I have used all the Windows desktop OS'es from win95 in a work environment (work in IT) and I must say that Win7 is a rather good OS.
Don't forget though, that the new features it has is because it is the latest of the breed, and any other new groundbreakers that might be added will have to wait until Win8 (or whatever it is going to be called)
With Linux you can have new features and improvements to existing ones more regularly.
So let me get this straight - you have the multiple monitor screen thing down pat in XP, you shell out a few hundred quid for Vista, and now it does not work. You have the option of going back to XP, or shelling out a few hundred quid more for Windows 7 to get it working again!
Now THAT is progress for you.
Or you could go to Linux and get it working for free. Hmm... choices...
Know what. I have never had any mod points, and I have been around/. since 2000, this is my third/fourth nick (lost passwords and lost e-mail account combos - never use a work e-mail to administer your./ account once you change work and lose the account you can get locked out of your account by forgetting the password pretty easily. And yeah I used some really hardcore passwords back then which I tended to forget...:( )
Weird.
(Unless I miss when I get them - which makes me a total dork...)
Well same here. I got vista with this laptop this year, and I put Win7 on it because I need to support it from time to time.
I am a linux user myself, and I enjoy keeping up with the latest releases.
I take it you are a rather tech savvy user, so for you running XP (i guess that is what you run) is okay, but there are people out there who would run XP since 2002 sans many updates/patches, and the only way they update is by buying new.
It is the wrong way of going about it, I know, but a case in point I had to try and fix a Win98 machine the other day that have not seen new software (or updates for anything) in heck knows when. Come to think of it I don't even know if 98 used to get service packs...
Given my argument, the real world needs regular OS updates. Nobody is forcing you to buy new, unless you get with your hardware - argument for another thread - and why should a vendor get top dollar for a seven year old OS, where with a structured release cycle + structured service pack cycle you at least know you are getting *some* value for your money? At worst the software you are getting would be three years old+service packs.
I am all for frequent releases. The problem is that you cannot expect users to shell out for a new release every six months. Either you have to drop your price A LOT, or you do one paid release every three years with free service packs in between.
That is kindoff what is happening now, but I think that Windows and users could benefit from a more structured release cycle.
While I agree there is a problem. The shorter the release cycle, the more incremental the releases needs to be.
1. Users won't like having to shell out for a new windows every 6 months to a year. 2. Vendors won't like needing to re-write drivers for whatever the spread of hardware it is that they still update drivers for every year.
This means that at shortest a two-year release cycle at least makes sense, it is also about how often I'd expect a user who is serious about his IT to upgrade his notebook/pc.
The march of Technology on the other hand dictates a shorter release cycle though, small increments and often releases.
The optimum would probably a totally new version every three years, with proper service pack type updates every six months which actually are incrimental new releases.
In that way Win7 would have been a service pack, and the next new version could have been a proper full overhaul. I think economically it makes a lot more sense as well, you get a buy cycle that is predictable, hardware vendors get a lot of time to prepare their hardware and there is a general consensus with users and developers both knowing what to expect.
While I agree with both your sentiments as wel as the AC above caricaturing a person based on race is clearly NOT OK.
That is the issue at hand here.
I live in South Africa and have family and friends in Zim living (at least trying to) under the Mugabe regime, trust me I see him in as low a light as is possible.
Side-tracking the issue by pointing out his flaws is not helpful to discuss whether to put a caricature image of anybody online.
If you were a pakistani who's family got killed by a drone would you see a caricature of Mrs Obama in the same light as a caricature of Mugabe?
Under freedom of speech either should be allowed to be expressed.
But under common decency neither should be encouraged.
Why would a racially charged comparisson fall into a different category? And for that matter, IF a racially charged comparisson does fall into a special category why do Michele Obama images get removed and not the images that compare Robert Mugabe with a chimp?
Are some people more equal than others?
That said, I think stooping to doing something like this, or the Bush chimp images are in bad taste. The idiots who make images like these are the ones who should apologize, google is a gateway to the internet and not responsible for how other people use the internet.
On that point, slippery slope time - will it be possible in future that "offensive" websites are removed from google search results on demand from groups such as governments in the future? I mean google does something similar for China wrt search results, how long before it spreads worldwide?
Because "Driving without care or attention" has two possible problems.
1 - It is easier for a cop to say "I am fining you because you are talking on your cell while driving" as opposed to "I am fining you for driving without care or attention because you are talking on your cellphone while driving" and to make the point without wasting both parties time.
And by the power of "Slippery Slope," that could be argued (and is, hence the ridiculous state of affairs I allude to;) to apply to absolutely anything that could cause anyone to drive without "due care or attention," like drinking, smoking, talking to passengers...
Why have 100's of individual laws to cover every eventuality, when a carefully worded single law to cover them all would suffice? (Yes, I realise there's a problem with laws in other areas that are too general - I don't believe this to be the case with this one)
Well carefully worded would eventually lead to what we have not IMO.
2 - "Driving without care or attention" leaves too much room for subjective argumentation - "But I can drive just as well while on the cell as when I am not!" and in (1) above it can become really problematic.
Take it to a judge then. The roadside is not the place for these sorts of arguments, in much the same way it isn't the place to argue whether you were driving 35 in a 30 zone or not.
Agreed, yet the side of the road is exactly where these kinds of arguments take place isn't it?
Yes, and also if he drops his ciggy on his crotch while driving the monstrosity he is in control of he will be a danger on the road. You try and put out a fire on your gronks while trying to maintain control of a vehicle.
Because "Driving without care or attention" has two possible problems.
1 - It is easier for a cop to say "I am fining you because you are talking on your cell while driving" as opposed to "I am fining you for driving without care or attention because you are talking on your cellphone while driving" and to make the point without wasting both parties time.
2 - "Driving without care or attention" leaves too much room for subjective argumentation - "But I can drive just as well while on the cell as when I am not!" and in (1) above it can become really problematic.
Since then I have done the opposite of being the bofh.
One of the girls who work there was one of the main culprits in spreading the virus around by sending the mail to EVERYONE and copying files from every darn flashdrive she can get her hands on.
So I started joking with her regarding her having the most viruses on her computer, and since they are in an open plan office I did not need to work very hard to make that apparent. Also her Outlook broke, refused to run in anything but safe mode.
I refused to fix it. I just looked at it, fooled around with it a bit and loudly proclamed "Heck it must've broken because of that virus you had!"
Since that day there has been the odd virus mail (the greeting card type ones are very popular...) there have not been a major breakout of viruses. Usually they still begin with that girl - she just don't listen about security and so on - but as soon as anyone gets NOD complaining about a virus the attitude is to get in contact with me immediately, and to not forward each other funny mails.
Heck they even refuse funnies from this girl and her flashdrive is not allowed on anyones computer - not via management directive, but because the users themselves don't want her flashdrive.
I have caused her to be a bit of a computer leper, and for that reason there has been exactly two virus scares...
The director of any agency does not necessarily deal with all the scams and most likely not with IT. He runs the business/admin side of things, and he has people working under him to take care of things like security etc.
What seems to be missed is that phishers has the e-mail address of the director of the FBI. Either it is a personal e-mail address - and I am not even sure people in that position are allowed to have personal/web e-mails. OR it is his FBI address - and that is more worrying than that he almost fell for a scam.
Another thing that worries me is that he takes nothing away from this experience - almost got caught, so I won't bank online anymore. Heck I would expect someone of his stature to go - Almost got caught, yikes better make sure that does not happen again.
The direct effect of this is that the director of the FBI is now going to either bank by phone (and that is a security hole right there) or going to wait in the qeue at the bank - exposing him to other risks.
I would've thought that higher up officials such as him had access to alternative more secure methods of doing things like bankin - how does the President of the USA do it, for instance?
Slashdot Mirror
I have used all the Windows desktop OS'es from win95 in a work environment (work in IT) and I must say that Win7 is a rather good OS.
Don't forget though, that the new features it has is because it is the latest of the breed, and any other new groundbreakers that might be added will have to wait until Win8 (or whatever it is going to be called)
With Linux you can have new features and improvements to existing ones more regularly.
So let me get this straight - you have the multiple monitor screen thing down pat in XP, you shell out a few hundred quid for Vista, and now it does not work. You have the option of going back to XP, or shelling out a few hundred quid more for Windows 7 to get it working again!
Now THAT is progress for you.
Or you could go to Linux and get it working for free. Hmm... choices...
Oh and to add irony and insult I get modded -1 Overrated.
Thanks a lot guy...
Know what. I have never had any mod points, and I have been around /. since 2000, this is my third/fourth nick (lost passwords and lost e-mail account combos - never use a work e-mail to administer your ./ account once you change work and lose the account you can get locked out of your account by forgetting the password pretty easily. And yeah I used some really hardcore passwords back then which I tended to forget... :( )
Weird.
(Unless I miss when I get them - which makes me a total dork...)
Well same here. I got vista with this laptop this year, and I put Win7 on it because I need to support it from time to time.
I am a linux user myself, and I enjoy keeping up with the latest releases.
I take it you are a rather tech savvy user, so for you running XP (i guess that is what you run) is okay, but there are people out there who would run XP since 2002 sans many updates/patches, and the only way they update is by buying new.
It is the wrong way of going about it, I know, but a case in point I had to try and fix a Win98 machine the other day that have not seen new software (or updates for anything) in heck knows when. Come to think of it I don't even know if 98 used to get service packs...
Given my argument, the real world needs regular OS updates. Nobody is forcing you to buy new, unless you get with your hardware - argument for another thread - and why should a vendor get top dollar for a seven year old OS, where with a structured release cycle + structured service pack cycle you at least know you are getting *some* value for your money? At worst the software you are getting would be three years old+service packs.
Isn't that a better scenario?
I am all for frequent releases. The problem is that you cannot expect users to shell out for a new release every six months. Either you have to drop your price A LOT, or you do one paid release every three years with free service packs in between.
That is kindoff what is happening now, but I think that Windows and users could benefit from a more structured release cycle.
While I agree there is a problem. The shorter the release cycle, the more incremental the releases needs to be.
1. Users won't like having to shell out for a new windows every 6 months to a year.
2. Vendors won't like needing to re-write drivers for whatever the spread of hardware it is that they still update drivers for every year.
This means that at shortest a two-year release cycle at least makes sense, it is also about how often I'd expect a user who is serious about his IT to upgrade his notebook/pc.
The march of Technology on the other hand dictates a shorter release cycle though, small increments and often releases.
The optimum would probably a totally new version every three years, with proper service pack type updates every six months which actually are incrimental new releases.
In that way Win7 would have been a service pack, and the next new version could have been a proper full overhaul. I think economically it makes a lot more sense as well, you get a buy cycle that is predictable, hardware vendors get a lot of time to prepare their hardware and there is a general consensus with users and developers both knowing what to expect.
That. Was. Awesome!
Bravo - you shouldn't have posted that AC.
Wow.
This honestly has to be the first spambot I ever seen around these parts...
Well it seems that we broadly agree then.
While I agree with both your sentiments as wel as the AC above caricaturing a person based on race is clearly NOT OK.
That is the issue at hand here.
I live in South Africa and have family and friends in Zim living (at least trying to) under the Mugabe regime, trust me I see him in as low a light as is possible.
Side-tracking the issue by pointing out his flaws is not helpful to discuss whether to put a caricature image of anybody online.
If you were a pakistani who's family got killed by a drone would you see a caricature of Mrs Obama in the same light as a caricature of Mugabe?
Under freedom of speech either should be allowed to be expressed.
But under common decency neither should be encouraged.
Where to draw the line then?
Why would a racially charged comparisson fall into a different category? And for that matter, IF a racially charged comparisson does fall into a special category why do Michele Obama images get removed and not the images that compare Robert Mugabe with a chimp?
Are some people more equal than others?
That said, I think stooping to doing something like this, or the Bush chimp images are in bad taste. The idiots who make images like these are the ones who should apologize, google is a gateway to the internet and not responsible for how other people use the internet.
On that point, slippery slope time - will it be possible in future that "offensive" websites are removed from google search results on demand from groups such as governments in the future? I mean google does something similar for China wrt search results, how long before it spreads worldwide?
Oh come on! That is seriously funny whomever voted this flamebait. It right up there with "Where is the any key!?!?!"
Dude you just used "UK", "terrorist", "jobs", "problem", "half the people in the UK" and "in one shot" in a slashdot post.
You should've posted anonymously!
If you are from the UK you are screwed bro...
Because "Driving without care or attention" has two possible problems.
1 - It is easier for a cop to say "I am fining you because you are talking on your cell while driving" as opposed to "I am fining you for driving without care or attention because you are talking on your cellphone while driving" and to make the point without wasting both parties time.
And by the power of "Slippery Slope," that could be argued (and is, hence the ridiculous state of affairs I allude to;) to apply to absolutely anything that could cause anyone to drive without "due care or attention," like drinking, smoking, talking to passengers...
Why have 100's of individual laws to cover every eventuality, when a carefully worded single law to cover them all would suffice? (Yes, I realise there's a problem with laws in other areas that are too general - I don't believe this to be the case with this one)
Well carefully worded would eventually lead to what we have not IMO.
2 - "Driving without care or attention" leaves too much room for subjective argumentation - "But I can drive just as well while on the cell as when I am not!" and in (1) above it can become really problematic.
Take it to a judge then. The roadside is not the place for these sorts of arguments, in much the same way it isn't the place to argue whether you were driving 35 in a 30 zone or not.
Agreed, yet the side of the road is exactly where these kinds of arguments take place isn't it?
Oh for a perfect world...
Too much coffee this morning eh?
Yes, and also if he drops his ciggy on his crotch while driving the monstrosity he is in control of he will be a danger on the road. You try and put out a fire on your gronks while trying to maintain control of a vehicle.
Smoking and driving can be dangerous too.
Because "Driving without care or attention" has two possible problems.
1 - It is easier for a cop to say "I am fining you because you are talking on your cell while driving" as opposed to "I am fining you for driving without care or attention because you are talking on your cellphone while driving" and to make the point without wasting both parties time.
2 - "Driving without care or attention" leaves too much room for subjective argumentation - "But I can drive just as well while on the cell as when I am not!" and in (1) above it can become really problematic.
LIES.
It is perfectly visible. Check a few replies up for some screenies.
Can that, here is the link to the relevant reply.
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1417105&cid=29858989
HAHAHA priceless. Just beautiful. Thanks for that.
I can second that. I tried the opposite and for some reason it worked, below is a link to my own "I clicked on an email link" type virus scenario.
(Apologies for the shameless blog punt...)
http://blog.g33q.co.za/2009/07/16/why-no-operating-system-is-safe-not-one/
Since then I have done the opposite of being the bofh.
One of the girls who work there was one of the main culprits in spreading the virus around by sending the mail to EVERYONE and copying files from every darn flashdrive she can get her hands on.
So I started joking with her regarding her having the most viruses on her computer, and since they are in an open plan office I did not need to work very hard to make that apparent. Also her Outlook broke, refused to run in anything but safe mode.
I refused to fix it. I just looked at it, fooled around with it a bit and loudly proclamed "Heck it must've broken because of that virus you had!"
Since that day there has been the odd virus mail (the greeting card type ones are very popular...) there have not been a major breakout of viruses. Usually they still begin with that girl - she just don't listen about security and so on - but as soon as anyone gets NOD complaining about a virus the attitude is to get in contact with me immediately, and to not forward each other funny mails.
Heck they even refuse funnies from this girl and her flashdrive is not allowed on anyones computer - not via management directive, but because the users themselves don't want her flashdrive.
I have caused her to be a bit of a computer leper, and for that reason there has been exactly two virus scares...
I think you define "average person" very widely...
I am not surprised.
The director of any agency does not necessarily deal with all the scams and most likely not with IT. He runs the business/admin side of things, and he has people working under him to take care of things like security etc.
What seems to be missed is that phishers has the e-mail address of the director of the FBI. Either it is a personal e-mail address - and I am not even sure people in that position are allowed to have personal/web e-mails. OR it is his FBI address - and that is more worrying than that he almost fell for a scam.
Another thing that worries me is that he takes nothing away from this experience - almost got caught, so I won't bank online anymore. Heck I would expect someone of his stature to go - Almost got caught, yikes better make sure that does not happen again.
The direct effect of this is that the director of the FBI is now going to either bank by phone (and that is a security hole right there) or going to wait in the qeue at the bank - exposing him to other risks.
I would've thought that higher up officials such as him had access to alternative more secure methods of doing things like bankin - how does the President of the USA do it, for instance?
How is this about politics? I thought this was about bloggers and reviewers of products? Or do politicions and their parties also get in on that act?
I'd say they have been giving AMD a run for their money this past year or so...