Checking the comments, apparently I was supposed to detect that you'd switched to talking about music companies from Microsoft. Fine, I guess. I'm so used to making up whatever you feel like about Microsoft I must have missed it.
Apparently, then, the point I'm supposed to get is that the content that music and movie companies create with DRM will only run in Vista if that DRM is enabled - and thus Microsoft is going down because music and movie companies still demand DRM.
Oh look at that! It's not 'only available in Vista', it's in every commercial HD-DVD and Blu-ray player. It also only comes in to play if the content providers turn it on. Strangely enough, unless you buy DRM content, DRM isn't an issue. Isn't it funny how that works?
I also love how you quote a competing operating system's propaganda site as a 'reliable source'. You're getting sloppy, Twitter.
the EU is under the illusion that the cost of living in London is the exact same as the cost of living in, say, some small hamlet in Germany Are you under the illusion that the cost of living in a small village in Somerset is the same as the cost of living in Berlin?
You should probably compare like for like, it's more logical.
I thought this too, but actually I checked the price of the macmini and at the time I brought one it was cheaper like-for-like than a dell (maybe they had a good deal with intel at the time, right after the switch). Right now I think it is a bit more (in the UK at least) but if you consider they are bundling osX on the system too they can't be making massive margins on the hardware. If you buy a Mac Mini instead of a Dell, Apple get more money regardless of the margin.
It wasn't just that comment for me - the entire summary was insultingly patronising.
Don't worry about interpreting this story, everyone - your helpful editors have already told you exactly what to think, so you can save your brains for later.
I don't have much of an issue what what you said other to note with amusement that anybody could describe the banning of assault weapons to be an evil act.
Let's be honest, I wasn't the one misrepresenting the situation in the first place. What I'm saying is that the number given isn't indicative of anything at all in the context of what he was saying - he says 1 in 4 computers being in a botnet shows inherent insecurity in non-free OSes, and that is not the case at all.
I absolutely agree with you that there needs to be more facts before we can make a decision either way - hence my point.
With good reason. I generally get accused of being an MS shill because I actually like using Windows (nobody faint), and I don't like pointless lies about Vista functionality and other minor grievances. I've also been accused of being a government shill (because I don't care about CCTV cameras at all), and even of using sockpuppet accounts to harrass people I don't like.
It seems to be very difficult for people on this site to realise that somebody will disagree with you of their own accord. Hell, I would love it if I got paid to write this stuff - but strangely enough, in the real world, that happens less often than I have been lead to believe.
I can only say that your confidence is horribly misplaced. You have no evidence to support your point of view, and if you do you refuse to provide it. Either way it's really pathetic to watch. You obviously have the knowledge to debate the point sensibly, and instead you retreat into fabrication and paranoia, and it's such a waste of your time and mine.
Instead of accusing me of being something I'm not (twice in one sentence, no less) try having an honest discussion about something. It's not something I've ever seen you do and I'll be surprised if you can pull it off.
In fact, just go wild reading this post. Not one of the more up to date ones, but hey. Lies, FUD, FUD, more lies, and an appallingly racist joke, they're all in there.
Conclusion: When you say you're not lying, you're lying. Who could've seen that coming?
You're fully aware that the article you link to says nothing of the sort about '1 in 4 Windows machines are in a botnet'. It says '1 in 4 computers are in a botnet'. Yet that's not the only time you've tried to lie about that result. Time and time again you quote it like gospel, when someone with half a brain and some reading comprehension could work it out.
Unfortunately for you, I think you're too smart to have misread that, so you're a liar.
Straight off your list of recent posts. Bottom one, in fact.
The issues raised are not "webmail" problems, they are problems of the underlying OS from a company that has "compromised the security of their customers." If you are using a decent OS, these security issues vanish. Ignoring your 'issues raised are not "webmail" problems' crack which is patently false (the poster stated that internal mail was secure), you would do well to remember this wonderful statement:
There is no such thing as a secure system.
Got that? Again:
There is no such thing as a secure system.
Final time:
There is no such thing as a secure system.
Got that into your skull yet? Security issues never 'just vanish'. There are plenty of websites far less short-sighted than you. If you ever get into a sys-admin position, please let us know which company so I can avoid trusting my data to them.
Because you lie about everything else? I mean, the question isn't "Why would a Windows user say 80%", it's "Is it worthwhile even considering you to be a reliable source", to which the answer is: No.
Apart from name-dropping, your data point is about as useful as the paper it's printed on. In the meantime, reports such as this one are far more useful, as they actually have data to back up their claims.
I've actually tested this with World of Warcraft running in a window. Set a character to auto-run and then used flip 3D, and it updates the entire playing window continuously in Flip 3D, Alt-Tab and the miniature preview windows you get when you hover over a taskbar icon, with no noticable loss of performance.
Not only that, but it puts a small version of the program icon in the bottom right of the preview just in case you're confused as to which program you're using.
I went for Home Premium and it seems to work fine for me. Also, Vista will only degrade performance on videos with DRM on them. As long as they haven't (and if you're torrenting them there's no reason why there should be), it won't touch them.
Since I've had mine I've been watching Scrubs pretty much non-stop on a similar set-up with video files I personally ripped off DVD, and I've had no issues.
You see, most of your other comments on this article have been pretty close to agreeable but this completely misses the point.
If I install Linux just so I can use Amarok, does that make me a sheep? Of course not, but Amarok is only available for Linux and therefore if I want to use it I can't use Windows. The only difference you can see here is money, which is totally irrelevant.
It's not about following a trend, or being in or out of fashion. Sometimes you use what you can in order to enjoy yourself. After all, you can't play that Beethoven piece you like without a piano, can you?
You'll get no such response from me. I've tried Linux and (to a limited extent) MacOS and have come back to Windows every time. I rant until I'm blue in the face at this site that Linux just doesn't work for everyone and it's rare that people listen.
I especially love the people who tell me it's my fault for not trying hard enough on the new OS. If I have to try harder, that's not an incentive for me to change. As far as I'm concerned, it's worth me spending £70 every 3-4 years just to have something that I actually find usable rather than spend nothing on something that doesn't do the things that I want.
Unfortunately that flies over the heads of some people.
Slashdot Mirror
Checking the comments, apparently I was supposed to detect that you'd switched to talking about music companies from Microsoft. Fine, I guess. I'm so used to making up whatever you feel like about Microsoft I must have missed it.
Apparently, then, the point I'm supposed to get is that the content that music and movie companies create with DRM will only run in Vista if that DRM is enabled - and thus Microsoft is going down because music and movie companies still demand DRM.
It made even less sense the second time around.
Can you point out where Microsoft sabotaged CDs?
Thanks.
Oh look at that! It's not 'only available in Vista', it's in every commercial HD-DVD and Blu-ray player. It also only comes in to play if the content providers turn it on. Strangely enough, unless you buy DRM content, DRM isn't an issue. Isn't it funny how that works?
I also love how you quote a competing operating system's propaganda site as a 'reliable source'. You're getting sloppy, Twitter.
Read the comments for the article you linked to. The author gets torn to shreds by people with actual knowledge of Vista.
If it's any consolation, my housemate with the Classics degree laughed, but he doesn't have any mod points (or an account).
You should probably compare like for like, it's more logical.
You're welcome ;)
It wasn't just that comment for me - the entire summary was insultingly patronising.
Don't worry about interpreting this story, everyone - your helpful editors have already told you exactly what to think, so you can save your brains for later.
I don't have much of an issue what what you said other to note with amusement that anybody could describe the banning of assault weapons to be an evil act.
Let's be honest, I wasn't the one misrepresenting the situation in the first place. What I'm saying is that the number given isn't indicative of anything at all in the context of what he was saying - he says 1 in 4 computers being in a botnet shows inherent insecurity in non-free OSes, and that is not the case at all.
I absolutely agree with you that there needs to be more facts before we can make a decision either way - hence my point.
I was so happy you managed to keep your bias out of the summary, but then you had to go and ruin it, didn't you?
Sorry. Had to get that off my chest
With good reason. I generally get accused of being an MS shill because I actually like using Windows (nobody faint), and I don't like pointless lies about Vista functionality and other minor grievances. I've also been accused of being a government shill (because I don't care about CCTV cameras at all), and even of using sockpuppet accounts to harrass people I don't like.
It seems to be very difficult for people on this site to realise that somebody will disagree with you of their own accord. Hell, I would love it if I got paid to write this stuff - but strangely enough, in the real world, that happens less often than I have been lead to believe.
More functionality != better.
You wouldn't find an intelligent poster here who wouldn't say that Word and Excel have more functionality than OpenOffice.org.
Does that make them better?
I can only say that your confidence is horribly misplaced. You have no evidence to support your point of view, and if you do you refuse to provide it. Either way it's really pathetic to watch. You obviously have the knowledge to debate the point sensibly, and instead you retreat into fabrication and paranoia, and it's such a waste of your time and mine.
Instead of accusing me of being something I'm not (twice in one sentence, no less) try having an honest discussion about something. It's not something I've ever seen you do and I'll be surprised if you can pull it off.
In fact, just go wild reading this post. Not one of the more up to date ones, but hey. Lies, FUD, FUD, more lies, and an appallingly racist joke, they're all in there.
Conclusion: When you say you're not lying, you're lying. Who could've seen that coming?
Here's another one: Lie.
You're fully aware that the article you link to says nothing of the sort about '1 in 4 Windows machines are in a botnet'. It says '1 in 4 computers are in a botnet'. Yet that's not the only time you've tried to lie about that result. Time and time again you quote it like gospel, when someone with half a brain and some reading comprehension could work it out.
Unfortunately for you, I think you're too smart to have misread that, so you're a liar.
There is no such thing as a secure system.
Got that? Again:
There is no such thing as a secure system.
Final time:
There is no such thing as a secure system.
Got that into your skull yet? Security issues never 'just vanish'. There are plenty of websites far less short-sighted than you. If you ever get into a sys-admin position, please let us know which company so I can avoid trusting my data to them.
why would I lie about it?
Because you lie about everything else? I mean, the question isn't "Why would a Windows user say 80%", it's "Is it worthwhile even considering you to be a reliable source", to which the answer is: No.
Apart from name-dropping, your data point is about as useful as the paper it's printed on. In the meantime, reports such as this one are far more useful, as they actually have data to back up their claims.
I've actually tested this with World of Warcraft running in a window. Set a character to auto-run and then used flip 3D, and it updates the entire playing window continuously in Flip 3D, Alt-Tab and the miniature preview windows you get when you hover over a taskbar icon, with no noticable loss of performance.
Not only that, but it puts a small version of the program icon in the bottom right of the preview just in case you're confused as to which program you're using.
I went for Home Premium and it seems to work fine for me. Also, Vista will only degrade performance on videos with DRM on them. As long as they haven't (and if you're torrenting them there's no reason why there should be), it won't touch them.
Since I've had mine I've been watching Scrubs pretty much non-stop on a similar set-up with video files I personally ripped off DVD, and I've had no issues.
So does Trillian.
You see, most of your other comments on this article have been pretty close to agreeable but this completely misses the point.
If I install Linux just so I can use Amarok, does that make me a sheep? Of course not, but Amarok is only available for Linux and therefore if I want to use it I can't use Windows. The only difference you can see here is money, which is totally irrelevant.
It's not about following a trend, or being in or out of fashion. Sometimes you use what you can in order to enjoy yourself. After all, you can't play that Beethoven piece you like without a piano, can you?
You'll get no such response from me. I've tried Linux and (to a limited extent) MacOS and have come back to Windows every time. I rant until I'm blue in the face at this site that Linux just doesn't work for everyone and it's rare that people listen.
I especially love the people who tell me it's my fault for not trying hard enough on the new OS. If I have to try harder, that's not an incentive for me to change. As far as I'm concerned, it's worth me spending £70 every 3-4 years just to have something that I actually find usable rather than spend nothing on something that doesn't do the things that I want.
Unfortunately that flies over the heads of some people.
British are arrogant
You're just jealous because I'm better than you.