I tried using ARD once. You have to license the shit for every workstation.
At least with Windows, when you buy the "Professional" I'm-a-business-user-for-fuck's-sake version of it, you can use terminal services to get into any machine you want when necessary. Of course, that doesn't change the fact that terminal services is so restricted that VNC sees huge deployment and stuff like GoToAssist sees great sales, but at least it's there from the start.
The OS X version sucks a little less, but in general, you're right. It takes at least 6-10 seconds to load up just to play an MP3 you "open" with a file manager. Love it or hate it though.. at least it has the features, and people who've been forced to use it (iPod and iPhone owners), have started to rely on it.
Personally, I use iTunes on OS X (because I'm lazy) and WMP on Windows (because it looks really slick in mini-mode on Vista and queuing tracks is "Right-Click > W").
An assumption is where people think feeding information into Facebook and conducting private conversations on "walls" confers a level of privacy from their peers.
FWIW, I'm a happy 3ware customer... saddened by their sellout to LSI, but I digress.
When I think of software RAID, I think of parity data being handled by the operating system, being done on x86 chips as part of the kernel or offloaded via a driver (thinking Fake-RAID).
If you're abstracting your storage away from the operating system that uses it, say via iSCSI or NFS or SMB to a dedicated storage box, like a NetApp filer or a Celerra, then I would consider that hardware RAID, personally speaking. If you're saying that these dedicated storage boxes manage parity, mirroring and so on all done with the same chip that's also running their local operating systems, then I have to admit that yes, that sounds like software RAID to me, but the real distinction I've come to draw between software and hardware RAID is a matter of performance and feature set. If said boxes give the same or better performance (I/Ops and throughput) to a workload as a dedicated, internal storage system managed by something like my 9650SE, then hell..... who cares, right? Aside from being rather impressed that such is possible without dedicated XOR chips, that is.
The system shipped that way stock from Dell. A video card was added later, but nonetheless, I wanted to use the system in the meantime.
Also, whilst ATI and nVidia are the leaders in performance graphics hardware, Intel is by far the market leader in actual units shipped. Last statistic I actually saw--which, I'll admit, was years ago--Intel graphics chips ship in about 75% of all machines.
An "underpowered GMA chipsets" can still run stuff like Morrowind fine.
I've never played Morrowind, but I can say for sure that a brand-spanking-new q6600 dell box that shipped with a GMA chip couldn't even play DotA (Warcraft 3, for those who don't know) at a resolution higher than 800x600. With all the video options turned down.
That engine predated the GMA chip by 7 years or more, but would lag under 20 fps in even the lightest of conditions.
Intel's graphics chips are utter shit, and they're holding the entire computing industry as far as 3D graphics are concerned.... Where oh where is that Larrabee we keep hearing about?
And Microsoft follows Apple GUI guidelines in their software for mac?
From what I can tell, yes. Office for Mac, in particular, is nothing like its Windows counterpart, and looks, behaves, and feels just like other apps on OS X.
iTunes follows that "Sync" paradigm, but using the device to ensure that music libraries on two computers match is a no-no. Hence, if songs exist on device but not machine, and you wish to "Sync," then "iTunes must erase [all your shit] to Sync."
The rant was simply to offer proof that the parent's post was misinformed. It is worth pointing out that Apple's website has the same Chrome-y look as OS X. While Microsoft's site does not share that attribute with respect to its OS, it's not off topic to extend the comparison.
Apple understands design and focuses on it. The have GUI design docs and the follow them and enforce them stringently.
If you weren't aware, Microsoft also has very specific GUI guidelines as well... Guidelines that Apple forces their Windows programmers to not follow. Have you used the unintuitive piece of shit called "iTunes for Windows" that makes zero sense to those unfamiliar with the OS X UI?
iTunes on OS X isn't half bad. iTunes on Windows is Apple's lock-in approved way of forcing the customer to think long and hard about throwing his phone or MP3 player at the wall because he can't understand why his desktop keeps erasing the music he put on it with his laptop without calling the manufacturer.
I used to work for a callcenter, and absolutely everything was recorded.
The recordings started as uncompressed WAV files. With a callcenter of ~100 seats, they took up about 6 GB/day. After we moved to daily MP3 encoding, at bit rates much higher than would have probably been required for the legal CYA the recordings were made for, three to four days worth of recordings fit on a single DVD-R.
So if someone snoops around in your browser, they would see an addon called "HistoryBlock" which contains a list of all the sites you didn't want them to know you visit.
If you're worried about nosy people digging through your shit, you encrypt your files and lock your machine when you're not in front of it.
If you're worried about everyone seeing a list of your favorite porn sites every single time you type a URL, then you use the addon.
If someone's going to go out of his own way to embarrass you, then you're going to be embarrassed. When your web browser goes out of it's way to do that for him, whether he had the inclination to do it or not in the first place, then that's just fucking stupid.
It's sad that, when people use my computer, I have to tell them to use Internet Explorer. There's absolutely no way to create an exclusion list in Firefox's history, nor is there a "Delete all history for last 20 minutes" option.
I suppose I could probably brush up on my SQL an trim out the sqlite databases in my profile folder, but that's absurd.
Slashdot Mirror
I tried using ARD once. You have to license the shit for every workstation.
At least with Windows, when you buy the "Professional" I'm-a-business-user-for-fuck's-sake version of it, you can use terminal services to get into any machine you want when necessary. Of course, that doesn't change the fact that terminal services is so restricted that VNC sees huge deployment and stuff like GoToAssist sees great sales, but at least it's there from the start.
The problem here is that iTunes blows.
The OS X version sucks a little less, but in general, you're right. It takes at least 6-10 seconds to load up just to play an MP3 you "open" with a file manager. Love it or hate it though.. at least it has the features, and people who've been forced to use it (iPod and iPhone owners), have started to rely on it.
Personally, I use iTunes on OS X (because I'm lazy) and WMP on Windows (because it looks really slick in mini-mode on Vista and queuing tracks is "Right-Click > W").
Leave every apple product you can while you still have the chance.
Done!
I ran my iPhone over with my car and installed Windows on all my Macs.
...or did you have something else in mind?? Oh shii--
An assumption is where people think feeding information into Facebook and conducting private conversations on "walls" confers a level of privacy from their peers.
From the summary:
prevent the operators from discriminating, or act as gatekeepers, of Web content and services.
A chubby red-haired woman survived
She went on later to become a Nazi who trades sex for dramatic reading. They made another movie about it some years later.
FWIW, I'm a happy 3ware customer... saddened by their sellout to LSI, but I digress.
When I think of software RAID, I think of parity data being handled by the operating system, being done on x86 chips as part of the kernel or offloaded via a driver (thinking Fake-RAID).
If you're abstracting your storage away from the operating system that uses it, say via iSCSI or NFS or SMB to a dedicated storage box, like a NetApp filer or a Celerra, then I would consider that hardware RAID, personally speaking. If you're saying that these dedicated storage boxes manage parity, mirroring and so on all done with the same chip that's also running their local operating systems, then I have to admit that yes, that sounds like software RAID to me, but the real distinction I've come to draw between software and hardware RAID is a matter of performance and feature set. If said boxes give the same or better performance (I/Ops and throughput) to a workload as a dedicated, internal storage system managed by something like my 9650SE, then hell..... who cares, right? Aside from being rather impressed that such is possible without dedicated XOR chips, that is.
The system shipped that way stock from Dell. A video card was added later, but nonetheless, I wanted to use the system in the meantime.
Also, whilst ATI and nVidia are the leaders in performance graphics hardware, Intel is by far the market leader in actual units shipped. Last statistic I actually saw--which, I'll admit, was years ago--Intel graphics chips ship in about 75% of all machines.
Very few machines get aftermarket cards.
An "underpowered GMA chipsets" can still run stuff like Morrowind fine.
I've never played Morrowind, but I can say for sure that a brand-spanking-new q6600 dell box that shipped with a GMA chip couldn't even play DotA (Warcraft 3, for those who don't know) at a resolution higher than 800x600. With all the video options turned down.
That engine predated the GMA chip by 7 years or more, but would lag under 20 fps in even the lightest of conditions.
Intel's graphics chips are utter shit, and they're holding the entire computing industry as far as 3D graphics are concerned.... Where oh where is that Larrabee we keep hearing about?
The pop up tells you it's going to erase your shit.
And Microsoft follows Apple GUI guidelines in their software for mac?
From what I can tell, yes. Office for Mac, in particular, is nothing like its Windows counterpart, and looks, behaves, and feels just like other apps on OS X.
iTunes follows that "Sync" paradigm, but using the device to ensure that music libraries on two computers match is a no-no. Hence, if songs exist on device but not machine, and you wish to "Sync," then "iTunes must erase [all your shit] to Sync."
The rant was simply to offer proof that the parent's post was misinformed. It is worth pointing out that Apple's website has the same Chrome-y look as OS X. While Microsoft's site does not share that attribute with respect to its OS, it's not off topic to extend the comparison.
This post, however, probably is.
Apple understands design and focuses on it. The have GUI design docs and the follow them and enforce them stringently.
If you weren't aware, Microsoft also has very specific GUI guidelines as well... Guidelines that Apple forces their Windows programmers to not follow. Have you used the unintuitive piece of shit called "iTunes for Windows" that makes zero sense to those unfamiliar with the OS X UI?
iTunes on OS X isn't half bad. iTunes on Windows is Apple's lock-in approved way of forcing the customer to think long and hard about throwing his phone or MP3 player at the wall because he can't understand why his desktop keeps erasing the music he put on it with his laptop without calling the manufacturer.
I used to work for a callcenter, and absolutely everything was recorded.
The recordings started as uncompressed WAV files. With a callcenter of ~100 seats, they took up about 6 GB/day. After we moved to daily MP3 encoding, at bit rates much higher than would have probably been required for the legal CYA the recordings were made for, three to four days worth of recordings fit on a single DVD-R.
We used LAME with that -V2 switch I think.
Grrr... Modding overrated as opposed to funny is super annoying...
Ooo. I gave up looking for it too soon I see.
Thank you sir.
So if someone snoops around in your browser, they would see an addon called "HistoryBlock" which contains a list of all the sites you didn't want them to know you visit.
If you're worried about nosy people digging through your shit, you encrypt your files and lock your machine when you're not in front of it.
If you're worried about everyone seeing a list of your favorite porn sites every single time you type a URL, then you use the addon.
If someone's going to go out of his own way to embarrass you, then you're going to be embarrassed. When your web browser goes out of it's way to do that for him, whether he had the inclination to do it or not in the first place, then that's just fucking stupid.
GP, thanks for the link, good sir!
That's precisely what I was thinking.
It's sad that, when people use my computer, I have to tell them to use Internet Explorer. There's absolutely no way to create an exclusion list in Firefox's history, nor is there a "Delete all history for last 20 minutes" option.
I suppose I could probably brush up on my SQL an trim out the sqlite databases in my profile folder, but that's absurd.
[waste karma]
Alas sir, pick a gender. You're referring to a single person. As such, "they're" isn't an appropriate pronoun.
I only point this out because the original nazi's "bleeds/bleed's" comment was actually pretty funny.
Cheerio.
[/waste karma]
WE DON'T GET SIGNAL.
I would personally take either. You really shouldn't be picky with space babes.
Though, for what it's worth, they always described Chiana as "gray."
Add NoSquint to Firefox, and it sizes things even better.
If real furries were out in the wild, I imagine 4chan would become even stranger.
t really didn't actually "impact" hardly anybody.
I'm sure the world is full of people, such as myself, who regret the fact that they'll never get to see him perform live.