It's sad really. With the amount of features being added to Windows 7 that Vista doesn't have, I'd say 7 is more like Windows Vista SP4 or SP5. It shows significant improvements in the current architecture of Vista, and I'm thoroughly interested to see if it'll run on lower end machines than Vista has been able to (I can't quite get it running on a Dell GX150).
That said, I'm thoroughly pissed that I'm going to have to drop cash on what essentially amounts to a service pack.
AutoIt is far and away the easiest programming language I've ever used, and also incredibly powerful. The standard functions' syntax are all laid out for you in Scite as you write your code, and it's very forgiving on syntax.
There are countless UDF's and libraries for it, and when you're ready to step up, you can expand it with other DLL's, DCOM, and WMI to do almost anything you want.
That shop was a small shop, and the users need a little more slack with their machines since I only talk to them about once a week. I don't have backdoors like the task scheduler locked up, so if you *really* wanted it, you could have admin on these boxes, and a couple apps (I hate quickbooks) require it, so there's a few RunAs scripts and so on that could port you into adminship.
"What antivirus program was that?" "Oh let me see here... [Horrible Trendy Name]" "When did you install it?" "I don't know."
I told him to call his credit card issuer.
Though, as if that's not enough, my neighbor recently couldn't understand how a dialog that, after analyzing basically indicated his computer was "too secure" wasn't a bad thing.
My university has seen so many students (and even staff!) with variants of this.
One of my users managed to get it on a fully patched XP machine that I somehow forgot to install Symantec on (yeah, stupid), with basic User privileges.
Of course, I've seen it a million other times too, but those people were all running with admin privileges.
I ran Server 2003 for quite a while as a Desktop OS to familiarize myself with security and local/group policy. On top of the fact that it was rock solid, my impetus paid off handily.
On the other hand though, MS Server OSes load more services and have stricter policies that delay startup, logon, logoff, and shutdowns. It's really up to the user.
These days, I run Server 2008 on a spare machine with considerably lower power requirements than my desktop. I find that XP/Vista are geared more toward what I want to do on a desktop, whereas putting the same functionality into Server 2003 or 2008 that is normally in the desktop OS by default is kind of a pain in the ass.:P
Phew. It would be such a shame for them to finally add the feature that prevents Firefox from suggesting your favorite porn site on the top every time you type a URL and simultaneously take away the option that allows you to switch tabs with only your left hand.
NONE of the RIAA cases against noncommercial users involve "piracy" or "pirates".
You bring up a very good point.
The problem I suppose is that we've all been led to believe we are "pirates" or "committing an act of piracy" by downloading copyrighted material without paying for it.
So if we're acquiring copyrighted content through illicit channels without paying for it, but not redistributing it for personal monetary gain (or at all), what would we be called? Infringers? Doesn't quite have the ring (or nobility, due to Johnny Depp's favorable portrayal in recent film) of "Pirate."
I've extensively used Exchange/Outlook 2003, Exchange/Outlook 2007, and had a dabble at Domino/Notes on Netware from a friend's work laptop. From what I understand, Domino scales better than Exchange, and they're all a pain in the ass to administer.
That said, when it comes to the end product, I personally prefer Outlook 2007 on Exchange 2003 or 2007, with a widescreen monitor (very important) just for the way it presents information. Calendar, tasks, email, etc, all lined up in a way that gives a disorganized twerp like me a very relevant view of what I need to be paranoid about:P
The fundamental issue NAT poses to me is the fact that an entire network appears as a single host to the outside. Making *everything* addressable changes the entire layout of the network and even the way you would visualize it from a connectivity and an administration point of view.
It may be a lot more natural to a network professional, but if your only experience with high level networking is operating on them as opposed to maintaining them (which is my case), it's an entirely different ballgame.
FWIW though, I know I need to dive into some reading material and a Lab.
And everyone who's a network admin knows that it is.
You're right, 100%, and I fully support IPv6 adoption end to end, because I know managing port assignments is a pain in the ass for non-UPnP compatible apps, and the problems that NAT has created. Even more absurd is the solutions to those problems (e.g. Skype-style) that are more like hacks than fixes.
NAT has created a very lazy fix to the problem of network security and filtering. If you're behind NAT, you're not addressable unless UPnP or an explicit port forward does it for you, and that's extremely convenient.
In a situation where every single computer in a network is internet addressable (something not always desired in business, which is probably the reason IPv6 adoption is so slow), you have to implement a very strict firewall to block and filter unsolicited traffic to those machines. If you're NATing them, as long as your network is physically secure, you don't have a problem.
This puts a lot less stress on network security than there should be in a business environment, and much less attention to what should or shouldn't be allowed through a local firewall, let alone a site firewall.
I'll stop ranting, but the point is that NAT has created an artificial deficit of proper network security, and I fear that when IPv6 becomes ubiquitous, NAT will linger on as a replacement for real security. The skills required to secure a fully addressable network of machines simply aren't needed in the majority of current environments because making every host in a network internet addressable today is simply not an option.
My bank uses text based ATM's in some branches because they simply haven't replaced them yet.
[rant]I prefer them to the newer Diebold color touchscreens because they're not mounted up a foot higher for fat SUV owners.
Sad but true. The Diebold machines are slightly more idiot proof... But my favorite on the older machines, spend more than 20 seconds preparing a deposit:
> Do you need more time? > Yes / No
Press "Yes," and it sits and waits again for 20 seconds. Press "No" (because you're actually answering the question saying "No, I do not require extra time to prepare my deposit, please allow me to insert it into the ATM"), and it cancels the transaction and spits out your card and receipt.
Personally, in this situation, I'd actually grab a copy of any contract, call NYCL's office, explain the situation, and ask for a quote. His contributions on here have shown me that he probably knows enough to give you the *right* answer, and in a very minimal amount of time. You might even get the Slashdot referral bonus.
If you intend to use it in your vehicle, assuming you commute anywhere, save yourself the grief and the lawsuit. Trying to use that interface and drive at the same time will either get you killed, or if it doesn't, sued into oblivion for reckless driving.:P
I don't understand why people are going with 32-bit Vista
There have been a few reasons. I had to use x86 Vista because I have a 3Ware 9650 RAID controller in my desktop at home. The firmware and driver sets that officially support x64 Vista and Server 2008 were released in July. Almost 2 years after Vista RTM'ed.
I finally upgraded my CPU/MB/RAM to an E8400 from an aging socket 939 X2 chip, migrated my profile, flashed my RAID controller, and plunged into x64.
In the end though, I'm a rare case. Most people (even IT professionals) don't have high end RAID setups at home.
Slashdot Mirror
why don't you try doing the same with Vista and a 6 year old PC, and get back to us.
Ahem.
Getting to install the windows updates properly, though, is something I still haven't figured out yet.... I was a little sloppy with vLite.
I imagine your 6 year old Mac has some type of deal breaking issue as well.
The doors on XP are being forcibly shut... and it is a very unpleasant situation for IT professionals everywhere.
You might want to take a look at features offered by Vista and 2008. WDS alone makes universal images by default.
I gave up after trying that game and would just boot into Linux if I needed to use Wine
Ok, all right, I've got to bite.
You're going so far as to dual boot your machine, why the hell just not boot into Windows??
MSDN isn't a free-for-all way to get bulk licenses for personal use.
True, but people act like it is.
In all honesty, if you're going to steal XP anyway, get a VLK instead, as it simplifies the process.
It's sad really. With the amount of features being added to Windows 7 that Vista doesn't have, I'd say 7 is more like Windows Vista SP4 or SP5. It shows significant improvements in the current architecture of Vista, and I'm thoroughly interested to see if it'll run on lower end machines than Vista has been able to (I can't quite get it running on a Dell GX150).
That said, I'm thoroughly pissed that I'm going to have to drop cash on what essentially amounts to a service pack.
AutoIt is far and away the easiest programming language I've ever used, and also incredibly powerful. The standard functions' syntax are all laid out for you in Scite as you write your code, and it's very forgiving on syntax.
There are countless UDF's and libraries for it, and when you're ready to step up, you can expand it with other DLL's, DCOM, and WMI to do almost anything you want.
Give it a try if you haven't.
Nah, one of the FTC figureheads fell for it I'd wager.
That shop was a small shop, and the users need a little more slack with their machines since I only talk to them about once a week. I don't have backdoors like the task scheduler locked up, so if you *really* wanted it, you could have admin on these boxes, and a couple apps (I hate quickbooks) require it, so there's a few RunAs scripts and so on that could port you into adminship.
Nonetheless, I was still impressed.
You've got a virus!
Pay me or I won't tell you what it is!
The sad thing is that people fall for it.
I've actually had the following conversation:
"What antivirus program was that?"
"Oh let me see here... [Horrible Trendy Name]"
"When did you install it?"
"I don't know."
I told him to call his credit card issuer.
Though, as if that's not enough, my neighbor recently couldn't understand how a dialog that, after analyzing basically indicated his computer was "too secure" wasn't a bad thing.
My university has seen so many students (and even staff!) with variants of this.
One of my users managed to get it on a fully patched XP machine that I somehow forgot to install Symantec on (yeah, stupid), with basic User privileges.
Of course, I've seen it a million other times too, but those people were all running with admin privileges.
I ran Server 2003 for quite a while as a Desktop OS to familiarize myself with security and local/group policy. On top of the fact that it was rock solid, my impetus paid off handily.
:P
On the other hand though, MS Server OSes load more services and have stricter policies that delay startup, logon, logoff, and shutdowns. It's really up to the user.
These days, I run Server 2008 on a spare machine with considerably lower power requirements than my desktop. I find that XP/Vista are geared more toward what I want to do on a desktop, whereas putting the same functionality into Server 2003 or 2008 that is normally in the desktop OS by default is kind of a pain in the ass.
The Ctrl+Tab functionality is still there
Phew. It would be such a shame for them to finally add the feature that prevents Firefox from suggesting your favorite porn site on the top every time you type a URL and simultaneously take away the option that allows you to switch tabs with only your left hand.
NONE of the RIAA cases against noncommercial users involve "piracy" or "pirates".
You bring up a very good point.
The problem I suppose is that we've all been led to believe we are "pirates" or "committing an act of piracy" by downloading copyrighted material without paying for it.
So if we're acquiring copyrighted content through illicit channels without paying for it, but not redistributing it for personal monetary gain (or at all), what would we be called? Infringers? Doesn't quite have the ring (or nobility, due to Johnny Depp's favorable portrayal in recent film) of "Pirate."
But it's unnecessarily insulting to compare the GPL to representing a "kill your wife/control freak philosophy."
I've read the GPLv2 a couple times, and now that I think about it, it could almost be summed up like this:
GPLv2: Please read Microsoft Windows EULA and perform everything the EULA disallows for Windows to this GPL software.
But it's VDI, as opposed to DI.
Sounds kinda dirty.
I'd say this is 50% true.
What's the other 50%? ;)
:P
I've extensively used Exchange/Outlook 2003, Exchange/Outlook 2007, and had a dabble at Domino/Notes on Netware from a friend's work laptop. From what I understand, Domino scales better than Exchange, and they're all a pain in the ass to administer.
That said, when it comes to the end product, I personally prefer Outlook 2007 on Exchange 2003 or 2007, with a widescreen monitor (very important) just for the way it presents information. Calendar, tasks, email, etc, all lined up in a way that gives a disorganized twerp like me a very relevant view of what I need to be paranoid about
The decision making process is identical.
They're similar, but not identical.
The fundamental issue NAT poses to me is the fact that an entire network appears as a single host to the outside. Making *everything* addressable changes the entire layout of the network and even the way you would visualize it from a connectivity and an administration point of view.
It may be a lot more natural to a network professional, but if your only experience with high level networking is operating on them as opposed to maintaining them (which is my case), it's an entirely different ballgame.
FWIW though, I know I need to dive into some reading material and a Lab.
And everyone who's a network admin knows that it is.
You're right, 100%, and I fully support IPv6 adoption end to end, because I know managing port assignments is a pain in the ass for non-UPnP compatible apps, and the problems that NAT has created. Even more absurd is the solutions to those problems (e.g. Skype-style) that are more like hacks than fixes.
NAT has created a very lazy fix to the problem of network security and filtering. If you're behind NAT, you're not addressable unless UPnP or an explicit port forward does it for you, and that's extremely convenient.
In a situation where every single computer in a network is internet addressable (something not always desired in business, which is probably the reason IPv6 adoption is so slow), you have to implement a very strict firewall to block and filter unsolicited traffic to those machines. If you're NATing them, as long as your network is physically secure, you don't have a problem.
This puts a lot less stress on network security than there should be in a business environment, and much less attention to what should or shouldn't be allowed through a local firewall, let alone a site firewall.
I'll stop ranting, but the point is that NAT has created an artificial deficit of proper network security, and I fear that when IPv6 becomes ubiquitous, NAT will linger on as a replacement for real security. The skills required to secure a fully addressable network of machines simply aren't needed in the majority of current environments because making every host in a network internet addressable today is simply not an option.
Wow. 40+MBps speeds on cell networks, and text messages will still be .20$ per.
I think there's a typo in your post, with the extra '.' before the number 20.
My bank uses text based ATM's in some branches because they simply haven't replaced them yet.
:P
[rant]I prefer them to the newer Diebold color touchscreens because they're not mounted up a foot higher for fat SUV owners.
Sad but true. The Diebold machines are slightly more idiot proof... But my favorite on the older machines, spend more than 20 seconds preparing a deposit:
> Do you need more time?
> Yes / No
Press "Yes," and it sits and waits again for 20 seconds. Press "No" (because you're actually answering the question saying "No, I do not require extra time to prepare my deposit, please allow me to insert it into the ATM"), and it cancels the transaction and spits out your card and receipt.
Failure knows no bounds! [/rant]
Personally, in this situation, I'd actually grab a copy of any contract, call NYCL's office, explain the situation, and ask for a quote. His contributions on here have shown me that he probably knows enough to give you the *right* answer, and in a very minimal amount of time. You might even get the Slashdot referral bonus.
....But that's just me, and this is Slashdot.
Personally I'd love an iPod Touch
If you intend to use it in your vehicle, assuming you commute anywhere, save yourself the grief and the lawsuit. Trying to use that interface and drive at the same time will either get you killed, or if it doesn't, sued into oblivion for reckless driving. :P
Cheers.
I don't understand why people are going with 32-bit Vista
There have been a few reasons. I had to use x86 Vista because I have a 3Ware 9650 RAID controller in my desktop at home. The firmware and driver sets that officially support x64 Vista and Server 2008 were released in July. Almost 2 years after Vista RTM'ed.
I finally upgraded my CPU/MB/RAM to an E8400 from an aging socket 939 X2 chip, migrated my profile, flashed my RAID controller, and plunged into x64.
In the end though, I'm a rare case. Most people (even IT professionals) don't have high end RAID setups at home.
It's fallacious to use the eeePC to make an argument of XP over Vista, because there isn't an eee that comes with Vista.
Granted, I understand that you're making more of a Windows vs. Linux argument, but the GP you responded to was not.
Don't label it as fascism just because "Hitler said it."
You may lament the inability to share his true insights simply because they were his....
I lament the fact that I can never even consider wearing the mustache.