You obviously do not know what the term "monopoly" means. If Google and Yahoo teamed up, there would be multiple other search engines people could still choose - and Google would still maintain the monopoly.
Besides the fact that MS was found to be a monopoly in those areas.
Also, though I did not specify it, I was talking about IBM compatible PCs. I thought that too was evident. Regardless, the market share of the rest was relatively negligible in comparison.
Microsoft doesn't hold a monopoly. Upto 1995 there were multiple OSes available for PCs:
- Atari OS
- Commodore OS
- Texas Instruments OS
Non IBM PC based.
- GE.OS
No real market share
- Amiga OS
- Atari ST OS
Non IBM PC based
- IBM OS/2
No real market share
- MS DOS
- MS Windows
And even after 1995 we still have multiple options for personal computers:
Ummm... proves my point - with 85-95% of the market share on IBM PC compatible hardware.
- Macintosh OS
Non IBM PC based - until recently, where it still holds a negligible share - thus irrelevant.
- Linux
Negligible market share.
- MS Windows
There's no monopoly here. Now if Mac OS and Linux died out, THEN and only then would we have a true monopoly for operating systems, but we haven't reached that stage yet.
Again, to be a monopoly, one does not have to hold 100% of a market.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
"In economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos , alone or single + polein , to sell) exists when a specific individual or enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it..."
Why is it illegal to clone Apple Macintosh computers, but it was not illegal to clone the IBM PC? Why is Apple protected, but IBM was not? What's the distinction?
The distinction is, that on the relevant technology/IP (ie: IBM owned) that still remains in the PC (or was incorporated into the earlier, first PC clones, IBM was/is being paid royalties on their IP. Or, compatible non-infringing devices were created without violating their IP.
In this particular case, (among other things), direct infringement is being claimed.
At least, IIRC, that was the distinction. There were many clone manufacturers that were sued out of existence for not licensing IBM's IPs for use in making their clones.
Bad upper management decisions doomed CompUSA - such as focusing on advertising printers that had no real profit, instead of advertising their formerly lucrative (and always profitable) Tech Services and Business Services divisions. By the time people in upper management were changed out with people who understood this, the company didnt have the money to fix the problem (though they did come up with very viable plans to do so - just couldnt get the backing at that point).
PCs and Windows sales had nothing to do with it. Do you have any idea how many people didnt even know we repaired PCs? Or that we had a Business Sales and Services department? Or that we offered training on a variety of things?
The above, and no longer catering to the core customers that maintained their profitability were the cause.
AC or not, the parent poster hits on a key issue. Flying nowadays has become a stressful enough situation. Trying to make a flight on time, trying to get through a security checkpoint that may have no one waiting, or a line out the wazoo (meaning a possible missed flight), hoping you remembered to take all the metal our of your pockets (change, keys, etc), wondering whether you will get that one airport security guy who insists that you cannot take your lighter with you (for your cigarettes) even though the TSA Rules clearly state you can, wondering whether you wasted a lot of money on "travel size" personal grooming stuff that may just happen to be either just a bit too large or in the wrong type container (regardless of what the sign at CVS/Rite-Aid/etc says), wondering whether everything is in the appropriate amount of zip-lock bags, wondering if you exceeded the total liquid quantities, wondering if with all the added security and screening your bags will actually be waiting for you when you get to your destination. And I am sure that only touches on a few factors.
Yeah... considering how stressful flying anywhere is nowadays, I dont see a lot of false positives... DUH!
This wonderful new method will probably report everyone who isn't a "flies all the time, every week" type of person as suspect. All while numerous "terrorist classes" who plan on blowing themselves up with whatever they are travelling on really wouldnt care too much about being caught - after all, they are ready, willing and prepared to throw away their lives.
What happens if I have high blood pressure? Or am a bit overweight (or drank a lot of coffee because I was up packing all night) and normally have an elevated heart rate? Or have an increased respiration rate because I've just been running all over the airport trying to find my gate while dragging a bunch of carry-ons?
Yeah, I am sure that a lot of this is designed to make people feel more comfortable flying, but (1) this one is so easy to punch holes in that I am sure the general populace will soon figure out how absurd a method this is, and (2) will in and of itself probably cause false positives by numerous people who are worried that their sprint to their gate may be the cause of a false positive, thus making the chances of such a lot more likely.
Brilliant waste of money.
Hmmm... maybe I should have posted this as an AC... but, whatever. I always wondered how many people on Slashdot get put on some sort of watch list simply for being just a little more intelligent and/or vocal than the general public...
I had been always confused by software advertising (especially Microsoft's). When they say it (i.e. a new version of Windows) would run faster than previous versions, I thought: "Hey! This will work great on my old computer!" - until I saw that the product requirements included the next generation of CPUs. WTF?
Granted, it may be for some of the new CPU instructions that eliminated latency, but still, I felt kinda deceived.
Actually, though sometimes they misstate such (ok, maybe not sometimes), often it is the media pandering to them and extracting only portions of their statements.
Vista on the newest top of the line hardware is indeed faster than XP on the now antiquated hardware it came on in the early 2000's.
The problem being, Microsoft misleads by not doing an "honest" comparison... XP on state of the art hardware compared to Vista on the same hardware. Or XP on a 2001 box compared to Vista on the same box.
The general non-Slashdot public simply dont know or dont care, as they cant walk into Walmart and buy a Vista machine built off 2001 equipment - so when it works at relatively comparable speeds, they dont see the big deal.
It (to them) isn't like trading in their beat up 2001 car for a 2008 model that has twice the horsepower but somehow performs the same as their underpowered 2001 car. They don't make the connection in increase in hardware performance as it relates to how one would expect the operating system to perform.
And for those on the edge of such perception, Microsoft handily has a list of "enhancements" that they expect such people to believe is the requirement for the unexpected negligible increases in performance.
And for most computer users, the point is moot... "Will it still run Office and IE as well?" Yes? Then Microsoft has achieved the necessary goal to appease most of the masses. Now, if you are a server admin or a gamer, (or relatively technically savvy) the story changes.
Sadly for Microsoft, the people who fit in one or more of those categories is slowly increasing, while the "performance enhancements" in new versions of Windows is decreasing - or nonexistant to begin with, while actual OS enhancements dont warrant the increased resource needs - slowly, more people are beginning to understanding that. The only thing keeping such operating system releases viable is the continuous effort on hardware manufacturers to create "better" and faster hardware with more resources available (speed, memory, etc). That's not a bad thing regardless of the OS. The sad (or bad, depending on how you look at it) thing is, each new iteration of their OS means less of those new resources/speed is available to power users as the OS itself consumes more of it.
Keep in mind, many of Microsoft's performance "innovations" of late can be chalked up to the appearance of a performance increase (with no actual increase in performance), such as their UI tweaks to make menus and such load quicker, while the background work still takes the same time, or them redefining the term "boot" to mean "resume from S3/S4 state" (instead of cold boot), or them moving more and more service startups to after the GUI is on the screen making the machine appear to boot/"boot" faster when in fact the machine still isnt usable for the same amount of time.
Yes, they have made some improvements in driver and service load times, but the fact is, those dont offset the increasingly large bulkly OS's requirements for total load to ready.
Thus instead, they often emphasize the small gains a certain subsystem has in loading, while not pointing out that the total number of subsystems that need to load and the sheer size of the OS have both increased meaning that the net gain... well... isnt a gain, but a loss in speed/performance/resources available.
...
And folks, as misleading as that is (and not saying I agree with such methods), that is simply called good marketing - and taking advantage of the fac
Some of that, of course, is also illegal... that's the more important part that is more relevant. Sadly, people supposedly elected the current administration. That choice led to those consequences (the spending). Their actions (lying and misinformation) to enable such? Well, that borders on or crosses into illegal.
So we can play things at 7fps with ultra low settings. Whoopee.
Seriously, buy a goddamn graphics card.
Why? When buying an eight core system is so much cheaper (than a new graphics card)? And I get an amazing 2.19fps!!! Oh... wait... nevermind, you're right.
If this isn't the biggest waste of programming resources, I dont know what is (ok, maybe WinMe and MS Bob - but this is pretty close).
Oh, wait... by doing this, they can "standardize" all the developers on DX10 since it will "run" on every system, and finally end all the games that are coming out still supporting DX9 (and finally end XP as the system of choice for gaming).
This isnt about innovation. It's about trying to make it more appealing to game developers to finally drop XP/DX9 support so people are forced to get Windows7 to play the "latest and greatest" games.
I for one would have preferred they truly work on their performance issues instead of working on something that eats even more system performance just to push their newest OS in the hopes of finally ending the demand for XP. Instead, they foist off some UI tweaks to make things appear to operate faster, and spend their efforts on this instead.
Bravo Microsoft! I will run right out and buy that 8 core mobo with Intel integrated graphics!
And really... what gamer out there worth their joystick doesnt go out and get a decent gaming card anyway? This truly isnt marketed or designed for the gamers - but for Microsoft via the gaming companies instead.
While taxpayers should not be bailing out any of these, fact is, we (in the USA) will be.
As for Tesla in particular, I would not mind seeing them get a piece of the pie. I for one dont lump them in with the "Big 3" - simply because whatever innovations they make can "trickle down" (damn I hate that term) to making affordable high-range electric cars for the masses.
Also, keep in mind that much of the cost of that particular car is the car body and chassis itself. While the drivetrain and batteries have their own (rather large) expense, it's not exactly like that body is a Honda Civic or Hyundai. The more drivetrains like that made (and the more batteries) the cheaper they will become. The more innovations in the manufacturing process, the cheaper such a drivetrain and batteries will become. The further along that path Tesla gets, the more likely that more affordable electric cars that are more usable by the general populace (for instance those on Long Island who often commute 50-150 miles a day) can buy one and are interested in them.
Regardless, as expensive as a Tesla Roadster is, in the long run, it isnt exhorbitantly more expensive than a decent, middle-of-the-line car (when you factor in how much it costs to drive over time and the cost of gas - even at it's current low). The current problem is "cost of entry" in buying one. At the amount I used to drive, I'd spend about $35,000 in gas in ten years. If the cost of helping Tesla means increased production and cheaper prices, even factoring in the cost of home charging of the Roadster, the car (when mass produced - if ever) would need to drop to about $60,000 to be break even in costs.
At $4+ dollars a gallon of a few months ago, the cost over 10 years was already near equal.
Now, if they license the technology to someone who isnt having the car body built by Lotus... well, there alone might be the savings.
My hope is that such a transition would raise the burden of proof to a realistic level.
My fear is that the criminal justice system is equally as unknowledgable as the civil system and may fail in that area as well. There are enough reasons these cases should be tossed as it is (even in the civil courts) - and only recently have judges come to such an understanding.
Shorter, but yes, bigger. They also had larger brains. What they didn't have though was a larger frontal cortex. i.e. they were very likely not as 'smart' as homo sapiens.
Multiple thousand dollar fines is/extremely/ disproportionate to the act performed - all the more so because they have no proof of damages; no real proof that anything happened (at least on the information we've had in cases so far); nor any proof of amount of distribution that was actually done.
That being said, there is a difference between shoplifting a CD for yourself, and making copies of that CD and giving them away on a NYC streetcorner. I don't think it's unreasonable to have financial penalties beyond what shoplifting merits. The major stumbling block there is that it should require definitive/proof/ - something that is literally impossible to get given the current architecture of the Internet.
And one is a civil matter, while the other is a criminal matter. Everyone seems to forget that here. Downloading (or otherwise acquiring) music (whether through legal or illegal means) and then distributing that music en-masse for profit or in a fashion that hurts the profits of the copyright holders (where it can be successfully argued some form of benefit is gained by the person doing it) is a criminal matter (that may also include a civil component).
Currently, file sharing/P2P/etc is seen as a civil matter.
The lines between the two are blurry, and the RIAA and MPAA are already trying to get rid of that line so either class of entity can be charged civilly and criminally.
That's irrelevant. There are plenty of other places where testing can be done - place other than those we know that whales are frequently at.
The testing and training isnt at issue - the location was.
Just like the example cited above by the guy you responded to. Jets can fly reaaaally fast - but not at 1000 feet above a house while breaking the sound barrier.
Actually, I believe you will find their methods quite different. Though Windows does use SuperFetch for such things, even with it disabled, you will be surprised what Windows' memory footprint is (ie: use all the memory).
Yes, comparing Superfetch to such technologies under other OS's would be valid... but again, even with it disabled, it is sad/scary just how much RAM Windows Vista and above will still utilize.
I think you and I are discussing two different issues.
Do you really think that counting threads and memory footprint will give you any sort of indication of a systems performance? So, whatever those threads are really doing is not useful information?
By design Windows uses as much memory is available, as unused memory is of no value.
Unused memory is quite valuable. For instance, on a server where it needs to be able to quickly allocate memory to process a given request. Using all available memory would thus require paging stuff out to free memory for (for instance) a web server process to finish a script or similar request.
Very inefficient.
A performance indication would be to measure how much actual pagin is there when physical memory is exhausted by running process. Counting used memory is worthless.
And counting threads and processes? Come on! What sort of analysis is this? Even if it were based on the final product (instead of a pre beta version), this analysis doesn't tell absolutely nothing.
Actually, counting threads, based off numerous more "techie types" knowledge of how Windows handles thread and process management, is a quite valid approach. Overloading a system with one of the worst thread schedulers on the PC is definitely not an approach that leads to performance benefits. Nor is assuming that everyone will have the latest and greatest hardware to make up for such a poor implementation - especially since MS continuously hypes their "latest and greatest" OS as something everyone should upgrade to. Anyone remember the Vista Upgrade Advisor - and how what it thought was a Vista Capable machine oft times was not? So... following a similar scenario, the use of tons of threads as the norm, on an OS that MS expects the world to upgrade to, is a design/implementation flaw that will just cause angst to all the poor unsuspecting end users who upgrade their XP machines finally to W7.
Not that I would expect that Win7 uses fewer resources that Vista. It would be a great thing if, coming a few years later, it used the same level of resources (meaning it should be able to run in machines over five years old) but expecting it to consume fewer resources is delusional.
Why? Because it is Microsoft? Or is there a technical reason? Keep in mind the far greater resources that Vista needed over XP or their server line (2003 and earlier) did not translate into any meaningful benefits for the end user. There was no reason for the increased bloat and resource usage at such a level. Vista should have required more resources - but not nearly as much more as the final product did.
Thus, if Microsoft were to actually get this one right, it should use less resources than Vista. More than XP? Yes. But still less than Vista.
Of course, that is unlikely to be the case, as is evidenced by their latest attempts to make the OS appear to be faster instead of actually making it faster (ie: tweaks to the UI to give the appearance of a snappier response, while all the "real work" still takes the same amount of time or more).
Performance today has much less to do with resource usage than with responsiveness and proactivity anyway.
Again, I beg to differ... but then again, I like running numerous things at a time... and knowing I have available memory (without having the need to wait for stuff to be paged out) when I am running things. Everything you argue for makes no sense - except in the respect that Windows needs as much as possible to perform as "adequately" as possible.
You do realize that any account that can execute arbitrary code can end up virus infected right?
On any operating system?
You do realize there is a major difference between an OS's ability to run a virus - and an OS's prevalence to being able to be infected through numerous, never-quite-patched-correctly holes, buffer over/underrun exploits, back doors, open sockets on a TCP/IP stack (that based on it's origin should have been decent) that has been horrendously mangled into a security threat?
There is a big difference between the two. If all Operating Systems had equal market share, Windows would in all probability still have the lion's share of infections simply because there have been tons of flaws/holes in the OS to allow it to be easily infected.
Yes, there are lists that show the numbers often being equal - in quantity... but a true in depth study of the list will show that many of the windows vulnerabilities turned out to be very very simple to exploit - so easy any script kiddie could do it... and that many of those vulnerabilities were never completely fixed and resurfaced utilizing a slightly different access vector.
Add to that, every other OS out there has a better track record at fixing such holes - while Microsoft has often either (a) went out of their way to downplay the issues or (b) outright denied the issues until there was a big enough public outcry. That too adds to the number of infected machines on each platform (again, assuming each had equal market penetration) and once again would lead to Windows still being waaaaay at the top of the mountain.
Of course, by your scenario, you seem to equate "people installing viruses on their own machine via the computer's I/O devices" or "allowing others to do it directly at the machine" the equivalent of a machine that is far easier to infect via external, networked methods. Sadly (for your argument) that is preposterous.
Is this card "64bit OS" only? Or is it "Windows in PAE mode only"?
If not, I am not sure exactly how it is advantageous to anyone... on a 32bit Windows machine in non-PAE mode, wouldn't the card's required address space mean that the machine, even if maxed out to 4GB, would have negative available memory?
For instance: (in Windows 32bit non-PAE) 4GB addressable (minus) other add-on cards and the busses (minus) 4GB+ for the graphics card (is equal to) a negative amount of available memory.
Or is there some driver trick involved to page the memory thus allowing it to use a smaller address space mapping?
I'm aware of that. I would not choose such a route either. But then again, my choice would be both (a) illogical and (b) the incorrect choice if this epidemic really started spreading and I was trying to save humanity.
I wasnt agreeing with his ideas - I was saying that logically they may be "wise" (depending on the circumstances). Thus though he may be correct in that fashion...
Well, hopefully you get the point.
Though I think he mis-worded the last sentence... it would be unwise to sterilize those who could pass on the immunity (as he indicated in the first paragraph).
Arguing for natural selection, it is the logical course of things. I did not say I agreed. I said that it is logical, and the way things should go to further such, as he outlined.
In fact, I happen to disagree with it as a method I would endorse - but that makes it no less of a viable method - and perhaps a more logical one. Hence my reference to Star Trek TOS.
In case you didnt get the references that abound in TOS, or aren't a big TOS fan... a scene from STIV:TVH touches on the difference:
BONES
Jim, you've got to let me go in there! Don't leave him in the hands of Twentieth Century medicine.
KIRK
What do you think, Spock?
SPOCK
Admiral, may I suggest that Dr. McCoy is correct. We must help Chekov.
KIRK
Is that the logical thing to do, Spock...?
SPOCK
No, Admiral... But is the human thing to do.
It would have been far more logical, with the fate of mankind in jeapardy, to leave Chekov. It would have been the "right" choice. It still would not have been a choice I made.
Military minds make such decisions often enough - and many of them choose the logical route for the preservation of more people. Are they wrong?
No, I believe arth1 is just stating a scientific fact/theory that in such epidemics, that can often be the normal course of things. That doesn't in any way indicate whether he thinks it a viable solution to the problem, a happy one a moral one or whatever.
Haven't you ever watched Star Trek (TOS)? Just imagine Spock stating a logical conclusion to a given scenario. You dont have to like it, but it doesnt mean he agrees that it is the best solution - it's just a statement of the outcome as it would occur under a set of given circumstances.
I have yet to comprehend why when people dont like a (true) answer, that they need to pick apart the semantics and try to apply implications to the words that were not there. Evolution and many aspects of life, as they happen, even without human interference; are rarely concerned with the morality of the outcome. People who state such are not necessarily amoral, wrong or bad.
Yes, but the key word in my statement (especially as it pertains to the article poster's question) is "simpler"
The RAID5 solution would be fun and all... and save media... but my solution would be easy and accomplish the same results without any special or not-easily-available methods.
Sorry, I should have specified that what I was saying was that for the person who posted this, simply making additional backup copies (on different media brands/types), and storing them in secure locations would be an easier method than RAID5. And that additionally, RAID5 on CD/DVD would not solve the issue of media that all fails in or around 3 years as per the example. RAID5 is quite as useless if all the media used can be expected to fail around the same time.
None of which fully answers the question though: both the poster I was responding to and myself were off on useless tangents that do not help the article submitter determine how to check the validity of his already existing archive.
The big question is (for Microsoft), will the vendors even go this route? Many got burned during Vista because so many things changed after the "pre-betas" and "betas" - of course, if Windows 7 is just Vista rehashed, then this may not be as big an issue, but perception is everything. The vendors still may not care to take that chance and waste a bunch of time certifying compatibility for pre-betas that will in all probability change (perhaps again drastically enough that their work becomes useless).
Slashdot Mirror
You obviously do not know what the term "monopoly" means. If Google and Yahoo teamed up, there would be multiple other search engines people could still choose - and Google would still maintain the monopoly.
Besides the fact that MS was found to be a monopoly in those areas.
Also, though I did not specify it, I was talking about IBM compatible PCs. I thought that too was evident. Regardless, the market share of the rest was relatively negligible in comparison.
Microsoft doesn't hold a monopoly. Upto 1995 there were multiple OSes available for PCs: - Atari OS - Commodore OS - Texas Instruments OS
Non IBM PC based.
- GE.OS
No real market share
- Amiga OS - Atari ST OS
Non IBM PC based
- IBM OS/2
No real market share
- MS DOS - MS Windows
And even after 1995 we still have multiple options for personal computers:
Ummm... proves my point - with 85-95% of the market share on IBM PC compatible hardware.
- Macintosh OS
Non IBM PC based - until recently, where it still holds a negligible share - thus irrelevant.
- Linux
Negligible market share.
- MS Windows
There's no monopoly here. Now if Mac OS and Linux died out, THEN and only then would we have a true monopoly for operating systems, but we haven't reached that stage yet.
Again, to be a monopoly, one does not have to hold 100% of a market.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
"In economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos , alone or single + polein , to sell) exists when a specific individual or enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it..."
QUESTION:
Why is it illegal to clone Apple Macintosh computers, but it was not illegal to clone the IBM PC? Why is Apple protected, but IBM was not? What's the distinction?
The distinction is, that on the relevant technology/IP (ie: IBM owned) that still remains in the PC (or was incorporated into the earlier, first PC clones, IBM was/is being paid royalties on their IP. Or, compatible non-infringing devices were created without violating their IP.
In this particular case, (among other things), direct infringement is being claimed.
At least, IIRC, that was the distinction. There were many clone manufacturers that were sued out of existence for not licensing IBM's IPs for use in making their clones.
Please show me a monopoly that has lasted longer than one generation (25 years).
Microsoft's PC OS monopoly (ongoing since 1981)
IBM Server and related software monopoly (took government action to end, but lasted over 25 years.
Bad upper management decisions doomed CompUSA - such as focusing on advertising printers that had no real profit, instead of advertising their formerly lucrative (and always profitable) Tech Services and Business Services divisions. By the time people in upper management were changed out with people who understood this, the company didnt have the money to fix the problem (though they did come up with very viable plans to do so - just couldnt get the backing at that point).
PCs and Windows sales had nothing to do with it. Do you have any idea how many people didnt even know we repaired PCs? Or that we had a Business Sales and Services department? Or that we offered training on a variety of things?
The above, and no longer catering to the core customers that maintained their profitability were the cause.
I know... I was there.
Someone should actually look at posting times before they decide which posts to mod redundant.
Just a thought... ;-)
AC or not, the parent poster hits on a key issue. Flying nowadays has become a stressful enough situation. Trying to make a flight on time, trying to get through a security checkpoint that may have no one waiting, or a line out the wazoo (meaning a possible missed flight), hoping you remembered to take all the metal our of your pockets (change, keys, etc), wondering whether you will get that one airport security guy who insists that you cannot take your lighter with you (for your cigarettes) even though the TSA Rules clearly state you can, wondering whether you wasted a lot of money on "travel size" personal grooming stuff that may just happen to be either just a bit too large or in the wrong type container (regardless of what the sign at CVS/Rite-Aid/etc says), wondering whether everything is in the appropriate amount of zip-lock bags, wondering if you exceeded the total liquid quantities, wondering if with all the added security and screening your bags will actually be waiting for you when you get to your destination. And I am sure that only touches on a few factors.
Yeah... considering how stressful flying anywhere is nowadays, I dont see a lot of false positives... DUH!
This wonderful new method will probably report everyone who isn't a "flies all the time, every week" type of person as suspect. All while numerous "terrorist classes" who plan on blowing themselves up with whatever they are travelling on really wouldnt care too much about being caught - after all, they are ready, willing and prepared to throw away their lives.
What happens if I have high blood pressure? Or am a bit overweight (or drank a lot of coffee because I was up packing all night) and normally have an elevated heart rate? Or have an increased respiration rate because I've just been running all over the airport trying to find my gate while dragging a bunch of carry-ons?
Yeah, I am sure that a lot of this is designed to make people feel more comfortable flying, but (1) this one is so easy to punch holes in that I am sure the general populace will soon figure out how absurd a method this is, and (2) will in and of itself probably cause false positives by numerous people who are worried that their sprint to their gate may be the cause of a false positive, thus making the chances of such a lot more likely.
Brilliant waste of money.
Hmmm... maybe I should have posted this as an AC... but, whatever. I always wondered how many people on Slashdot get put on some sort of watch list simply for being just a little more intelligent and/or vocal than the general public...
Rei:
Exactly. And finally someone else with a better understanding of the situation. Thanks for the additional added insights.
I had been always confused by software advertising (especially Microsoft's). When they say it (i.e. a new version of Windows) would run faster than previous versions, I thought: "Hey! This will work great on my old computer!" - until I saw that the product requirements included the next generation of CPUs. WTF?
Granted, it may be for some of the new CPU instructions that eliminated latency, but still, I felt kinda deceived.
Actually, though sometimes they misstate such (ok, maybe not sometimes), often it is the media pandering to them and extracting only portions of their statements.
Vista on the newest top of the line hardware is indeed faster than XP on the now antiquated hardware it came on in the early 2000's.
The problem being, Microsoft misleads by not doing an "honest" comparison... XP on state of the art hardware compared to Vista on the same hardware. Or XP on a 2001 box compared to Vista on the same box.
The general non-Slashdot public simply dont know or dont care, as they cant walk into Walmart and buy a Vista machine built off 2001 equipment - so when it works at relatively comparable speeds, they dont see the big deal.
It (to them) isn't like trading in their beat up 2001 car for a 2008 model that has twice the horsepower but somehow performs the same as their underpowered 2001 car. They don't make the connection in increase in hardware performance as it relates to how one would expect the operating system to perform.
And for those on the edge of such perception, Microsoft handily has a list of "enhancements" that they expect such people to believe is the requirement for the unexpected negligible increases in performance.
And for most computer users, the point is moot... "Will it still run Office and IE as well?" Yes? Then Microsoft has achieved the necessary goal to appease most of the masses. Now, if you are a server admin or a gamer, (or relatively technically savvy) the story changes.
Sadly for Microsoft, the people who fit in one or more of those categories is slowly increasing, while the "performance enhancements" in new versions of Windows is decreasing - or nonexistant to begin with, while actual OS enhancements dont warrant the increased resource needs - slowly, more people are beginning to understanding that. The only thing keeping such operating system releases viable is the continuous effort on hardware manufacturers to create "better" and faster hardware with more resources available (speed, memory, etc). That's not a bad thing regardless of the OS. The sad (or bad, depending on how you look at it) thing is, each new iteration of their OS means less of those new resources/speed is available to power users as the OS itself consumes more of it.
Keep in mind, many of Microsoft's performance "innovations" of late can be chalked up to the appearance of a performance increase (with no actual increase in performance), such as their UI tweaks to make menus and such load quicker, while the background work still takes the same time, or them redefining the term "boot" to mean "resume from S3/S4 state" (instead of cold boot), or them moving more and more service startups to after the GUI is on the screen making the machine appear to boot/"boot" faster when in fact the machine still isnt usable for the same amount of time.
Yes, they have made some improvements in driver and service load times, but the fact is, those dont offset the increasingly large bulkly OS's requirements for total load to ready.
Thus instead, they often emphasize the small gains a certain subsystem has in loading, while not pointing out that the total number of subsystems that need to load and the sheer size of the OS have both increased meaning that the net gain... well... isnt a gain, but a loss in speed/performance/resources available.
...
And folks, as misleading as that is (and not saying I agree with such methods), that is simply called good marketing - and taking advantage of the fac
Some of that, of course, is also illegal... that's the more important part that is more relevant. Sadly, people supposedly elected the current administration. That choice led to those consequences (the spending). Their actions (lying and misinformation) to enable such? Well, that borders on or crosses into illegal.
So we can play things at 7fps with ultra low settings. Whoopee.
Seriously, buy a goddamn graphics card.
Why? When buying an eight core system is so much cheaper (than a new graphics card)? And I get an amazing 2.19fps!!! Oh... wait... nevermind, you're right.
If this isn't the biggest waste of programming resources, I dont know what is (ok, maybe WinMe and MS Bob - but this is pretty close).
Oh, wait... by doing this, they can "standardize" all the developers on DX10 since it will "run" on every system, and finally end all the games that are coming out still supporting DX9 (and finally end XP as the system of choice for gaming).
This isnt about innovation. It's about trying to make it more appealing to game developers to finally drop XP/DX9 support so people are forced to get Windows7 to play the "latest and greatest" games.
I for one would have preferred they truly work on their performance issues instead of working on something that eats even more system performance just to push their newest OS in the hopes of finally ending the demand for XP. Instead, they foist off some UI tweaks to make things appear to operate faster, and spend their efforts on this instead.
Bravo Microsoft! I will run right out and buy that 8 core mobo with Intel integrated graphics!
And really... what gamer out there worth their joystick doesnt go out and get a decent gaming card anyway? This truly isnt marketed or designed for the gamers - but for Microsoft via the gaming companies instead.
While taxpayers should not be bailing out any of these, fact is, we (in the USA) will be.
As for Tesla in particular, I would not mind seeing them get a piece of the pie. I for one dont lump them in with the "Big 3" - simply because whatever innovations they make can "trickle down" (damn I hate that term) to making affordable high-range electric cars for the masses.
Also, keep in mind that much of the cost of that particular car is the car body and chassis itself. While the drivetrain and batteries have their own (rather large) expense, it's not exactly like that body is a Honda Civic or Hyundai. The more drivetrains like that made (and the more batteries) the cheaper they will become. The more innovations in the manufacturing process, the cheaper such a drivetrain and batteries will become. The further along that path Tesla gets, the more likely that more affordable electric cars that are more usable by the general populace (for instance those on Long Island who often commute 50-150 miles a day) can buy one and are interested in them.
Regardless, as expensive as a Tesla Roadster is, in the long run, it isnt exhorbitantly more expensive than a decent, middle-of-the-line car (when you factor in how much it costs to drive over time and the cost of gas - even at it's current low). The current problem is "cost of entry" in buying one. At the amount I used to drive, I'd spend about $35,000 in gas in ten years. If the cost of helping Tesla means increased production and cheaper prices, even factoring in the cost of home charging of the Roadster, the car (when mass produced - if ever) would need to drop to about $60,000 to be break even in costs.
At $4+ dollars a gallon of a few months ago, the cost over 10 years was already near equal.
Now, if they license the technology to someone who isnt having the car body built by Lotus... well, there alone might be the savings.
My hope is that such a transition would raise the burden of proof to a realistic level.
My fear is that the criminal justice system is equally as unknowledgable as the civil system and may fail in that area as well. There are enough reasons these cases should be tossed as it is (even in the civil courts) - and only recently have judges come to such an understanding.
I guess time will tell...
Aha, sure.
Intelligence is one thing, relevant skills is another.
When was the last time you hunted in pack on foot, or fashioned, thrust, or threw a spear?
Are you joking? With the condition the economy is in? Just last week!
Shorter, but yes, bigger. They also had larger brains. What they didn't have though was a larger frontal cortex. i.e. they were very likely not as 'smart' as homo sapiens.
Really? You obviously dont get out much!
;-)
Multiple thousand dollar fines is /extremely/ disproportionate to the act performed - all the more so because they have no proof of damages; no real proof that anything happened (at least on the information we've had in cases so far); nor any proof of amount of distribution that was actually done.
That being said, there is a difference between shoplifting a CD for yourself, and making copies of that CD and giving them away on a NYC streetcorner. I don't think it's unreasonable to have financial penalties beyond what shoplifting merits. The major stumbling block there is that it should require definitive /proof/ - something that is literally impossible to get given the current architecture of the Internet.
And one is a civil matter, while the other is a criminal matter. Everyone seems to forget that here. Downloading (or otherwise acquiring) music (whether through legal or illegal means) and then distributing that music en-masse for profit or in a fashion that hurts the profits of the copyright holders (where it can be successfully argued some form of benefit is gained by the person doing it) is a criminal matter (that may also include a civil component).
Currently, file sharing/P2P/etc is seen as a civil matter.
The lines between the two are blurry, and the RIAA and MPAA are already trying to get rid of that line so either class of entity can be charged civilly and criminally.
That's irrelevant. There are plenty of other places where testing can be done - place other than those we know that whales are frequently at.
The testing and training isnt at issue - the location was.
Just like the example cited above by the guy you responded to. Jets can fly reaaaally fast - but not at 1000 feet above a house while breaking the sound barrier.
Actually, I believe you will find their methods quite different. Though Windows does use SuperFetch for such things, even with it disabled, you will be surprised what Windows' memory footprint is (ie: use all the memory).
Yes, comparing Superfetch to such technologies under other OS's would be valid... but again, even with it disabled, it is sad/scary just how much RAM Windows Vista and above will still utilize.
I think you and I are discussing two different issues.
Do you really think that counting threads and memory footprint will give you any sort of indication of a systems performance? So, whatever those threads are really doing is not useful information?
By design Windows uses as much memory is available, as unused memory is of no value.
Unused memory is quite valuable. For instance, on a server where it needs to be able to quickly allocate memory to process a given request. Using all available memory would thus require paging stuff out to free memory for (for instance) a web server process to finish a script or similar request.
Very inefficient.
A performance indication would be to measure how much actual pagin is there when physical memory is exhausted by running process. Counting used memory is worthless. And counting threads and processes? Come on! What sort of analysis is this? Even if it were based on the final product (instead of a pre beta version), this analysis doesn't tell absolutely nothing.
Actually, counting threads, based off numerous more "techie types" knowledge of how Windows handles thread and process management, is a quite valid approach. Overloading a system with one of the worst thread schedulers on the PC is definitely not an approach that leads to performance benefits. Nor is assuming that everyone will have the latest and greatest hardware to make up for such a poor implementation - especially since MS continuously hypes their "latest and greatest" OS as something everyone should upgrade to. Anyone remember the Vista Upgrade Advisor - and how what it thought was a Vista Capable machine oft times was not? So... following a similar scenario, the use of tons of threads as the norm, on an OS that MS expects the world to upgrade to, is a design/implementation flaw that will just cause angst to all the poor unsuspecting end users who upgrade their XP machines finally to W7.
Not that I would expect that Win7 uses fewer resources that Vista. It would be a great thing if, coming a few years later, it used the same level of resources (meaning it should be able to run in machines over five years old) but expecting it to consume fewer resources is delusional.
Why? Because it is Microsoft? Or is there a technical reason? Keep in mind the far greater resources that Vista needed over XP or their server line (2003 and earlier) did not translate into any meaningful benefits for the end user. There was no reason for the increased bloat and resource usage at such a level. Vista should have required more resources - but not nearly as much more as the final product did.
Thus, if Microsoft were to actually get this one right, it should use less resources than Vista. More than XP? Yes. But still less than Vista.
Of course, that is unlikely to be the case, as is evidenced by their latest attempts to make the OS appear to be faster instead of actually making it faster (ie: tweaks to the UI to give the appearance of a snappier response, while all the "real work" still takes the same amount of time or more).
Performance today has much less to do with resource usage than with responsiveness and proactivity anyway.
Again, I beg to differ... but then again, I like running numerous things at a time... and knowing I have available memory (without having the need to wait for stuff to be paged out) when I am running things. Everything you argue for makes no sense - except in the respect that Windows needs as much as possible to perform as "adequately" as possible.
You do realize that any account that can execute arbitrary code can end up virus infected right?
On any operating system?
You do realize there is a major difference between an OS's ability to run a virus - and an OS's prevalence to being able to be infected through numerous, never-quite-patched-correctly holes, buffer over/underrun exploits, back doors, open sockets on a TCP/IP stack (that based on it's origin should have been decent) that has been horrendously mangled into a security threat?
There is a big difference between the two. If all Operating Systems had equal market share, Windows would in all probability still have the lion's share of infections simply because there have been tons of flaws/holes in the OS to allow it to be easily infected.
Yes, there are lists that show the numbers often being equal - in quantity... but a true in depth study of the list will show that many of the windows vulnerabilities turned out to be very very simple to exploit - so easy any script kiddie could do it... and that many of those vulnerabilities were never completely fixed and resurfaced utilizing a slightly different access vector.
Add to that, every other OS out there has a better track record at fixing such holes - while Microsoft has often either (a) went out of their way to downplay the issues or (b) outright denied the issues until there was a big enough public outcry. That too adds to the number of infected machines on each platform (again, assuming each had equal market penetration) and once again would lead to Windows still being waaaaay at the top of the mountain.
Of course, by your scenario, you seem to equate "people installing viruses on their own machine via the computer's I/O devices" or "allowing others to do it directly at the machine" the equivalent of a machine that is far easier to infect via external, networked methods. Sadly (for your argument) that is preposterous.
Lets add to the above...
Is this card "64bit OS" only? Or is it "Windows in PAE mode only"?
If not, I am not sure exactly how it is advantageous to anyone... on a 32bit Windows machine in non-PAE mode, wouldn't the card's required address space mean that the machine, even if maxed out to 4GB, would have negative available memory?
For instance: (in Windows 32bit non-PAE) 4GB addressable (minus) other add-on cards and the busses (minus) 4GB+ for the graphics card (is equal to) a negative amount of available memory.
Or is there some driver trick involved to page the memory thus allowing it to use a smaller address space mapping?
Just curious... anyone know how this will work?
I'm aware of that. I would not choose such a route either. But then again, my choice would be both (a) illogical and (b) the incorrect choice if this epidemic really started spreading and I was trying to save humanity.
I wasnt agreeing with his ideas - I was saying that logically they may be "wise" (depending on the circumstances). Thus though he may be correct in that fashion...
Well, hopefully you get the point.
Though I think he mis-worded the last sentence... it would be unwise to sterilize those who could pass on the immunity (as he indicated in the first paragraph).
Arguing for natural selection, it is the logical course of things. I did not say I agreed. I said that it is logical, and the way things should go to further such, as he outlined.
In fact, I happen to disagree with it as a method I would endorse - but that makes it no less of a viable method - and perhaps a more logical one. Hence my reference to Star Trek TOS.
In case you didnt get the references that abound in TOS, or aren't a big TOS fan... a scene from STIV:TVH touches on the difference:
BONES
Jim, you've got to let me go in there! Don't leave him in the hands of Twentieth Century medicine.
KIRK
What do you think, Spock?
SPOCK
Admiral, may I suggest that Dr. McCoy is correct. We must help Chekov.
KIRK
Is that the logical thing to do, Spock...?
SPOCK
No, Admiral... But is the human thing to do.
It would have been far more logical, with the fate of mankind in jeapardy, to leave Chekov. It would have been the "right" choice. It still would not have been a choice I made.
Military minds make such decisions often enough - and many of them choose the logical route for the preservation of more people. Are they wrong?
No, I believe arth1 is just stating a scientific fact/theory that in such epidemics, that can often be the normal course of things. That doesn't in any way indicate whether he thinks it a viable solution to the problem, a happy one a moral one or whatever.
Haven't you ever watched Star Trek (TOS)? Just imagine Spock stating a logical conclusion to a given scenario. You dont have to like it, but it doesnt mean he agrees that it is the best solution - it's just a statement of the outcome as it would occur under a set of given circumstances.
I have yet to comprehend why when people dont like a (true) answer, that they need to pick apart the semantics and try to apply implications to the words that were not there. Evolution and many aspects of life, as they happen, even without human interference; are rarely concerned with the morality of the outcome. People who state such are not necessarily amoral, wrong or bad.
Robert
Yes, but the key word in my statement (especially as it pertains to the article poster's question) is "simpler"
The RAID5 solution would be fun and all... and save media... but my solution would be easy and accomplish the same results without any special or not-easily-available methods.
Sorry, I should have specified that what I was saying was that for the person who posted this, simply making additional backup copies (on different media brands/types), and storing them in secure locations would be an easier method than RAID5. And that additionally, RAID5 on CD/DVD would not solve the issue of media that all fails in or around 3 years as per the example. RAID5 is quite as useless if all the media used can be expected to fail around the same time.
None of which fully answers the question though: both the poster I was responding to and myself were off on useless tangents that do not help the article submitter determine how to check the validity of his already existing archive.
:-)
The big question is (for Microsoft), will the vendors even go this route? Many got burned during Vista because so many things changed after the "pre-betas" and "betas" - of course, if Windows 7 is just Vista rehashed, then this may not be as big an issue, but perception is everything. The vendors still may not care to take that chance and waste a bunch of time certifying compatibility for pre-betas that will in all probability change (perhaps again drastically enough that their work becomes useless).