To state what a few people have skirted around but no-one's said explicitly: This Story Is Bollocks. All the same old web standard fonts are still included in Vista. Calls to them are in no way, shape, or form redirected to the new fonts. If you specify Times New Roman, or Arial, or Verdana, etc., Vista users will see it rendered exactly the same as anyone else; in the same fonts as everyone else. There's no need for web designers to download the new fonts to "let you see your page as your Vista users see it", because Vista users will see it the same as everyone else sees it.
Or, maybe, Vista could just use the standard fonts that already exist. Ummm...
It does. All the same fonts that used to be there are still there. If a web page specifies Arial, you still get Arial. It's not as if MS have removed the old standard fonts and are redirecting calls from the old ones to the new ones.
Documents. Web pages. Download a Web page and you get a bunch of files. Download a bunch of Web pages and you get an even bigger bunch of files. Do that for a couple years, you'll have thousands of files. ...None of which will have non-trivial NTFS alternate data streams, which means the bug TFA talk about will not be relevent (unless you're running Kaspersky).
The average home user may actually have this kind of problem - since downloads to the tmp directory are then copied to the correct folder once downloads are complete. Update EQII, WOW & FFXI & you've gone a long ways towards 16K files. Add in patch Tuesday, and your average user is probably going to hit real close to 16K files if they try to keep the PC up for a month... [etc] No. The memory leak is is related to 16k+ files with non-trivial NTFS alternate data streams. Which none of the files you mention will have. Since when has the "average home user" even known what alternate data streams are, let alone been playing around with them?
It's a memory leak related to large NTFS alternate data streams, not any fundamental limit. If you're not running Kaspersky (which attaches data streams to every file) and you don't specifically use alternate data streams, it shouldn't be a problem.
I've resorted to using DOS to copy the files I hope you mean the NT command line interpreter (cmd.exe) and not the actual DOS virtual machine (COMMAND.COM). (Apologies if you did mean cmd; but I've seen people confuse the two surprisingly often).
Possibly has to do with how the kernel is compiled for the different versions. A server kernel would use a fair scheduler for instance while a desktop one would want something that is more responsive (and quite possibly realtime in the case of audio/video applications) to user applications. At least that's how it works in the open source world... FWIW, in Windows (both server and desktop versions) you can switch between the two processor scheduling modes. The option's under System Properties -> Advanced tab -> Performance settings -> Processor scheduling. (I imagine it requires a reboot, but I haven't tried it).
I am still trying to figure out where to change the icon size and text size on the desktop Umm. Right-click on the desktop. View. Ooh look -- Large icons, Medium icons, Small icons. I wonder what those buttons do?
Personalization (inc. themes and desktop effects) are per-user settings, so don't need privilege authorization.
But then, from your post, I'm guessing your sum knowledge of the Principle of Least Privilege and the idea of LUA accounts is derived from Apple advertisments. May I recommend Google?
Actually, I do use Vista, and you can change what the power button does in Power Options.
Also, even if you never use the button and just use the menu every time, it's still no more clicks than XP (3: XP -- Start, Turn Off Computer, Shut Down; Vista -- Start, arrow, Shut Down).
BTW, alt+F4 with the desktop selected brings up the old 2000-style shut down dialogue.
Try finding how to turn off hibernate Ummm. No-one forces you to hibernate. If you don't want to hibernate, just... Don't click the 'hibernate' button?
This technology isn't quantum anything, any more than any process that uses light or electricity is "quantum" something. Whilst that is indeed often the case (see also: audophiles; new age health), in this particular instance you're wrong. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_cryptography.
I stopped adding contribution when two articles I wrote... were marked for deletion. When I asked why, the validator answered... I'm not sure you really understand the way Wikipedia works. There's no special class of 'validators'. Anyone can mark any article for deletion. All that means is that there is to be a discussion about it during which anyone (including you) try to come to a consensus about whether the article should be deleted. (The only 'special class of editor' involved is the admin who interprets the consensus at the end of the dicussion, but that's all they do -- interpret the consensus). I could mark the article on Microsoft for deletion if I wanted; though since consensus would be universally against me the mark would probably be removed very quickly.
(N.B. The above assumes the mark was an AfD. If it was a prod, then you can remove it yourself; if the prodder wants to press it they would have to switch to AfD).
The test of notability in Wikipedia is "if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" (Source: WP:N). This definition is not only not something rashly invented "in [a] blind rush to become a 'real' encyclopedia", it is central to the way Wikipedia works.
You see, Wikipedia is a compendium of existing knowledge, not original research, or unpublished facts, arguments, or concepts. Material must be verifiable, with citation in reliable, third-party published sources. If there *is* no information on reliable sources independent of the subject available -- our definition of "notable" above, remember -- then there is nothing of which an encyclopedia article can be comprised.
Compiz and Beryl came way before Vista's release, buster. That might have been a relevent comment if Microsoft, like Apple, were reticent and secretive about their products until their release.
But since Microsoft have been showing off their Longhorn desktop compositor since Winhec 2003 (Videos, including "Beryl-style" floppy windows; not to mention with gratuitous numbers of leaked Longhorn alphas), several years before Beryl and Compiz; it's a bit cheeky to stand there and claim that since Vista didn't go gold until 2007, it was copying the *nix implementations and not vice-versa.
Linux desktop apps get criticized for their GUI every time they do something different. Actually, it has been my experience that apps only tend to be criticised if they do something different from the usual way arbitrarily; for no good reason or 'just to be different'. Since the original way is often that way for a good reason, this tends to result in a worse interface than what would have resulted if the implementers just copied what people actually schooled in UI design were doing. Even if there is no usability advantage to one way or the other (as is often the case with keyboard shortcuts), keeping to the established shortcuts enables people to transfer their knowledge of shortcuts from other applications to that one, for faster learnability.
GUIs that are genuinely more usable and innovative -- usually because they are based on actual data from usability studies and tests, rather than the programmers'design ideas -- are regularly lauded.
But since a lot of people seem to believe that GUI usability is equivalent to the the precense of features such as window shading, I fear that such applications will continue to be the exception rather than the norm.
Outlook 2007 doesn't use the controversial Ribbon toolbar like the rest of the Office 12 suite Yes it does. The ribbon is a document authoring UI, so whilst Outlook obviously doesn't use it the main window, it still makes more use out of it than any other Office app: it's used for writing emails, calendar appointments, address book contacts, tasks, etc., etc.
But it still falls short when it comes to rendering and printing docs and having them look the same as in MS Office. If it is essential that a document be rendered identically on different machines, a word processor -- any word processor -- is the wrong tool for the job. If something needs to be viewed only, export to pdf; if it needs to be edited as well, use DTP software.
That's not the point. The point is how certain people can be that the pens don't do crap when they really have no justification for it. In too many cases there is no more scientific basis for claims of no difference than there is for claims of difference. [...] If a successfull disk read is perfect, why is a robust error recovery system implemented in CDs? You claim that "no more scientific basis for claims of no difference than there is for claims of difference" -- and then promptly supply the mechanism by which a scientific basis for claims of no difference is trivially achievable (and has been done, many times): a digital error counter connected to the CD player. I'm not going to do your work for you; Google it. (Whilst you're at it, try Googling the concept of "burden of proof" as it relates to Scientific scepticism...).
Hi. FIRSTLY, could you please stop CAPITALISING words at RANDOM; it is quite DISTRACTING. If you wish to use mild emphasis, use italics (text</i>).
The newer version is ALWAYS slower on the same old hardware, if it will even run at all. Hmm. It appears you have not actually read my post. This is strange, as it is the post you replied to.
VISTA is essentially unusable on a 4 year old, 512Meg RAM box Correct. That is the part of your original post that I agreed with, as you would know if you'd read it (see above).
On the particular case of Vista against XP; in informal experimentation, the key factor seems to be RAM, and point of equality between Vista and XP seems to be around 1.5GB. With less than this, Vista is measurably slower than XP. With more than this, given a reasonable (not necessarily dual-core) processor, Vista is faster than XP, as you would expect given its much better use of unused RAM as a performance cache (superfetch) than XP. I would emphasize that I have not run comparable formal benchmarks, and this is informal observation only. However, it seems to jibe with most people's experiences.
The problem MS has is that it claimed in U.S. court and in front of Congress that it could not remove WMP or IE from Windows because they were so tightly integrated.
If it complies with the EU, it could be charged with perjury here in the U.S. and it could also have some interesting effects as it might cause a new browser lawsuit. No. Two different things. The US suit was about IE, not WMP; IE was what Microsoft claimed was too tightly integrated into the OS. The EU suit was the one that was (among other things) about WMP, and MS *did* make an edition of Windows without WMP in back in 2004. (It was sold for the same price as regular Windows, and IIRC, it sold something like seven copies in total worldwide. Go figure.)
Slashdot Mirror
To state what a few people have skirted around but no-one's said explicitly: This Story Is Bollocks . All the same old web standard fonts are still included in Vista. Calls to them are in no way, shape, or form redirected to the new fonts. If you specify Times New Roman, or Arial, or Verdana, etc., Vista users will see it rendered exactly the same as anyone else; in the same fonts as everyone else. There's no need for web designers to download the new fonts to "let you see your page as your Vista users see it", because Vista users will see it the same as everyone else sees it.
It does. All the same fonts that used to be there are still there. If a web page specifies Arial, you still get Arial. It's not as if MS have removed the old standard fonts and are redirecting calls from the old ones to the new ones.
It's a memory leak related to large NTFS alternate data streams, not any fundamental limit. If you're not running Kaspersky (which attaches data streams to every file) and you don't specifically use alternate data streams, it shouldn't be a problem.
Long answer: see "Short answer"
See: http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=327635&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=20981805
Personalization (inc. themes and desktop effects) are per-user settings, so don't need privilege authorization.
But then, from your post, I'm guessing your sum knowledge of the Principle of Least Privilege and the idea of LUA accounts is derived from Apple advertisments. May I recommend Google?
Actually, I do use Vista, and you can change what the power button does in Power Options.
Also, even if you never use the button and just use the menu every time, it's still no more clicks than XP (3: XP -- Start, Turn Off Computer, Shut Down; Vista -- Start, arrow, Shut Down).
BTW, alt+F4 with the desktop selected brings up the old 2000-style shut down dialogue.
(N.B. The above assumes the mark was an AfD. If it was a prod, then you can remove it yourself; if the prodder wants to press it they would have to switch to AfD).
No.
The test of notability in Wikipedia is "if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" (Source: WP:N). This definition is not only not something rashly invented "in [a] blind rush to become a 'real' encyclopedia", it is central to the way Wikipedia works.
You see, Wikipedia is a compendium of existing knowledge, not original research, or unpublished facts, arguments, or concepts. Material must be verifiable, with citation in reliable, third-party published sources. If there *is* no information on reliable sources independent of the subject available -- our definition of "notable" above, remember -- then there is nothing of which an encyclopedia article can be comprised.
But since Microsoft have been showing off their Longhorn desktop compositor since Winhec 2003 (Videos, including "Beryl-style" floppy windows; not to mention with gratuitous numbers of leaked Longhorn alphas), several years before Beryl and Compiz; it's a bit cheeky to stand there and claim that since Vista didn't go gold until 2007, it was copying the *nix implementations and not vice-versa.
GUIs that are genuinely more usable and innovative -- usually because they are based on actual data from usability studies and tests, rather than the programmers' design ideas -- are regularly lauded.
But since a lot of people seem to believe that GUI usability is equivalent to the the precense of features such as window shading, I fear that such applications will continue to be the exception rather than the norm.
It hasn't.
It doesn't appear in Excel 2003 SP3 because it's never appeared in Office 2003 because it's an Office 2007 bug.
Hence the story title. You know, "Excel 2007 multiplication bug".
Duh.
http://www.audioholics.com/education/loudspeaker-basics/speaker-break-in-fact-or-fiction
On the particular case of Vista against XP; in informal experimentation, the key factor seems to be RAM, and point of equality between Vista and XP seems to be around 1.5GB. With less than this, Vista is measurably slower than XP. With more than this, given a reasonable (not necessarily dual-core) processor, Vista is faster than XP, as you would expect given its much better use of unused RAM as a performance cache (superfetch) than XP. I would emphasize that I have not run comparable formal benchmarks, and this is informal observation only. However, it seems to jibe with most people's experiences.