Windows is no longer synonymous with the 9x line. The digs and pokes at it crashing and locking up just don't stick anymore.
O Rly? Last week I finally got my best friend switched over from XP to xubuntu. What made her switch after 11+ years of using Windows?
Stability issues. XP was acting up for her on a semi-daily basis -- blue screens, freezes, crashes. She believes MS has "downgraded" XP via updates on purpose because they want to force Vista down everyone's throats, and I'm sure she's right. Until last month, she was perfectly happy with XP, and was not at all anti-MS.
I don't know if you've simply been lucky or if you're astroturfing, but I can assure you if your experience was the norm then the memes would reflect that, rather than the polar opposite of that.:)
The summary isn't terribly clear, but according to TFA:
The ontology wordsmiths envision an electronic OOR in which diverse collections of concepts (ontologies) such as dictionaries, compendiums of medical terminology, and classifications of products, could be stored, retrieved, and connected to various bodies of information. OOR users, tasked with creating a computer program for manufacturing machines, for example, would be able to search multiple computer languages and formats for the unambiguous words and action commands. Plans call for OOR's inventory to support the most advanced logic systems such as Resource Description Framework, Web Ontology Language and Common Logic, as well as standard Internet languages such as Extensible Markup Language (XML).
It's merely intended as a convenient resource for programmers.
Having used Apple machines much of the time since 1987, I have long ago stopped rushing to the newest OS version. It's almost always best to wait six months to a year after a new point release, it will usually take that long to be really ready. I dislike that, but my experience with FreeBSD, Debian, and even Windows tells me that's pretty much the way they all do it.
Gosh, that just isn't what I call competitive. Speaking of which, what ever happened to the $200 eeepc? Everywhere I look they are > $400.
Last "full size" laptop I bought from Dell cost me just over $500 including shipping -- on sale, but still... Why would anyone buy a sub-laptop for a mere hundred or two less than a full laptop?
Meh. I'll stick with my Treo + full laptop until a real laptop replacement costs $200 or until a newer smartphone can completely replace my laptop -- which will probably happen next year anyway.
That is so cool how fast E17 works on a mobile. I definitely want that, thanks for showing me.
Well, sooner or later the right hackable device is going to come along and I'll have a Linux-powered smartphone with a large enough screen that doesn't cost a fortune. I sure am looking forward to it, it will be a huge improvement over the PalmOS. PalmOS does have a certain appeal, it reminds me a lot of my old Mac SE running System 6 -- but it's definitely limiting, and of course not free.
Now that is impressive! I'd love to have that rather than PalmOS on my Treo, much as I love the Treo that would make it even better.
I'll probably have to get a second identical device to hack, as I cannot risk downtime on my only phone.
They spell differently in Italia, dufus.
So apparently if intelligent beings from another planet land here,
most people will be too busy making fun of them to understand their message?
Anti-Malware is a prevention mechanism, not a fix. A fix would be a direct patch to the OS itself, preventing the problem from occurring to begin with.
That's a very narrow definition of anti-malware, but even so I think the point is that if MS is allowed to double-dip like that, where's their motivation to produce a stand-alone secure product?
How would you sell Windows in a modular manner? You mean de-couple the software from the kernel, leaving just a raw kernel as the OS itself and sell other stuff (IE, Solitare, GUI, etc) as add-ons?
I read somewhere they are considering selling a super-basic windows system which allows the customer to purchase more advanced capabilities through modular add-ons. Purpose-built modules for media center, advanced networking, etc. Something like what Apple does with QT and iLife, I suppose. Except with Apple you never get charged extra for security.
Well, I'm certainly confused.. Microsoft is charging for security fixes?
Anti-malware from the same company that created the OS? That would certainly be charging for security updates. I can't see how that wouldn't be a conflict of interest.
Then again with all the talk about subscription and per use and modulear development models, maybe they plan to sell one or more future versions of Windows modularly. But how can they even promote the idea of selling extra security with a straight face after all the hype they spewed for years about Vista? Well, it is entertaining at least to watch them (and some of their apologists) sink further into blithering irrationality.
Parent has a valid point, whomever modded him troll is trolling.
MS should indeed be required to provide any such implementation as part of the sale of the OS. Imagine the uproar if Apple started charging for OS X security fixes, or if Linus decided to put a proprietary license on some security patches and charge for them.
Well I guess if that's all the value you see in a Mac, good luck and enjoy using your "cheap solution".
But I think your idea of what support (and R&D, and design) actually entails shows your inexperience.:)
They are on x86 architecture now so they don't really have an excuse. You CAN compare them to similar spec'd PC hardware to see how overpriced they are./i>
You cannot credibly compare price based solely on the hardware components. There's a lot of R&D in every box, there's OS X, and what about the expense of the unique enclosures? What is support worth? Apple supports their own hardware (and software) practically forever. Just the other day I downloaded System 7 (for an old SE) from Apple support. You just don't see commitment like that in the PC world.
No other popular desktop OS has had a continuously maintained API going back to an operating system with a single-user kernel. The Win32 API has been around since the single-user Windows 98, and end users expect binaries compiled and tested on Windows 98 to run on Windows Vista. Apple solved this on Mac OS X (Classic environment) and CodeWeavers solved this on Linux (Wine) through partial virtualization of an old operating system to run its applications.
That's a good point. So why didn't MS virtualize win98, XP, etc rather than carrying the troublesome APIs over to Vista? Certainly they have the resources to do it. Why does MS stubbornly cling to a failed paradigm?
I'll bet it's greed. Something like, "Hey that virtualization is hot hot hot yo, we can't squander that tech on people who only bought an OEM install -- we got to get paid for this one!".
I thought you were asking "how can a system be made idiot-proof and
still let users easily install software without having to know
anything about actually using the system?"
I have no trouble with my OS X, BSD, or Linux software installs
affecting security. Heck, I know some MS users who have no trouble with
that.
So I guess it's like driving. Everyone thinks they can do it, but in
fact maybe one in five of us can actually do it without causing problems.
So incompetent people wreck their cars and have problems with the
computer. Big deal. Besides, there's lots of money in that.:)
Right I agree that the average user doesn't do anything from the CLI.
Which is why we are seeing that almost no one has the skills to fix
Windows (or even fine tune it properly), and reinstalling (which teaches
a person nothing except the installer) is the norm.
If anything in your XP install breaks, it's reinstall time. And lots of
users reinstall frequently.
Anyway, all you guys claiming no-one ever needs cmd.exe are the same
guys who have to call someone who knows cmd.exe to fix your system.
Or else you hide your shame by reinstalling in secret.:)
Slashdot Mirror
It is you who is in error. Some may be rabid, but "unreasoning"? We got no end of reasons. Functionality/lack thereof, economics, politics...
Ever heard the expresson "where there is smoke there is fire"?
O Rly? Last week I finally got my best friend switched over from XP to xubuntu. What made her switch after 11+ years of using Windows? Stability issues. XP was acting up for her on a semi-daily basis -- blue screens, freezes, crashes. She believes MS has "downgraded" XP via updates on purpose because they want to force Vista down everyone's throats, and I'm sure she's right. Until last month, she was perfectly happy with XP, and was not at all anti-MS. I don't know if you've simply been lucky or if you're astroturfing, but I can assure you if your experience was the norm then the memes would reflect that, rather than the polar opposite of that.
It's merely intended as a convenient resource for programmers.
Having used Apple machines much of the time since 1987, I have long ago stopped rushing to the newest OS version. It's almost always best to wait six months to a year after a new point release, it will usually take that long to be really ready. I dislike that, but my experience with FreeBSD, Debian, and even Windows tells me that's pretty much the way they all do it.
Gosh, that just isn't what I call competitive. Speaking of which, what ever happened to the $200 eeepc? Everywhere I look they are > $400. Last "full size" laptop I bought from Dell cost me just over $500 including shipping -- on sale, but still... Why would anyone buy a sub-laptop for a mere hundred or two less than a full laptop?
Meh. I'll stick with my Treo + full laptop until a real laptop replacement costs $200 or until a newer smartphone can completely replace my laptop -- which will probably happen next year anyway.
That is so cool how fast E17 works on a mobile. I definitely want that, thanks for showing me. Well, sooner or later the right hackable device is going to come along and I'll have a Linux-powered smartphone with a large enough screen that doesn't cost a fortune. I sure am looking forward to it, it will be a huge improvement over the PalmOS. PalmOS does have a certain appeal, it reminds me a lot of my old Mac SE running System 6 -- but it's definitely limiting, and of course not free.
Now that is impressive! I'd love to have that rather than PalmOS on my Treo, much as I love the Treo that would make it even better. I'll probably have to get a second identical device to hack, as I cannot risk downtime on my only phone.
I say we quarantine them all in a nice Faraday Cage.
They spell differently in Italia, dufus. So apparently if intelligent beings from another planet land here, most people will be too busy making fun of them to understand their message?
It's terrible, but I laughed so hard at that video.
That's a very narrow definition of anti-malware, but even so I think the point is that if MS is allowed to double-dip like that, where's their motivation to produce a stand-alone secure product?
I read somewhere they are considering selling a super-basic windows system which allows the customer to purchase more advanced capabilities through modular add-ons. Purpose-built modules for media center, advanced networking, etc. Something like what Apple does with QT and iLife, I suppose. Except with Apple you never get charged extra for security.
Anti-malware from the same company that created the OS? That would certainly be charging for security updates. I can't see how that wouldn't be a conflict of interest.
Then again with all the talk about subscription and per use and modulear development models, maybe they plan to sell one or more future versions of Windows modularly. But how can they even promote the idea of selling extra security with a straight face after all the hype they spewed for years about Vista? Well, it is entertaining at least to watch them (and some of their apologists) sink further into blithering irrationality.
Parent has a valid point, whomever modded him troll is trolling. MS should indeed be required to provide any such implementation as part of the sale of the OS. Imagine the uproar if Apple started charging for OS X security fixes, or if Linus decided to put a proprietary license on some security patches and charge for them.
Until you've had more ownership experience you are really not qualified for this debate.
Well I guess if that's all the value you see in a Mac, good luck and enjoy using your "cheap solution". But I think your idea of what support (and R&D, and design) actually entails shows your inexperience. :)
Unless one is willing and/or able to install third-party software, yes, it does. Go look up REN.
You cannot credibly compare price based solely on the hardware components. There's a lot of R&D in every box, there's OS X, and what about the expense of the unique enclosures? What is support worth? Apple supports their own hardware (and software) practically forever. Just the other day I downloaded System 7 (for an old SE) from Apple support. You just don't see commitment like that in the PC world.
I just updated the firmware on my Treo...
That's a good point. So why didn't MS virtualize win98, XP, etc rather than carrying the troublesome APIs over to Vista? Certainly they have the resources to do it. Why does MS stubbornly cling to a failed paradigm?
I'll bet it's greed. Something like, "Hey that virtualization is hot hot hot yo, we can't squander that tech on people who only bought an OEM install -- we got to get paid for this one!".
I thought you were asking "how can a system be made idiot-proof and still let users easily install software without having to know anything about actually using the system?"
:)
I have no trouble with my OS X, BSD, or Linux software installs affecting security. Heck, I know some MS users who have no trouble with that.
So I guess it's like driving. Everyone thinks they can do it, but in fact maybe one in five of us can actually do it without causing problems. So incompetent people wreck their cars and have problems with the computer. Big deal. Besides, there's lots of money in that.
I feel so misunderstood -- Can't imagine how you got that idea....
You said
And I was simply pointing out that no other popular desktop OS has this issue with munging security so badly
See OS X, most any desktop Linux or BSD distro for the answer. Of all the desktop OSes it's only the ones made by MicroSoft have this problem.
Parent is right, it's the commoditization of the consumer.
Right I agree that the average user doesn't do anything from the CLI. Which is why we are seeing that almost no one has the skills to fix Windows (or even fine tune it properly), and reinstalling (which teaches a person nothing except the installer) is the norm. If anything in your XP install breaks, it's reinstall time. And lots of users reinstall frequently. Anyway, all you guys claiming no-one ever needs cmd.exe are the same guys who have to call someone who knows cmd.exe to fix your system. Or else you hide your shame by reinstalling in secret. :)
Why? So I can run a potential security breach in the form of a 3rd party GUI app? No thanks!