thanks, but I know all that stuff already.
If you have a Vista license, your key is good for the 32-bit or 64-bit version of whatever edition you have; in fact, the retail version comes with both on the disc, if I'm not mistaken. So if you buy a Vista license, you can always upgrade to a 64-bit OS.
With XP, however, the 64-bit versions are distinct (and rare!) editions. Even if you know of a place that still sells (or ever sold) x64 XP, I wouldn't suggest it for most people, since it never has been and never will be broadly used or supported. It's doomed to obscurity.
Ah! Thanks for the clarification. Misunderstood what you were intending to convey in your earlier post. Sorry.
Oh, and PAE would never have solved the issue. It was always just a short-term work-around. It allows Windows to access more RAM, but the individual apps are still limited to a 32-bit address space.
Well, if used a certain way (and with drivers and hardware that support it), it would allow for moving hardware address space out of the 4GB area. Suddenly using a 1GB+ video card doesnt consume a ton of "system" memory.
And of course, there are apps that take advantage of it... though yeah, most client users wont be running them...
Making it worse, is that it might also coincide with this: HAFE
Ummm... you totally neglected to address one key point...
"So, what you are saying is that because new machines are so cheap, it shouldnt matter that Vista needs so much more resources than XP, yet doesnt accomplish the "drastically more" that should be expected due to the resource requirements increase? Because of course, every geek throws out their old hardware as soon as something new comes in of course. "
Instead, the closest answer you made was: "Tell me, or at least ask yourself, have you used Vista as a primary machine with all of its (nowadays reasonable) requirements met? And tried your software out? And all your hardware? Have you ever done that?"
That's like saying "Promise a Ferrari, and end up making a Pinto, but that's ok, because you cant really drive as fast as you used to because of the increased traffic and bottlenecks on the road..." (not the best anaology - but why waste the time when all I am sure to get back is an obnoxious rant?)
But, I guess (you) simply getting really obnoxious is an acceptable answer instead... or you like getting modded as troll... either way, to each their own.
I define that as an obsolete machine. For $800 I can get you a tower with 2 gigs of ram, at least 500 gigs of hard drive, a decent dual core cpu and a moderate video card. Add $200 for a monitor and $100 for peripherals. thats an $1100 machine.
I call that low end. Seriously guys, you are geeks, get with the friggin program!
So, what you are saying is that because new machines are so cheap, it shouldnt matter that Vista needs so much more resources than XP, yet doesnt accomplish the "drastically more" that should be expected due to the resource requirements increase? Because of course, every geek throws out their old hardware as soon as something new comes in of course.
Well, not me... I keep my hardware till it dies. Yes, I might get new, top of the line stuff, but that doesnt mean my old stuff suddenly gets kicked to the curb (at least not until I start running out of space for it - at which time it is oldest/most archaic first).
So... that's kinda absurd reasoning on your part, if you ask me - which I know you didnt. ;-)
"We can't buy XP from DELL, so we had to buy vista and the software won't work". That's moronic for a number of reasons. 1. They already had XP licenses - just reinstall XP on the machines, install on one + drivers and you can probably ghost the rest. Simple.
(1) Not in compliance with the license agreement. The copy of XP that came with the earlier machines is only licensed to those machines
(2) Many machines come with restore sets (not an XP disk and a driver disk), unless the old machines were also DELL, chances are they did not come with XP disks.
(3) If they are ever audited by Microsoft, they stand to lose lots of money.
(4) Many companies insist (for legal and other reasons) to remain in compliance with such licensing mandates (see #1 above).
(5) With the number of machines "phoning home" about XP being reinstalled on different hardware, and calls being needed to activate it on the new hardware, I am sure it would raise a red flag at Microsoft (heck, ONE customer's pirated (from China) XP install did that here - fortunately, we had already documented it and sent a letter, which they managed to process a couple weeks later).
2. Use MS product key change app to fix individual licenses if it wasn't a corporate XP
3. They could have used their old hardware until a better solution became known.
Not necessarily. Some companies budget money for use by a certain time frame. If the money does not get spent for that purpose in that time frame, it "disappears" (gets reallocated), and the people in the company wanting/responsible for such purchase desires have to "reapply" for the funds and hope it gets passed in the next budget. I deal with quite a few companies like that. All of their computer expenditures get voted on, and have a time frame. If the money is not spent for that purpose by the time frame expiration, they lose it and have to re-request it in the next budget period, and it then needs to get re-voted on.
But I know what you mean. They expect things to work and when it doesn't then more time, effort and money is wasted on stupidity.
And... for those other people (not the poster I am replying to) who call "FUD" because Dell does sell XP systems, keep in mind that Dell does not offer XP on all of their systems, and various lines that were available with XP suddenly became Vista only once Vista was released - perhaps the machines the company wanted (or needed) fit that category? I can think of quite a few machines I would love to have XP preinstalled on - but cant get them that way because it is no longer an option on those models.
It's kind of weird how much Slashdot's anti-Microsoft crowd seems to worship XP.
And this whole "Vista downgrade" thing is getting old. How can you honestly claim that switching to an operating system that only supports 3GB of RAM is an upgrade? Unless you're suggesting that people switch to x64 XP, but nobody in their right mind would really suggest that.
Ummm... Vista 32bit doesnt support more than 3GB of RAM either. 3.17 supposedly (though that arbitrary number is of course incorrect). A patch that Microsoft released would make Vista 32bit report a full 4GB of RAM - but the usable amount did not change. The issue at hand is that both Vista 32 and XP 32 support 4GB but need to map hardware address spaces into that 4GB region, leaving 3.something GB left. Inotherwords, on the same hardware, Vista 32bit and XP 32bit will have the same amount of memory available for Windows and programs. Vista 32bit RTM will report the usable memory (lets say on a 4GB system: 4GB (minus) hardware address space), while Vista SP1 32 bit will report 4GB (and still have the same 3.??GB available).
This document (which is oddly not quite accurate) shows as much for each in standard mode:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx
Certain memory areas were expanded (such as for kernel use). But otherwise, the 4GB (or a little over 3GB after mapping hardware) limit still exists in Vista 32bit.
Now... the other factor. Windows Vista 64bit ranges from 8GB (Basic) or 16GB (Premium) or 128GB (Business, Enterprise and Ultimate only) of memory access - while Windows XP 64bit is 128GB period. Inotherwords, buy XP 64 and you have 128GB available. For Vista 64, you have to buy one of the more expensive versions to achieve the same.
PAE mode, though it would solve the issue, is artificially limited for broader compatibility with drivers and software more likely to be running on a client station (inotherwords, only works in server versions of Windows, and though enableable in client versions, doesnt do much of anything beneficial when it comes to expanding memory limits above 4GB on 32bit versions of Windows client).
Another breakdown (a little more concise) about memory limits for the various versions of Windows is located here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension
I truly dont know where you got your information... ah well.
Perfect. This should be modded +6 Brilliant in light of all the Vista UI proponents who seemingly dont know (or have choosen to forget) about such easily available functionality for XP.
Which brings us right back to (for those you responded to - not you) why the vast resource requirements in comparison to a similarly configured XP? SuperFetch is far from the only culprit.
You might also want to check your drivers out. I have no issues copying/moving large files. It sounds like something that would be related to a drive controller, or possibly DMA has been disabled.
Actually, it's a known bug in Vista RTM, which they tried fixing in SP1. While they did not entirely fix it, it is improved (supposedly greatly). The issue seems to stem around the methods it uses to move certain media files (images, music, etc) - seemingly because they have no idea of how to handle threads to do so - or because they forgot how simple it is to actually attach the thumbnail/sample information as an extended attribute that gets moved with the file (a'la HPFS and OS/2) - even though at some time they were well aware of how to do such.
Thus file copying (when media files are involved) has issues (usually performance, sometimes failure) due to the methods they are using in trying to handle both the copy/move and the thumbnailing (or other media information - such as audio file info).
Very simple fix, which they have known how to implement for 16 years, yet still use an increasingly archaic method of achieving such functions...
I installed it at home. I got a new computer with >4GB of RAM. And MS doesn't sell XP 64 anymore, so I installed Vista 64.
The UI is a ton better than XP.
Yes, it does have problems, sometimes it even burps while copying files, which is bizarre to me, since it's such a basic function.
But all in all it's pretty good, and I could hardly see going back to XP now.
Honestly, my biggest problem with Vista is that it appears MS is going to strand us Vista users and come out with Windows 7 next year with no affordable upgrade path.
Yeah, MS did some stupid stuff. Tying Direct X 10 to Vista was just one of them. But XP is past its prime.
XP isnt past it's prime. I'm not sure why you were modded the way you were... but...
Let's see. Vista is pretty good, even though it cant even properly handle such basic things as copying files (which has worked since DOS 1.0), and it requires greater than 4GB of RAM for you to rate it as "pretty good"
OK... even though that all baffles me - especially since it doesnt touch on any reason why Vista is better than XP (other than your personal preference for the Vista GUI, which you can "get" for XP (without as much overhead) using third party apps)... lets go on to...
Honestly, my biggest problem with Vista is that it appears MS is going to strand us Vista users and come out with Windows 7 next year with no affordable upgrade path.
Next year? Windows 7 will be out next year? Somehow I doubt that. They've announced numerous time frames... none of which are the Oct 2009 rumor that is floating around. Then, factor in, even if tomorrow MS said Oct 2009, you then have to translate their calendar to the "Earth Standard" calendar - which means the date translates into "Maybe 2010 or 2011" just like every other release date promise...
OR... Windows 7 will come out by EOY 2009 (or shortly after) because simply it's just a touched up version of Windows Vista... in which case, my bigger concern would not be that you are going to get "stranded" as a Vista user - it would be that you are going to allow yourself to get ripped off by buying Windows 7 even though it's just a slightly modified, repackaged Windows Vista...
Just a thought...
Well, Windows doesnt cut the load we need to handle, and since the latest AMP stack is virtually always available for OS/2 (and I've got a bunch of IBM servers that OS/2 is fine tuned for), I can get the benefit of AMP, the unbeatable (in the PC server world) performance of Domino GoWebserver on OS/2 (for a subset of those servers that arent running Apache), take advantage of one of the few fully featured REXX implementations (including WPS, OS, and networking integration) and fully utilize my hardware with an OS tuned to use all the hardware's added features...
Like any other tool, it just happens to be the best for my job, and easiest (and compared to some OS's like Windows, the cheapest) to maintain. Heck, my "ancient" Netfinity 7000 M10 still does the vast majority of my hosting...
It really depends on your definition (or use) of (the word) stability.
Fragmentation may not make the machine crash in the normal sense, but on a server that is near it's capacity already (capacity as measured by timeouts of various server daemons), it can impact stability - for instance when a database connection is dropped because of a timeout in reading the data and so on. A drive that is not fragmented (ie: a file system that does not fragment as horrendously as NTFS, or one kept defragmented) will not run into those issues nearly as soon.
In today's world of SATA and IDE servers, the issue is more critical as well, as there is more CPU overhead during disk access by the file system and disk drivers.
So, you are probably correct when it comes to crashes and such of the hardware or OS... but fragmentation does play a decent role when it comes to a high use server (or similar client applications) where "tons" of concurrent disk reads occur.
And of course, the difference in performance on such scenarios can be staggering. In a web server or SQL server environment, on a "big" server where there can often be "tons" of files for "tons" of sites/clients, the impact is easily measurable. Our server has over a million files on one partition - for which we cannot determine what will be accessed when (ie: no "smart" or dedicated caching of 99% of them), and because of the sheer volume/size of the partition, it is also "impossible" to cache them all - or even a large percentage (ever try to set up a half terabyte disk cache? I know I couldnt even begin to afford to - even if I found boards that supported that much) - which means that data in the cache will expire or be pushed out by other requests long before the cache becomes fully beneficial for 99% of the reads. While a read-ahead cache helps (ie: disk reads are still faster than our WAN bandwidth), it only helps so much because the individual files on the server are often many times larger than the machine's full installed memory amount.
These are areas where I have seen marked differences in NTFS, JFS and HPFS386. HPFS386 handles the load (a few hundred to a thousand concurrent web/ftp connections) far better because it barely ever fragments. NTFS is abysmal in this area. JFS is barely better, but handles writing quicker (as it does not pre-allocate storage space based off size - which is helpful for a lot of concurrent write operations as overhead is reduced somewhat).
Currently, most of our web serving is done via an HPFS386 partition as it is quicker and less resource intensive - and the partition still shows no noticeable fragmentation... while much of our FTP data resides on a JFS partition because, unlike HPFS386, it can handle files larger than 2GB and partitions faaaar larger than 64GB.
The particular file system limitations aside, I can definitely tell you, JFS is far less happy trying to read a bunch of large fragmented files at the same time as HPFS386 is at reading a bunch of large non-fragmented files.
Of course, I tend to have more CPU power than I need, and span certain services on different drives and file systems as appropriate... but then again, I am not an Amazon or Slashdot or whatever where ya never know what the peak traffic tomorrow may be. Even the best planned server implementations for companies that cannot always judge "Gee, this is the max traffic I ever expect to see, lets make the server 4 times as powerful as need be" isn't always good enough, as something can - and probably will happen to push the server beyond even reasonable expectations times four.
We've seen that happen here quite often - "The Slashdot Effect" - and while a file system that does not fragment isn't the sole answer, it does increase a server's ability to handle high loads without timeout issues while waiting for data from a fragmented drive.
So, to summarize, reading a few fragmented files at any given time may not show any serious or even noticeable drops in performance - but, reading a LOT of fragmented files at the same time will be quite noticeable (compared to defragmented files on a better file system).
Thanks for the translation, but, that still doesnt change my point... they did not contact the authorities before the meeting. And now that this has made news, unless the "bad guys" dont read the paper, it will probably be that much harder to capture them.
Had the authorities been there and been involved, these criminals would already be behind bars, and their asset/info/computers/whatever would theoretically already be on the way to being seized - instead of the current more likely possibility where the criminals are now in hiding and the info is moved, destroyed, hidden or who knows what?
You'd think they'd have gotten the police involved instead of trying to scoop a story...
Nah, guess not.
This site:
http://www.aibuiltpc.com/
Works wonderfully as all divs using code like the gp poster indicated in FF2, FF3, Safari, and Opera and is a total mess in IE6, works in IE7 in compatibility mode (or is otherwise a different kind of mess than IE6). Adding more complexity to it would make scrollbars appear or (when they were supposed to be there) disappear in IE6 - as well as move whole div sections to the wrong place.
I could have fixed it by adding a bunch of IE6 specific classes and a browser detect in Javascript... and the meta tag that IE7 requires...
Or, I could opt for a very simple table layout with a couple divs in it that work in all browsers without a bunch of extraneous code specifically to fix IE issues (in the hopes that IE8 doesnt require yet more fixes or metatags or such).
So... which is smarter to choose? Div's because everyone says so, or the far easier method (to maintain as well as to code) that mixed tables with div elements that work cross-browser?
Yes, it is easy enough to fix for all and still use divs for everything (and yes, I know how)... but it was also far easier to simply use a few tables and be done with it... now, and for the future (unlike some other sites I have done that have required changes for IE7 because I went the all div route).
Anyone who is a decent freelance web developer will tell you that the quickest, easiest, and most cross-browser capable method of coding a site is the best. They will not tell you that you should only use one subset of html/css/xhtml over another regardless of those requirements.
Yeah, minus the fact that different versions of IE will render just slightly more complex versions of that differently than Firefox, Safari and Opera (who all agree on how it should be rendered). As is the case with many div attributes. So, no, the code isn't that simple except in the most simplistic of uses - thus saying "Go 100% DIVs!!!" is a bad idea.
Yes (using entirely div's), it can be done, but in slightly more complex cases, a table is far easier to do, far quicker to do, a little bit less code (or a tiny bit more at worst) and works in IE5/6/7/8, Firefox 1.x and up, Opera, Safari and more.
Heck, there are even some differences in the way that FF 1-2 and FF3 render certain CSS and html code (Amazon's associates page comes to mind - which is (or was) a mess in FF3 (maybe they have finally fixed it to be FF3 friendly)), while the minor table code needed for what the poster discussed will work in all using the simple, generic, long since established HTML code.
I use DIVs a lot. I enjoy their flexibility. I hate having to make sure I have every damn IE hack for certain improperly supported DIV attributes or in the javascript code that modifies those attributes. For me, it makes a lot more sense to mix and match the two depending on what outcome I want.
IE8 is adding to that complexity - because as "standards compliant" as they want to pretend it is, it simply isnt - not unless you enable a certain menu option for "compatibility" - and if you dont, certain things that worked fine in IE5, IE6, and IE7 (like certain SMF forum "functions" (ie: certain submit buttons and pop-ups)) will not work properly in IE8.
So, with tables still working and not "broken" in IE8, why not use them (mixed with DIVs where appropriate and safe to use) for layout instead of having to worry about what new attribute or piece of code IE8 or some other browser will break?
.
More simply put... a web designer should use the tools (language components included) best suited to (a) what they want to accomplish, (b) what time frame they have, and (c) what is the least failure-proof across browsers. Inotherwords, dont rule out tables (or anything else that is still part of the html spec and so fully supported) because some book or website or guide someplace says that you should (in favor of some newer coding methods). Use your brain instead and pick the best method for what you need to accomplish.
Slander is pretty difficult to prove and prosecute. Switching the argument to Libel, which is written, I would imagine that a countersuit concerning false claims of infringement would require you to prove that the RIAA acted in bad faith; i.e. accused you of infringement while knowing you had not infringed.
If a countersuit like that were launched, they would likely hide behind whatever organisations they use to find people to sue, claiming that they were told you infringed, and believed it, thus acted in good faith.
Such a case would drag on until you ran out of money and settled.
There's the beauty though - if someone with enough dough actually takes on such a suit against them. If it can prove their methods are not valid, even if the RIAA passes the buck off to MediaSentry, it will mean that they cannot knowingly use the service of an entity that uses similar (and similarly flawed) methodologies. In the long run, a big win - though possibly not for the person bringing suit - *if* the RIAA can claim (believably) they had no idea the information wasnt sufficient to point a finger at someone.
Inotherwords, the RIAA may get off the hook - but it will probably be at the expense of them never being able to use MediaSentry (or similar) again.
The thing I see though is enough people have pointed out the fallacies of their "facts" and "methods" enough times, it would be really hard for them to pretend (ie: "claim") they had no knowledge their "evidence" well... wasnt real evidence.
Either way, the "little thing" going on in NC and elsewhere may be the beginning of the end of MediaSentry anyway. So, this isnt a battle (refuting the RIAA's methods and evidence) that I would wish on anyone regardless of how financially prepared they were for the nonsense that would ensue.
I guess time will tell...
I'm not trying to be an RIAA apologist. I'm just wondering if there's any course of action they could taken whereby their IP was protected and they weren't demonized by all of us.
Hmmm... having MediaSentry apply for the appropriate licenses to conduct investigations? Having MediaSentry truly disclose their methods and the code they use for peer review?
The first is a no-brainer, which they still avoid (and if I were a state government, after they have wantonly violated such a licensing requirement, I'd never issue them one now) and the second would of course probably discredit their evidence hands down....
But nonetheless, the first action alone would end a lot of their problems on this front. Yet they still dont do it. I'm sure they are making a ton from their illegal actions... one tiny step in some percentage of the 50 states and they wouldnt be in this problem.
Of course, then there are all of their "attack servers" with their DDOS attacks on places they think are hosting music... those are criminal violations with stiff penalties if convicted. It's time someone steps up to the plate and buries them for those actions as well...
Sometimes... I guess it depends on how computer savvy he is.
I use a SanDisk MP3 player, which plays MP3s and non-protected WMAs (though I exclusively have MP3s on it). If I run into something in some other format such as Ogg, FLAC, etc; I just turn it into an MP3. Now, I have it easy... I mostly run OS/2 (and dabble in everything else)... so I just right click on the file, and select "Convert to MP3" and drag the MP3 version to the SanDisk... but it's just as simple to do from the commandline or with various programs.
I'm guessing that even though most dont have such easy GUI integration, that every other operating system has got to have some GUI based utility available freely that will convert such formats to MP3.
The same goes for video. For newer formats, I have it all tied to mEncoder - again making it a simple GUI right-click, convert to flv/mpg/avi/DiVX/etc (or run it through the commandline for special case transcoding)... for other operating systems, I know there are a ton of free GUI apps that will do the same thing - I actually use a couple of them in Windows when I wanna do (a) something special where it is easier than knowing the commandline parameters or looking them up; or (b) am running multiple transcodes across the OS/2 boxes and the Windows box at the same time (we often run into a time crunch when releasing new episodes of Star Trek New Voyages, and I am responsible for creating the final delivery files; so often I need a few running at the same time).
Thus again, just a tiny bit of computer knowledge makes whatever player one has a moot point to what formats they get their music (or videos) in. The only selection criteria I could see is thus, (1) do I want something that does videos as well, (2) what other features do I want (radio, streaming, web functions, messaging, "direct" access to certain paid services such as iTunes, etc) and (3) price. What format the stuff comes in is irrelevant to what player I choose unless I was one of those people who buys DRM'd music - which with the failure of so many DRM music shops, I'd say is a declining number of people - and besides, even if the player supports DRM'd music, that generally does not prevent it from playing MP3s, which virtually any non-DRMd music in virtually any format can be easily converted to no matter what the computer OS is.
Google hits my server regularly - but doesnt use much bandwidth in doing so. But then again, I run Google ads on my sites, so they monitor the content to show more relevant ads. Considering most sites are 80% graphical, 20% html/css/javascript; these requests are no big deal.
When it comes to them indexing the site for their search engine, a simple directive in the robots.txt file to tell them how frequently you wish them to stop by is all that is needed - and is spelled out numerous places on the Internet (of course, including on their own pages). Any webmaster who is not aware of that (especially since Yahoo's bot is at least 20 times worse per my server records for www.startreknewvoyages.com where it would be 10-15 GoogleBots and 200-300 YahooBots) just doesnt know what they are doing. Both Google and Yahoo honor it (the "how many times in x minutes to visit flag in robots.txt). The only reason I put it in was for Yahoo, followed someplace inbetween by Microsoft, and in least invasive position at a fraction of the number of simultaneous bots, Google.
I dont care how many pages they index, but Google's bots at least seem a lot smarter. Often I would have 10 or more Yahoobots reading the exact same page.
Their overall traffic use (all combined) was nothing compared to normal site traffic from the same number of "requesters"
First you didn't say IBM PC. You said "PC" which means personal computer and can mean any brand.
Ooops... sorry, but that is what I did mean. I grew up in a time when PC only meant IBM PC - before the term was "diluted" to mean other things. Heck, even in this day and age, when people say "I need to buy a new PC" they mean IBM compatible, running Windows, Linux or OS/2 machine - and say "I need to buy a Mac" when they mean a PC running MacOSX.
I'm sure you understood the distinction and are just being difficult though.
Second, the others OSes were negligible? Hardly. The Apple II OS dominated from the years 1978 to 1982. The Commodore OS was the #1 OS from 1983 to 1989.
Not quite accurate (or even close really)
http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/total-share.ars/5
And those are conservative estimates in comparison to other sites.
That is not "neglibible" and should not be so casually ignored.
The fact is that a monopoly means 100% dominance (or in practical terms: 99.9%), but Microsoft did not dominate in either the 80s or 90s. Even today MS only controls 89%..... not a monopoly. If you want to say "almost a monopoly" that's fine, but don't redefine words like the book 1984. The word "monopoly" means a specific thing and Microsoft does not have one.
Likewise even if Google-Yahoo merged, you still do NOT have a monopoly. There are lots of other search engines out there.
Define it as you like, but what matters is how the government defines it. They do not require a 100% dominance in a market to consider a company a monopoly - hence this whole Google thing - as well as their Antitrust actions against IBM in the past. Neither had 100% or 99.9% dominance in their markets.
You pointed out one definition (albeit an ancient one) - while I pointed out one that conforms to (a) the government's use of the term, and thus (b) how it applies to the situation we are discussing.
Or did you by some chance miss the whole issue this thread is discussing?
The term "monopoly" has evolved, both in it's accepted definitions, and in the way it is used by the government of the USA. The definition I found and selected is far more appropriate to this discussion than your myopic, limited, outdated, and inapplicable choice of definitions.
And here... just for you, let me rephrase part of my original post.
"In the IBM PC compatible marketplace, Microsoft has had a monopoly (based off the accepted definition in use by the government of the USA, as well as the newer accepted definitions in the English language) for over 25 years - just as IBM did in the past in various of their business ventures".
Happy? Refute that - instead of arguing over semantics that you fully understood my intent with.
But then again, I dont seem to be the only one who has posted similar responses to you (about your poor, inapplicable choice of definitions and such)... so I guess you are just really enjoying this for the sake of arguing nonsense.