Definitely agreed. Perhaps he deserves a REASONABLE fine (as in, try to calculate how many people downloaded his films and multiply that by like $10, not $500,000 or something ridiculous) and some community service. Not being an actual inmate in a prison for a crime that no one is seeing any direct harm from.
Being able to get a decent experience out of Vista on a 1.2 GHz processor with 512 RAM and a 64 MB video card is pretty decent. Being able to get the full experience out of Vista and still play games okay on a system like mine (A64, 1 GB RAM, X800 XL) is also pretty good. Of course I will want to move to 2 gigs in time but the fact that gaming performance of recent titles should still be up to par with 1 GB is nothing to complain about. I think it's pretty ridiculous to assume they purposely made the OS sluggish and poorly coded to entice hardware upgrades.
And really, if your system is less powerful than the Gateway box Ars used, it's probably a very basic use computer that is absolutely fine with 2000 or XP anyway.
Doesn't matter whether I could or not as my university probably won't agree with Allchin. But personally, yeah I'm sure I and many others would be fine without AV software on Vista.
The article mentioned something about most current routers not being compatible with IPv6. I don't need to get a new router when I move to Vista do I?
BTW this is a serious question, as I know nothing about this.
Many of you say Microsoft may want to axe XP SP3 to help speed up Vista adoption and make it seem more attractive. But, as others here have said, SP3 does not NEED to include any fancy new features like SP2 did. At the very least, all it needs is to include all updates since SP2 so I can install a fresh XP slipstreamed with SP3 and have a fully up-to-date system from the get-go. All this does is save users time with XP installations and reduces the time an unpatched system is on the net. I don't see how this would tempt someone to not bother switching to Vista.
The UI is definitely non-standard, and that could scare a lot of XP users. However it's nothing much to be concerned about. My father is a very standard older computer user. Just does the basics and doesn't customize things and doesn't like change. I put IE7 on his system this past weekend and warned him the interface was a bit different. He saw where the address bar was, saw where his Favorites were, and he was good to go, no complaints.
Additionally, the "menu bar" is simply old and out-dated, and not really needed anymore. All of the functionalities within it can easily be found in the new UI in easier to find, less buried locations. Vista and Office 2007 are doing away with it entirely. So it makes sense for MS to have it disabled by default, and for them to put it in an awkward location even when you do enable it.
True, I never know what sites may have been compromised, I'm just speaking from experience. Not only did I never have a problem using IE6, I'm using IE7 now, and do we really know for sure if IE7 is any less secure than Firefox?
Also, one other thing to add about the Secunia report, I am using IE7 RC1 now, not IE6. So let's compare IE7 security throughout this discussion and not IE6's.
- What exactly can the non-geek not do using Firefox to browse the Web. Give us some specifics.
Nothing at all, the general aim of my post was not saying that FF lacks features or usability, it was saying that there is no good reason for a regular user to desire to switch, unless they don't how to maintain their system or don't have someone maintaining it for them, then in that case yes I absolutely agree with others who posted who said FF helps keep them safe and they should use it.
It is precicely because it is integrated into the OS that it is so insecure. It start faster because all its bits are loaded at boot time. The same effect can be achieved by using the Firefox Preloader.
As I said, sure it being integrated leads to it being more insecure, but I an educated user that keeps his system clean and only visits trusted sites, so why should this bother me? I don't need to be locked down like a fort here because I click anything that pops up in my face.
Also, by menntioning the thing about the preloader, you just proved my point even further. With FF, I would have to do EXTRA work and take extra steps to achieve the same speed and convenience that I get with IE7 right out of the box.
"Secunia is reporting on three vulnerabilities in IE6 running on XP SP2.", Nov 2005
Again, I am not visiting websites that are trying to exploit such a vulnerability.
Please, do not take my post as flamebait. I introduce general points.
Many of you are geeks. Admit that, it's okay. Many of you are developers, too. Many of you are enthusiasts and like to tweak and customize out the wazoo. For all of you folk, browsers like FF are great. They're secure, customizable, not Microsoft, everything you could want in a browser.
Now consider everyone else in the world. And actually, this even includes myself, even though I AM an enthusiast and a slight geek. You have IE7, given to you automatically via Windows Updates. No hassles required. It is already on your system, offers tabs and good security, and works without a hitch. It is integrated into the OS so it opens faster and does not introduce any problems. I have used IE6 for years and never once got a virus or spyware because of it.
So please, tell me, why should I switch to Firefox? Answer: I shouldn't.
IE7 may not pass some Acid2 test or whatever, but I am a user, not a developer. IE7 is secure and does what I need and there is really no reason for me to use any other browser.
...that the guy meant, not immediately after four cores? As in four cores will be enough for quite awhile and not just a few years. I highly doubt he meant EVER. No one would be that short-sighted.
With all the talk of mini-cores and how great threaded computing is, it seems too many people have gotten into the mindset that more cores = better, period. Thus I'm glad to hear someone intelligent right from the source state that 8 cores is simply not needed. Sounds logical to me.
I could see a good use for four cores in the very near future if software is written to take advantage of it.
This would terribly upset me if it were to go through. I could nVidia then teaming up with Intel, and you'd basically be forced to either buy an AMD+ATI combo or an Intel+nVidia combo. Nooo thanks.
I understanding your reasoning for not wanting to put the extra work into making it IE-compliant, but aren't you really just screwing over yourself? Do you actually think most regular everyday customers are interested in installing a new browser just to view your site? Hell I'm sure most typical users who go to Best Buy and just pick up a system don't even realize other browsers exist. If you want all your visitors to be happy with your site, it just seems to make sense to me to make it compliant with the most used browser, even if it's annoying and takes more time on your end.
I don't understand you people, who cares if it conforms to standards or not. The fact is, websites are designed to work properly with IE, so they will, period. That's really all the end user cares about. This browser is incredibly functional, fast, and secure. It's only for those who are ignorant to alternatives like Opera and Firefox? Uhh, no. I've tried both and prefer IE7B3 over any of them.
Slashdot Mirror
Definitely agreed. Perhaps he deserves a REASONABLE fine (as in, try to calculate how many people downloaded his films and multiply that by like $10, not $500,000 or something ridiculous) and some community service. Not being an actual inmate in a prison for a crime that no one is seeing any direct harm from.
Being able to get a decent experience out of Vista on a 1.2 GHz processor with 512 RAM and a 64 MB video card is pretty decent. Being able to get the full experience out of Vista and still play games okay on a system like mine (A64, 1 GB RAM, X800 XL) is also pretty good. Of course I will want to move to 2 gigs in time but the fact that gaming performance of recent titles should still be up to par with 1 GB is nothing to complain about. I think it's pretty ridiculous to assume they purposely made the OS sluggish and poorly coded to entice hardware upgrades.
And really, if your system is less powerful than the Gateway box Ars used, it's probably a very basic use computer that is absolutely fine with 2000 or XP anyway.
Doesn't matter whether I could or not as my university probably won't agree with Allchin. But personally, yeah I'm sure I and many others would be fine without AV software on Vista.
The article mentioned something about most current routers not being compatible with IPv6. I don't need to get a new router when I move to Vista do I? BTW this is a serious question, as I know nothing about this.
Many of you say Microsoft may want to axe XP SP3 to help speed up Vista adoption and make it seem more attractive. But, as others here have said, SP3 does not NEED to include any fancy new features like SP2 did. At the very least, all it needs is to include all updates since SP2 so I can install a fresh XP slipstreamed with SP3 and have a fully up-to-date system from the get-go. All this does is save users time with XP installations and reduces the time an unpatched system is on the net. I don't see how this would tempt someone to not bother switching to Vista.
The UI is definitely non-standard, and that could scare a lot of XP users. However it's nothing much to be concerned about. My father is a very standard older computer user. Just does the basics and doesn't customize things and doesn't like change. I put IE7 on his system this past weekend and warned him the interface was a bit different. He saw where the address bar was, saw where his Favorites were, and he was good to go, no complaints.
Additionally, the "menu bar" is simply old and out-dated, and not really needed anymore. All of the functionalities within it can easily be found in the new UI in easier to find, less buried locations. Vista and Office 2007 are doing away with it entirely. So it makes sense for MS to have it disabled by default, and for them to put it in an awkward location even when you do enable it.
True, I never know what sites may have been compromised, I'm just speaking from experience. Not only did I never have a problem using IE6, I'm using IE7 now, and do we really know for sure if IE7 is any less secure than Firefox?
Also, one other thing to add about the Secunia report, I am using IE7 RC1 now, not IE6. So let's compare IE7 security throughout this discussion and not IE6's.
- What exactly can the non-geek not do using Firefox to browse the Web. Give us some specifics.
Nothing at all, the general aim of my post was not saying that FF lacks features or usability, it was saying that there is no good reason for a regular user to desire to switch, unless they don't how to maintain their system or don't have someone maintaining it for them, then in that case yes I absolutely agree with others who posted who said FF helps keep them safe and they should use it.
It is precicely because it is integrated into the OS that it is so insecure. It start faster because all its bits are loaded at boot time. The same effect can be achieved by using the Firefox Preloader.
As I said, sure it being integrated leads to it being more insecure, but I an educated user that keeps his system clean and only visits trusted sites, so why should this bother me? I don't need to be locked down like a fort here because I click anything that pops up in my face.
Also, by menntioning the thing about the preloader, you just proved my point even further. With FF, I would have to do EXTRA work and take extra steps to achieve the same speed and convenience that I get with IE7 right out of the box.
"Secunia is reporting on three vulnerabilities in IE6 running on XP SP2.", Nov 2005
Again, I am not visiting websites that are trying to exploit such a vulnerability.
Please, do not take my post as flamebait. I introduce general points. Many of you are geeks. Admit that, it's okay. Many of you are developers, too. Many of you are enthusiasts and like to tweak and customize out the wazoo. For all of you folk, browsers like FF are great. They're secure, customizable, not Microsoft, everything you could want in a browser. Now consider everyone else in the world. And actually, this even includes myself, even though I AM an enthusiast and a slight geek. You have IE7, given to you automatically via Windows Updates. No hassles required. It is already on your system, offers tabs and good security, and works without a hitch. It is integrated into the OS so it opens faster and does not introduce any problems. I have used IE6 for years and never once got a virus or spyware because of it. So please, tell me, why should I switch to Firefox? Answer: I shouldn't. IE7 may not pass some Acid2 test or whatever, but I am a user, not a developer. IE7 is secure and does what I need and there is really no reason for me to use any other browser.
It's spelled "whet." Either way the 3.0 stuff is interesting.
...that the guy meant, not immediately after four cores? As in four cores will be enough for quite awhile and not just a few years. I highly doubt he meant EVER. No one would be that short-sighted.
With all the talk of mini-cores and how great threaded computing is, it seems too many people have gotten into the mindset that more cores = better, period. Thus I'm glad to hear someone intelligent right from the source state that 8 cores is simply not needed. Sounds logical to me. I could see a good use for four cores in the very near future if software is written to take advantage of it.
This would terribly upset me if it were to go through. I could nVidia then teaming up with Intel, and you'd basically be forced to either buy an AMD+ATI combo or an Intel+nVidia combo. Nooo thanks.
I wasn't aware websites were optimized for blind people.
What's wrong with ESPN?
I understanding your reasoning for not wanting to put the extra work into making it IE-compliant, but aren't you really just screwing over yourself? Do you actually think most regular everyday customers are interested in installing a new browser just to view your site? Hell I'm sure most typical users who go to Best Buy and just pick up a system don't even realize other browsers exist. If you want all your visitors to be happy with your site, it just seems to make sense to me to make it compliant with the most used browser, even if it's annoying and takes more time on your end.
I don't understand you people, who cares if it conforms to standards or not. The fact is, websites are designed to work properly with IE, so they will, period. That's really all the end user cares about. This browser is incredibly functional, fast, and secure. It's only for those who are ignorant to alternatives like Opera and Firefox? Uhh, no. I've tried both and prefer IE7B3 over any of them.
Actually you don't even need to do it in safe mode, nor do you need to reboot. Heh.