Your old home page is preserved by the IE7 upgrade. And it's actually way easier more intuitive to set the homepage than before; just click the arrow next to the 'home' icon rather than tools -> settings etc.
But whoever let facts get in the way of some decent Microsoft-bashing, eh?
I don't see how it's a case of 'mouse love'. All the old keyboard shortcuts will work. The 'alt' shortcuts are actually way improved; *all* commands now have alt keyboard shortcuts (for commands that already had them, of coruse, the key sequence is unchanged).
But then, I suppose knowing that would require you to have -- god forbid -- actually used the interface you so revile...
How is it a Mac-style interface? Could you give an example of any Apple app that behaves even remotely like this?
I'd say it's the opposite. Doesn't the interface for Mac applications usually revolves around the menubar that's permanently at the top of the screen? Which is actually a very good idea -- Fitt's law and all that -- but means that this is hardly a case of MS copying Apple...
All your old macros will work fine; new top-level menus, toolbars, etc. created will be routed to a tab in the ribbon called 'add-ins' automatically. As you'd know if you'd done even the slightest research into the issue.
I don't know about number 3, but 1 and 2 were a fact of life with Sony's minidisc players. You could only access the device with the supplied software, ironically called OpenMG Jukebox (which incidentally was orange and purple, had been quite blatently translated from Japanese by a non native speaker of English, and had the worst interface of any application I have ever used before or since). Music copied to the minidisc was converted to ATRAC3 format, and could not be copied back to the computer, ever -- even the exact same computer that had just copied the music onto it. I bought an iPod a few months later, it was that awful.
For general purpose use, at the moment, flourescents are probably still better -- if only because LEDs engineered highly enough to produce the same quality light output (both in terms of candlepower, colour temperature, and CRI) are still pretty expensive. And don't believe anyone that tells you "LEDs last forever" -- whilst they won't 'burn out' for a long time, the phosphor coating does get less effective over time; after a year or two an LED will be noticably less bright than it was originally. This post has more.
How the hell did you get modded insightful? I have a PocketPC in front of me (not even close the latest version; it's from 2002). You can click on a time slot and start typing. Have you just never tried it?
It's good they modded you funny because it is incredibly funny that snopes did that level of rounding. They have to be joking. As a poster above said the CIA would beg to differ with you (and the number above would likewise indicate a slight disparity in population which is lost when you disregard all proper mathematics and forget grade-school math concepts like significant digits). I'm afraid I don't understand your complaint. You say "the CIA would beg to differ with you" (by which I assume you mean with the United Nations document statistic I quoted), but the CIA number *is* the UN number, given to 3 sig figs. Given to 2 sig figs, that same number is equivalent to a percentage split of 50/50 (the percentage from the UN figure is 50.375..% to 49.625..% which, to the nearest percentage point, is 50/50) as Snopes said. I would assume the CIA gave their figure to 3 s.f. for convenience and ease of comparison -- it's not as if they believe that the results would not be justified to be given to more than 3 s.f. since they give the figures for age structure and population to a whopping 9 to 10 s.f. (which, by the way, is no way statistically justifiable).
Google was by no means the first with a proper, instant, as-you-type desktop search product; Copernic had one way before them. I don't even think Copernic was the first; anyone know who was? I know it's bad form to reply to myself, but Furball answered by question 5 minutes before I asked it, with BeOS back in 1997. Any advance on 1997?
This stuff sounds like the google desktop search that sits in my coworker's taskbar... not some ripoff of the MacOS per se Google was by no means the first with a proper, instant, as-you-type desktop search product; Copernic had one way before them. I don't even think Copernic was the first; anyone know who was?
It's the same story with widgets/gadgets. Everyone argues whether Windows or MacOS was the first to come up with the idea, when the correct answer was neither of them: Konfabulator predated both. And Stardock had similar functionality in their DesktopX product way back before even Konfabulator. And again, I wouldn't even state with confidence that they were the first.
This same story is repeated all over the place. Rare is the feature that is truly revolutionary; completely new. Almost all have evolved over a number of years, usually as products of small, single-purpose companies, or as freeware. Only when they have reached relative maturity are they quietly stolen by Apple and Microsoft for use in the Latest And Greatest OSs.
SQL Server runs just fine on XP, in fact I use XP Pro for development and some XP Home for testing, all running SQL Server. I used to deploy production machines with SQL Server on Windows 2000. Check your facts! To the best of my knowledge, I was telling the truth -- the Standard and Enterprise editions don't work with 2000 Pro or XP. Apparently, though, the developer edition, which I'd never heard of (of SQL server 2000) *does* work with XP. Also, apparently, does the trial version, for some reason. My original post was regurgitating what I'd read elsewhere; I've never used SQL myself. Apologies.
Ummm, most of 'em. The recompile clause that you tacked on the end really is not relevant because the source exists so that it can be recompiled. A point answered here.
I'll stand by the remark, Access 2007 has a dizzingly useless palette of toolbars that eat up at least 5 to 8 normal toolbar rows. I guess you have never had the actual misfortune of using it. And I stand by mine, You are correct, I haven't yet used it, but I've just had another look round the web, and every screenshot I've seen has the ribbon, a narrow row of tabs, and a sidebar. The sidebar can be hidden. The ribbon can be hidden (as I said, right click and click 'minimize'), and even when maximised takes up less pixels than the previous version with two rows of toolbars (remember, there's no menu bar) -- as I said before, 135 pixels rather than 140.
Parent = Misinformed Shill For Them (i.e., MSFT) Yes, I'm sure Microsoft hire people to hang out on Slashdot. Loads of potential revenue for them there...
I have now learned that, whilst the standard and enterprise editions of SQL server don't run on Windows 2000 or XP, the developer edition apparently does. Apologies for the misinformation.
It's an urban myth that the split is 48/52. From Snopes:
According to that same United Nations document, the world population in the year 2000 consisted of 3,051,099,000 men and 3,005,616,000 women, which (with a little rounding) breaks down to 50 men and 50 women in a population of 100.
I just cannot believe that MSFT did not break SQL Server for Vista on purpose Sorry, you're talking bull. Vista is a consumer version of Windows. Consumer versions of Windows have NEVER run SQL server. XP didn't, 200 Pro didn't, 9x didn't. SQL Server is for server versions of Windows. The clue's in the name.
The chances are finite that the next version of the Linux kernel will break MySQL but that it VERY small You're seriously trying to assert that Linux is better for backward compatibility than Windows? Name a single application from 10 years ago that works in a modern version of Linux without needing to be recompiled. By contrast, quite a lot of, for example, DOS games still work in Vista -- hell, Visicalc still runs in Vista.
Access 2007 has more tool bars than screen space The default toolbar in Access 2007 takes up less space than in the previous version (135 pixels vs 140 -- count 'em!).
try to shut them off, I dare you Uh, right click on the toolbar and click minimize, I dare you.
I apologise; you're right, 95 didn't have indexing -- but 2000 and XP both did (though I think it was disabled by default). My main point would be unaffected even if 2000 & XP didn't have it (that indexing (which Mac Os 8.5, 2000, & XP all used) is not by itself the same as the fast searching technology used in Spotlight and Vista).
So? Ubuntu does the same thing. How you've extrapolated that to mean that "someone in a remote location [has] more control over it than you do" is beyond me. *No-one* -- least of all "someone in a remote location" -- has full root privelages unless they are specifically granted, just like Ubuntu.
Yeah right. Vista doesn't run SQL server, and that's a MS product Ummm... XP didn't run SQL server either. Neither did Windows 2000 pro. Or ME, or 98, or 95. Why? because SQL server is for servers, and none of the OSes I've mentioned, including Vista, are servers. Longhorn server *qill* run SQL server, just like Windows 2003 server, Windows 2000 server, etc. The clue's in the name.
I can't find the quote, but I'm pretty certain the Google have categorically denied that they are making their own OS or planning to do so. That given, "this battle over the market" doesn't actually seem to exist, let alone be something that Microsoft has "lost".
One thing I'm tired of in the Windows Vista/Mac OSX comparisons is the claim that indexed search was a Vista feature first. I'm afraid Mac OS has featured Indexed search since Mac OS 8.5 was released in 1998 with Sherlock. Sherlock was based on the Apple Advanced Technology Group's V-Twin search engine. Sherlock did a full index of text in documents on all hard drives and allowed users to search on document contents before Longhorn was even a code name. If you want to define fast searching as anything that uses an index, then Windows XP would qualify as well, since it used indexing. As did all versions of Windows since 95. As did, as you say, Mac OS. And yes, previous versions of Windows could search inside files just as Mac OS could. You boast that "Sherlock did a full index of text in documents on all hard drives and allowed users to search on document contents before Longhorn was even a code name" -- which is perfectly true, but utterly misleading, since Windows 95 could so the same before Sherlock was even a code name.
The equivalent of the fast searching capability that Vista uses isn't Sherlock, but Spotlight. As to the question of which of them was the first with this, the correct answer is -- neither of them, since Copernic Desktop Search predated both...
A publicity stunt by whom exactly? It would have to be someone who gains from FUD about Vista & Microsoft, which rather limits the field. It's hardly Apple's style, and I can't exactly imagine it's a group of philanthropic open source advocates who are trying to get everyone to switch to Linux.
Yes, you can still keep things reasonably safe; as long as you:
Have a virus scanner that scans all incoming and outgoing email *before* your email program gets at it (For example, AVG, which is free).
Have a firewall -- preferably a hardware firewall, but a good software one like Zonealarm will do at a pinch.
And most importantly -- don't use IE and OE. This isn't any bias on my part, only that any program you use that connects to the internet should be kept completely up to date. Since this is impossible with IE & OE on 98 & ME, don't use them. Try Firefox & Thunderbird -- Actually, maybe Opera rather than Firefox (there have been memory leak issues reported with Firefox, and neither 9x nor ME handle memory anywhere near as well as 2000 & XP).
With the precautions, as long as you use common sense (don't download dogy execuables, don't open unsolicited email attatchments, don't install "free" programs that come bundled with tons of spyware, etc.), you should be fine.
Slashdot Mirror
Your old home page is preserved by the IE7 upgrade. And it's actually way easier more intuitive to set the homepage than before; just click the arrow next to the 'home' icon rather than tools -> settings etc.
But whoever let facts get in the way of some decent Microsoft-bashing, eh?
I don't see how it's a case of 'mouse love'. All the old keyboard shortcuts will work. The 'alt' shortcuts are actually way improved; *all* commands now have alt keyboard shortcuts (for commands that already had them, of coruse, the key sequence is unchanged).
But then, I suppose knowing that would require you to have -- god forbid -- actually used the interface you so revile...
How is it a Mac-style interface? Could you give an example of any Apple app that behaves even remotely like this?
I'd say it's the opposite. Doesn't the interface for Mac applications usually revolves around the menubar that's permanently at the top of the screen? Which is actually a very good idea -- Fitt's law and all that -- but means that this is hardly a case of MS copying Apple...
All your old macros will work fine; new top-level menus, toolbars, etc. created will be routed to a tab in the ribbon called 'add-ins' automatically. As you'd know if you'd done even the slightest research into the issue.
4 85597.aspx for a further explanation, or here for a screenshot (albeit from beta 1).
See http://blogs.msdn.com/jensenh/archive/2005/10/27/
I don't know about number 3, but 1 and 2 were a fact of life with Sony's minidisc players. You could only access the device with the supplied software, ironically called OpenMG Jukebox (which incidentally was orange and purple, had been quite blatently translated from Japanese by a non native speaker of English, and had the worst interface of any application I have ever used before or since). Music copied to the minidisc was converted to ATRAC3 format, and could not be copied back to the computer, ever -- even the exact same computer that had just copied the music onto it. I bought an iPod a few months later, it was that awful.
For general purpose use, at the moment, flourescents are probably still better -- if only because LEDs engineered highly enough to produce the same quality light output (both in terms of candlepower, colour temperature, and CRI) are still pretty expensive. And don't believe anyone that tells you "LEDs last forever" -- whilst they won't 'burn out' for a long time, the phosphor coating does get less effective over time; after a year or two an LED will be noticably less bright than it was originally. This post has more.
Having said that, they are quite cool.
Another update -- Brandon LeBlanc has now done a much fuller post on the laptop, and diclosed it's source.
In other news, Ed Bott's stated he's going to auction his off in aid of disaster relief charities after he's done reviewing it.
Apology & correction -- "Brandon LeBlanc" doesn't mention the source of his laptop; however, the others all do.
What "silence over the source of the laptops"? The bloggers mentioned in TFA all mentioned that the laptops were from Microsoft & AMD...
How the hell did you get modded insightful? I have a PocketPC in front of me (not even close the latest version; it's from 2002). You can click on a time slot and start typing. Have you just never tried it?
It's the same story with widgets/gadgets. Everyone argues whether Windows or MacOS was the first to come up with the idea, when the correct answer was neither of them: Konfabulator predated both. And Stardock had similar functionality in their DesktopX product way back before even Konfabulator. And again, I wouldn't even state with confidence that they were the first.
This same story is repeated all over the place. Rare is the feature that is truly revolutionary; completely new. Almost all have evolved over a number of years, usually as products of small, single-purpose companies, or as freeware. Only when they have reached relative maturity are they quietly stolen by Apple and Microsoft for use in the Latest And Greatest OSs.
I posted a correction and apology over an hour ago; it's the one above yours.
I have now learned that, whilst the standard and enterprise editions of SQL server don't run on Windows 2000 or XP, the developer edition apparently does. Apologies for the misinformation.
Parent = FUD.
I apologise; you're right, 95 didn't have indexing -- but 2000 and XP both did (though I think it was disabled by default). My main point would be unaffected even if 2000 & XP didn't have it (that indexing (which Mac Os 8.5, 2000, & XP all used) is not by itself the same as the fast searching technology used in Spotlight and Vista).
So? Ubuntu does the same thing. How you've extrapolated that to mean that "someone in a remote location [has] more control over it than you do" is beyond me. *No-one* -- least of all "someone in a remote location" -- has full root privelages unless they are specifically granted, just like Ubuntu.
I can't find the quote, but I'm pretty certain the Google have categorically denied that they are making their own OS or planning to do so. That given, "this battle over the market" doesn't actually seem to exist, let alone be something that Microsoft has "lost".
The equivalent of the fast searching capability that Vista uses isn't Sherlock, but Spotlight. As to the question of which of them was the first with this, the correct answer is -- neither of them, since Copernic Desktop Search predated both...
A publicity stunt by whom exactly? It would have to be someone who gains from FUD about Vista & Microsoft, which rather limits the field. It's hardly Apple's style, and I can't exactly imagine it's a group of philanthropic open source advocates who are trying to get everyone to switch to Linux.
- Have a virus scanner that scans all incoming and outgoing email *before* your email program gets at it (For example, AVG, which is free).
- Have a firewall -- preferably a hardware firewall, but a good software one like Zonealarm will do at a pinch.
- And most importantly -- don't use IE and OE. This isn't any bias on my part, only that any program you use that connects to the internet should be kept completely up to date. Since this is impossible with IE & OE on 98 & ME, don't use them. Try Firefox & Thunderbird -- Actually, maybe Opera rather than Firefox (there have been memory leak issues reported with Firefox, and neither 9x nor ME handle memory anywhere near as well as 2000 & XP).
With the precautions, as long as you use common sense (don't download dogy execuables, don't open unsolicited email attatchments, don't install "free" programs that come bundled with tons of spyware, etc.), you should be fine.