Microsoft runs a large collection of newsgroups for discussion and feedback. I've seen MS employees, and those who have the ears of MS employees, on these boards. You may well be able to find others who have the same complaints that you do and get somebody to fix your issues. The web-based interface is accessible through http://www.microsoft.com/communities/newsgroups/en-us/, or you can use a newsreader program.
The IPv6 add-on for XP only implements a subset of the v6 functionality (among other things, I don't believe it will allow IPv4 programs to operate over a v6-only network, which Vista and Win7 do permit).
My guess is that the GP is referring to Transactional NTFS. There are now public APIs to do NTFS operations as transactions, and they are used by Explorer (among some other apps) so that if you are in the middle of a big file deletion, suddenly realize that Oh Shit you didn't mean to delete that, you cna click Cancel and the whole operation is rolled back.
Have you tried the new taskbar? It's really very nice. Jump Lists in particular I use constantly (open recent files or start a program in a recently/commonly used mode).
In relation to XP there's much more that hasn't been mentioned, the biggest ones for me being the Start search (I can't stand to actually navigate the Start menu anymore) and the fact that running as a non-Admin (as everybody should) is no longer incredibly annoying the way it was in XP (yes, I like UAC. I like sudo too, incidentally.) The massive improvement to Windows Update is very nice as well, as is the pre-caching of commonly used programs into available memory.
Oh please, how the HELL did this reach +5?? (Yeah, yeah, it bashes MS, no, I'm not new here.)
The UI was a bigger step from XP than most Windows releases have been, but not by that much. The inclusion of the Start search made is actually much easier for me to find my way around. Figuring this out took roughly 3 minutes; not exactly a major investment of time to "re-learn everything."
Vista and XP booted in about the same time on the last XP system I owned, if you account for the post-login "I can see my desktop but can't do shit" phase of XP's startup. Vista was usable during this time, due to them changing how background processes started.
Stepping a little out of order here, backward compatibility wasn't even close to a problem for me (although I realize it was for most people). Vista loaded over 90% of XP's drivers without a complaint (run the installer in XP Compatibility Mode, which it automatically suggested if the install failed). I ran into exactly one piece of user-mode software that I couldn't get running adequately (it couldn't read from a COM port, despite the fact that a copy of Hyperterminal lifted straight from Win95 could; no idea what the hell this other app was doing wring). Every program I use in my day-to-day life ran flawlessly, from 10-year-old games to open-source apps where a Windows port is almost an afterthought.
Security, now. Suggesting that this was not a priority for Vista is absolute bullshit, and shows the true trollish nature of your post. Everything from UAC to the very breaking of backward compatibility that you so bemoan was part of an effort to improve security. Part of the reason Vista was so long in development is because every piece of code, including legacy stuff from way back in the early days of Windows, was examined for potential security vulnerabilities. Strong behind-the-scenes security improvements like Address Space Layout Randomization were added. Windows security has come a very long way.
As for the DRM, I dislike DRM too, but if Slashdot didn't constantly remind me of its presence, I would never even have noticed it in Vista. As somebody who doesn't watch Blu-Ray or HD-DVD, it hasn't been relevant. On the other hand, ripping CDs and DVDs still works just fine (including that the tools to rip CDs are built into the OS). For that matter, Vista is the first version of Windows to ship with the ability to decode DVDs (and HD optical media) out-of-the-box. On XP you needed an extra CSS decoder for commercial DVDs, and to this day I don't believe any other OS can legally play encrypted Blu-Ray movies. Don't get me wrong, I hate the MAFIAA, but it's hard to see how legally enabling playback of their stuff is really a detriment to Microsoft's customers.
You've got it slightly wrong (mostly, but not entirely, correct) regarding the "reduced security" thing. Specifically, what MS did with Win7 is make it so that certain MS-signed executables will elevate invisibly for members of the Administrators group. A few interesting things about this:
Technically it slightly reduces security, because you don't get a chance to deny the program launching. However, this isn't a major problem; if the program is launched by a compromised user-level program, that compromised program can't pass messages to an Administrative program anyhow (look up 'Windows Process Integrity Levels' for more info). The programs that elevate automatically are typically ones that can't be run without elevation. There are a few exceptions - technically there's no reason you couldn't run regedit as a non-admin for example; most keys are readable and keys in HKCU are writable by standard users - but generally speaking these are programs which one only runs when they *want* to do Admin stuff. The big one: what if a vulnerability is discovered in such a program, that can be exploited by a local, non-admin program for elevation-of-privilege? Well, this undeniably would suck if you've got a vulnerable non-admin program on your system, but MS has focused heavily on security for the last few years the risk of such EoP is pretty small. For what it's worth, I turn this setting back to the way it was in Vista - everything must prompt me. I've considered setting it so that it actually requires my password (like sudo) but decided that wasn't really worth the effort. On the other hand, if you (or somebody you know) simply can't stand UAC and wants it turned off, there's actually a *much* better option: set it so *all* programs can elevate silently the way Windows binaries in Win7 do. You have to use the Local Security Policy (RUN: secpol.msc) configuration for this, but it's pretty easy: Security Settings -> Local Policies -> Security Options -> User account Control: Behavior of the elevation prompt for administrators in Admin Approval Mode. Change this setting to "Elevate without prompting" and click OK; any program that a member of the Administrators group wants to run will no longer show a UAC prompt. However, it will still run as Standard User unless there's a reason for it to do otherwise. This is a safer option over disabling UAC entirely.
Yes and no - while the typical Windows Service is in fact a user-mode process, driver code is also referred to as a "service" on Windows (and many used to run in user-space - remember NT was originally intended to be a microkernel, and is slowly moving in that direction again). However, most are still kernel-mode and don't show up in services.msc or Task Manager (except as part of the System process). Unless you go digging in the registry or develop NT drivers, you probably won't even know what most of them are called.
And the startup services (which are annoying and increase boot time).
The browser plug-in is the real problem, though. Slow, overrides functionality that newer versions of IE already have, and historically second only to Flashplayer as the single most exploited plug-in. Apple may like to claim that there are no viruses for their system, but it sure as hell isn't due to their ability to write secure code.
Your implication that this is something Windows lacks isn't really true. Windows permissions also control access to files and programs on a user-by-user basis. You can even do it from the command line (manually or in a script). What's more, you can easily do things like specifically exclude account X from running program Y without needing to create a group off all the users who *can* execute Y (which may be everybody other than X). The execute bit in NT permissions is surprisingly rarely used (it's enabled by default for everything, including plain text files) but it works as you'd expect. Remove it from a program (or add an entry on the Deny side with Execute checked) and that user (or group) cannot execute the program. Do the same thing to a library (.dll) and any program that relies on said library will fail. Do it to a directory and the user/group will be unable to see that directory's contents.
I simply do not get why people think that the built-in file & folder security management for Windows is inferior to that of Linux.
The backward-ness of your comment on sudo is hilarious.
The core of sudo is actually a very simple program - at installation it is SetUID root (but executable by users). When invoked, it reads the sudoers file to check whether the action is permitted (possibly checking a password, etc) and if so, simply execs the parameters it was passed. The relevant thing here is that sudo itself (and therefore any program executed by it) always runs as root. Remove the SetUID bit on sudo (or change its owner) and it's pointless.
How is this different from using Run As on Windows? Again you tell it the program to run, the user to run it as (default is Administrator), and provide credentials. There's no sudoers equivalent and the API to start a process is different, but the end result is the same - the program is run using the user ID of the high-permission user (root or Administrator).
UAC, by comparison, actually works differently - Vista/Win7/Server 2008 user accounts have two tokens, elevated and un-elevated. If you're a member of the Administrators group but not *the* Administrator account, then processes normally start using the un-elevated token. If you use UAC to start a process, that process gets the elevated token. Here's the difference, though - the elevated token is still for your account.
A quick way to test and compare: both Windows and *nix have the whoami command. Try the following: At an un-elevated CMD prompt, use whoami. You should see something like [computer_name]\[your_user_name] Next, type runas/noprofile/user:[computer_name]\administrator cmd and enter the password when prompted (on Vista/Win7, you'll need to have enabled the Admin account. You could alternatively use another user account on your computer). In the new window, try whoami again - it should come up like [computer_name]\Administrator (or whatever account you specified). Third, try opening a CMD prompt using UAC, then run whoami again. You'll get the same response as if you didn't use UAC.
On Linux or another Unix-like system, type whoami and you'll see your username (presumably not root). Then try sudo bash followed by whoami (or even just sudo whoami) and it'll say root. Using su will give the same result.
Hmm... never tried with Ubuntu, but YAST2 (Suse/openSuse user-friendly config tool) has a section for joining a Windows domain. Of course, Group Policy updates don't mean anything, so if that's what you were getting at (easy centralized policy administration that is automatically pushed to a wide network) then no.
It's worth noting that the ribbon, when not expanded, is just a single line the thickness of a standard toolbar - thinner than the way most people have their Office toolbars configured.
You can expand or collapse the ribbon by double-clicking on an active tab. While collapsed, you can also single-click a tab (the tabs are the only part that remain visible) to view the ribbon temporarily, like a menu. Select an option and it hides again.
Office 2007 really should have publicized this better. 2010 has a button you can click specifically to collapse or expand the ribbon, and while I don't personally use it (double-click is faster for me) it's amazing how many people thought it was a completely new feature just because the button was new.
Several other of your points have been addressed already (seriously, this is the first complaint about the breadcrumb navigation that I've ever seen) but your third one is just WTF? Define "alternate" filesystems, please; I run programs off CDFS (CD), UDF (DVD), and FAT32 (flashdrive) all the time. Granted, those are filesystems that ship with Windows, so maybe that's not what you meant. Ignoring the question of *why* you would have Windows binaries on a non-Windows filesystem, as long as the execute bit was set (or the FS driver reported it to be set - EXT2FS, for example, ignores most of the permissions bits) Windows should be able to execute it. I'm still not getting the "why" part though - most people don't ever connect a device that Windows doesn't ship the filesystem for, and for cross-OS compatibility, the OSS drivers for NTFS are better than the NT drivers for the myriad OSS filesystems.
It's also worth pointing out that Office 97 was a Windows release and 2008 was a Mac release. The same code is generally used behind-the-scenes for Windows and Mac versions, but they may have dropped some of the compatibility stuff from he Mac version.
Wow seriously, a complaint that he can't find a "Up" button in the same sentence as a complaint about the breadcrumb navigation bar...
The "Up" button you want is just click on the name of the folder above your current one! Heack, you can even go up THREE folders with one click, if you want to! Seriously, I'll grant you that it's different and therefore a certain portion fo the community will automatically think "bad" but come on, the breadcrumb navigation is FAR better than a single "go up one level" button.
Also, while Backspace works perfectly well, what it does is go Back, not Up (it's always done this, and consistently does this across everything from IE/Firefox/Whatever to the various wizards and installers that have multiple steps with a Back option). Sometimes going up a directory is not a Back option (if you jumped into the middle of a folder tree) and therefore Backspace won't go where you want. He was also asking for a mouse-based solution.
Being able to use Alt-F4 on the desktop is a feature; it's an easy way to shut the system down using the keyboard alone, even if you don't have a WinKey (rare today, but there was a time that not many keyboards had one). Believe it or not, you can navigate pretty much the entirety of Windows without a mouse (and if your mouse or mouse drivers ever get whacked, you'll need to).
If you want to do a bunch of configuration for one session, either turn off UAC temporarily, log in as Administrator (which by default has UAC disabled, although the account itself is also disabled by default), or put up with a handful of confirmation dialogs. It's not like they take that much time to deal with, and I've blocked programs even from reputably good sources (i.e. commercially purchased through retail or Steam) when they wanted to do something as Admin with no good reason.
I'll be honest; I'm not sure why there's so much delay before the general release anyhow. The RTM build was signed off on months ago, and went up for MSDN subscribers (a very small portion of the general public, but often people with very little connection to MS) only a few days later. At my school, through the MSDN Academic Alliance program (free MS software to endingeering students) we've been able to get Win7 for some weeks (and via http://dreamspark.com/ all students with a.edu email address can get Server 2008 R2, the server version of the Win7 release).
So... why so long before boxes hit shelves? It seems very odd to me.
Indeed. For example, I believe OpenBSD was the first production (non-research) OS to implement Address Space Layout Randomization. This is the kind of forward-thinking and comprehensive defense-in-depth approach that OpenBSD takes; even if an application vulnerability is found, it's hard to make an exploit that will *do* anything.
List of all their torrents, by architecture and type. Search for the text "install" to find the binary install images (rather than source code or package bundles).
The distinction mostly ends up being a matter of the ability to install programs. Even that's a bit blurry - my very basic dumbphone can download little Java ME games if I pay through the nose for it - but Symbian, WinMo, Blackberry, and of course the iPhone are almsot built around the ability for users to install software.
To look at it another way, gaming consoles are often the most powerful computer in a person's house. However, they aren't counted among computers - simply because they aren't designed to be used like one. Similarly, smartphones/PDAs (the significant difference being the presence of a cellular radio) are essentially hend-held computers, used to run programs, browse the web, check email, and so forth (although of the various ones I've tried, Maemo for the Nokia N8x0 is the only one where I could literally take an application written for desktop Linux, recompile it without touchin the source, and have an app that works on the N800). Dumbphones, including "texting" phones (with keyboards and such) are specific-purpose devices, much like a game console. For this reason, they are tracked differently (and sell at different prices).
There are *some* limits on replicator capability. They require energy to run, which typically comes from matter/antimatter reactors. There's no indication that the replicators can produce antimatter, and there are occasional references to needing to conserve supplies of it. There are other limits (dilithium for the reactors required mining, at least in TOS and I believe in TNG as well). There may have been other references to natural resources as well. In any case, I don't recall any particular sign that ships were so incredibly readily accessible as you imply. Indeed, TOS and TNG were remarkably short on civilian vessels, and when encountered it was usually because they were in some sort of trouble. That doesn't suggest a universe where anybody who wants to can get their own little starship.
As for the gold-pressed latinum issue, this is purely trivia but latinum itself (a silvery liquid) was the part that couldn't by replicated. The gold was just to make it possible to handle the stuff; there was no indication that gold couldn't be replicated easily enough.
QT allows use of just the core libraries, so that's not a concern. Why do you talk about "only" targeting Windows or Linux, though? QT runs on OS X, WinCE, and other platforms as well. For example, if Skype runs on it, you can bet QT does too.
It's mostly because they aren't answering the OP's question, and aren't contributing any useful information to the discussion. Compare the posts above with the following:
From what I've heard, one of the best cross-platform libraries for C++ is QT, (originally developed by Trolltech, now by Nokia). It's available either open source (LGPL) or commercially, and while best known for its UI toolkit also provides an extensive library of other functions. Wikipedia has a long list of things it has been used for, and other information.
On the other hand, if you're not too wedded to C++ specifically, Java, C#, or Python might be good alternatives. Syntax-wise, C# and Java are extremely similar to C++, and all three have extensive libraries (built in) that provide the functionality you're looking for. They're also cross-platform (with C# you'd need to stick with stuff Mono can do, but that's still pretty extensive) and you don't even need to re-compile. Speed-wise, both Java and C# are nearly as fast as native code for most applications today, as are certain Python run-time environments. If you need explicit memory management for something, you can even do that with C# (although at that point it may be better to stick with C++).
Windows (in the modern sense) has nothing at all to do with DOS aside from including a 16-bit virtualization layer (in the 32-bit versions) and R/W support for its filesystem (not that you'll see many FAT16 volumes these days).
Windows, or more correctly NT, was designed from the ground up to be 32-bit, multi-user, preemptive multitasking, support multiple APIs and/or ABIs (DOS, Win16, Win32, OS/2, and POSIX), be portable (the DOS-based Windows versions used assembly heavily, which made them fast and lightweight, but prone to bugs and impossible to port; NT is almost entirely C and has been ported to several completely different architectures), and be suitable for servers and workstations (not, initially, home computers). The lead designer of NT (and author of much of its kernel), Dave Cutler, used to be one of the leaders on VAX/VMS and other projects by DEC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Cutler
Claiming that Windows was "morphed from DOS" indicates either a stunning lack of knowledge about the modern software world (the last Windows version in any way based on DOS was ME, which was quickly replaced with the NT-based 2000 and XP), or that you are simply a troll.
Since nobody in the top 200 posts seems to have posted it:
FROM: President Barack Obama [info@barackobama.com] SUBJECT: A call to action
This morning, Michelle and I awoke to some surprising and humbling news. At 6 a.m., we received word that I'd been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009.
To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize -- men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.
But I also know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes.
That is why I've said that I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations and all peoples to confront the common challenges of the 21st century. These challenges won't all be met during my presidency, or even my lifetime. But I know these challenges can be met so long as it's recognized that they will not be met by one person or one nation alone.
This award -- and the call to action that comes with it -- does not belong simply to me or my administration; it belongs to all people around the world who have fought for justice and for peace. And most of all, it belongs to you, the men and women of America, who have dared to hope and have worked so hard to make our world a little better.
So today we humbly recommit to the important work that we've begun together. I'm grateful that you've stood with me thus far, and I'm honored to continue our vital work in the years to come.
The Alpha Centauri system is under 4.5 LY from Sol, but that's certainly still a damn long journey. Theoretically we probably have the technology* to send a probe out that way, but it would be very expensive, take most likely centuries, and have a very low chance of actual success at the end. At this point, the cost is completely not worth the potential benefit. Do a bit more exploration of our own system, testing the types of technology a starship would need to have, before you consider actually building one. I'm in my 20s and don't really expect to see a starship launch within my lifetime (although I sincerely hope one will, even if it's unmanned and won't arrive until my great-grandchildren are long dead).
* Ion/plasma drives (still require a bit of fuel, but mostly they require lots of electricity), powered by fission reactor (would need replace the fuel en route, since I think current designs only operate for 30 years or so per fueling). Would need to be either built in space or launched from Earth's surface by a rocket. Extremely slow initially, building up to being eventually extremely fast (at which point the dangers of impacting with *anything* solid are severe). AI-controlled since it would need to operate outside usable radio control range. Very powerful antenna with extremely good directionality for sending data back.
For what it's worth, Office has had significant SKU differentiation (usually in which portions of the full suite were included, sometimes in what features of individual programs were available) for probably over a decade now. Nobody seems overly bothered by it. Each versions spells out what is and is not included, and the one that most people find most necessary (Word) is included in every suite SKU (you can also buy the individual programs, if none of the suites fit your needs).
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft runs a large collection of newsgroups for discussion and feedback. I've seen MS employees, and those who have the ears of MS employees, on these boards. You may well be able to find others who have the same complaints that you do and get somebody to fix your issues. The web-based interface is accessible through http://www.microsoft.com/communities/newsgroups/en-us/, or you can use a newsreader program.
The IPv6 add-on for XP only implements a subset of the v6 functionality (among other things, I don't believe it will allow IPv4 programs to operate over a v6-only network, which Vista and Win7 do permit).
My guess is that the GP is referring to Transactional NTFS. There are now public APIs to do NTFS operations as transactions, and they are used by Explorer (among some other apps) so that if you are in the middle of a big file deletion, suddenly realize that Oh Shit you didn't mean to delete that, you cna click Cancel and the whole operation is rolled back.
Have you tried the new taskbar? It's really very nice. Jump Lists in particular I use constantly (open recent files or start a program in a recently/commonly used mode).
In relation to XP there's much more that hasn't been mentioned, the biggest ones for me being the Start search (I can't stand to actually navigate the Start menu anymore) and the fact that running as a non-Admin (as everybody should) is no longer incredibly annoying the way it was in XP (yes, I like UAC. I like sudo too, incidentally.) The massive improvement to Windows Update is very nice as well, as is the pre-caching of commonly used programs into available memory.
Oh please, how the HELL did this reach +5?? (Yeah, yeah, it bashes MS, no, I'm not new here.)
The UI was a bigger step from XP than most Windows releases have been, but not by that much. The inclusion of the Start search made is actually much easier for me to find my way around. Figuring this out took roughly 3 minutes; not exactly a major investment of time to "re-learn everything."
Vista and XP booted in about the same time on the last XP system I owned, if you account for the post-login "I can see my desktop but can't do shit" phase of XP's startup. Vista was usable during this time, due to them changing how background processes started.
Stepping a little out of order here, backward compatibility wasn't even close to a problem for me (although I realize it was for most people). Vista loaded over 90% of XP's drivers without a complaint (run the installer in XP Compatibility Mode, which it automatically suggested if the install failed). I ran into exactly one piece of user-mode software that I couldn't get running adequately (it couldn't read from a COM port, despite the fact that a copy of Hyperterminal lifted straight from Win95 could; no idea what the hell this other app was doing wring). Every program I use in my day-to-day life ran flawlessly, from 10-year-old games to open-source apps where a Windows port is almost an afterthought.
Security, now. Suggesting that this was not a priority for Vista is absolute bullshit, and shows the true trollish nature of your post. Everything from UAC to the very breaking of backward compatibility that you so bemoan was part of an effort to improve security. Part of the reason Vista was so long in development is because every piece of code, including legacy stuff from way back in the early days of Windows, was examined for potential security vulnerabilities. Strong behind-the-scenes security improvements like Address Space Layout Randomization were added. Windows security has come a very long way.
As for the DRM, I dislike DRM too, but if Slashdot didn't constantly remind me of its presence, I would never even have noticed it in Vista. As somebody who doesn't watch Blu-Ray or HD-DVD, it hasn't been relevant. On the other hand, ripping CDs and DVDs still works just fine (including that the tools to rip CDs are built into the OS). For that matter, Vista is the first version of Windows to ship with the ability to decode DVDs (and HD optical media) out-of-the-box. On XP you needed an extra CSS decoder for commercial DVDs, and to this day I don't believe any other OS can legally play encrypted Blu-Ray movies. Don't get me wrong, I hate the MAFIAA, but it's hard to see how legally enabling playback of their stuff is really a detriment to Microsoft's customers.
You've got it slightly wrong (mostly, but not entirely, correct) regarding the "reduced security" thing. Specifically, what MS did with Win7 is make it so that certain MS-signed executables will elevate invisibly for members of the Administrators group. A few interesting things about this:
Technically it slightly reduces security, because you don't get a chance to deny the program launching. However, this isn't a major problem; if the program is launched by a compromised user-level program, that compromised program can't pass messages to an Administrative program anyhow (look up 'Windows Process Integrity Levels' for more info).
The programs that elevate automatically are typically ones that can't be run without elevation. There are a few exceptions - technically there's no reason you couldn't run regedit as a non-admin for example; most keys are readable and keys in HKCU are writable by standard users - but generally speaking these are programs which one only runs when they *want* to do Admin stuff.
The big one: what if a vulnerability is discovered in such a program, that can be exploited by a local, non-admin program for elevation-of-privilege? Well, this undeniably would suck if you've got a vulnerable non-admin program on your system, but MS has focused heavily on security for the last few years the risk of such EoP is pretty small.
For what it's worth, I turn this setting back to the way it was in Vista - everything must prompt me. I've considered setting it so that it actually requires my password (like sudo) but decided that wasn't really worth the effort.
On the other hand, if you (or somebody you know) simply can't stand UAC and wants it turned off, there's actually a *much* better option: set it so *all* programs can elevate silently the way Windows binaries in Win7 do. You have to use the Local Security Policy (RUN: secpol.msc) configuration for this, but it's pretty easy: Security Settings -> Local Policies -> Security Options -> User account Control: Behavior of the elevation prompt for administrators in Admin Approval Mode. Change this setting to "Elevate without prompting" and click OK; any program that a member of the Administrators group wants to run will no longer show a UAC prompt. However, it will still run as Standard User unless there's a reason for it to do otherwise. This is a safer option over disabling UAC entirely.
Yes and no - while the typical Windows Service is in fact a user-mode process, driver code is also referred to as a "service" on Windows (and many used to run in user-space - remember NT was originally intended to be a microkernel, and is slowly moving in that direction again). However, most are still kernel-mode and don't show up in services.msc or Task Manager (except as part of the System process). Unless you go digging in the registry or develop NT drivers, you probably won't even know what most of them are called.
And the startup services (which are annoying and increase boot time).
The browser plug-in is the real problem, though. Slow, overrides functionality that newer versions of IE already have, and historically second only to Flashplayer as the single most exploited plug-in. Apple may like to claim that there are no viruses for their system, but it sure as hell isn't due to their ability to write secure code.
Your implication that this is something Windows lacks isn't really true. Windows permissions also control access to files and programs on a user-by-user basis. You can even do it from the command line (manually or in a script). What's more, you can easily do things like specifically exclude account X from running program Y without needing to create a group off all the users who *can* execute Y (which may be everybody other than X). The execute bit in NT permissions is surprisingly rarely used (it's enabled by default for everything, including plain text files) but it works as you'd expect. Remove it from a program (or add an entry on the Deny side with Execute checked) and that user (or group) cannot execute the program. Do the same thing to a library (.dll) and any program that relies on said library will fail. Do it to a directory and the user/group will be unable to see that directory's contents.
I simply do not get why people think that the built-in file & folder security management for Windows is inferior to that of Linux.
The backward-ness of your comment on sudo is hilarious.
The core of sudo is actually a very simple program - at installation it is SetUID root (but executable by users). When invoked, it reads the sudoers file to check whether the action is permitted (possibly checking a password, etc) and if so, simply execs the parameters it was passed. The relevant thing here is that sudo itself (and therefore any program executed by it) always runs as root. Remove the SetUID bit on sudo (or change its owner) and it's pointless.
How is this different from using Run As on Windows? Again you tell it the program to run, the user to run it as (default is Administrator), and provide credentials. There's no sudoers equivalent and the API to start a process is different, but the end result is the same - the program is run using the user ID of the high-permission user (root or Administrator).
UAC, by comparison, actually works differently - Vista/Win7/Server 2008 user accounts have two tokens, elevated and un-elevated. If you're a member of the Administrators group but not *the* Administrator account, then processes normally start using the un-elevated token. If you use UAC to start a process, that process gets the elevated token. Here's the difference, though - the elevated token is still for your account.
A quick way to test and compare: both Windows and *nix have the whoami command. Try the following: /noprofile /user:[computer_name]\administrator cmd and enter the password when prompted (on Vista/Win7, you'll need to have enabled the Admin account. You could alternatively use another user account on your computer). In the new window, try whoami again - it should come up like [computer_name]\Administrator (or whatever account you specified).
At an un-elevated CMD prompt, use whoami. You should see something like [computer_name]\[your_user_name]
Next, type runas
Third, try opening a CMD prompt using UAC, then run whoami again. You'll get the same response as if you didn't use UAC.
On Linux or another Unix-like system, type whoami and you'll see your username (presumably not root).
Then try sudo bash followed by whoami (or even just sudo whoami) and it'll say root.
Using su will give the same result.
Hmm... never tried with Ubuntu, but YAST2 (Suse/openSuse user-friendly config tool) has a section for joining a Windows domain. Of course, Group Policy updates don't mean anything, so if that's what you were getting at (easy centralized policy administration that is automatically pushed to a wide network) then no.
It's worth noting that the ribbon, when not expanded, is just a single line the thickness of a standard toolbar - thinner than the way most people have their Office toolbars configured.
You can expand or collapse the ribbon by double-clicking on an active tab. While collapsed, you can also single-click a tab (the tabs are the only part that remain visible) to view the ribbon temporarily, like a menu. Select an option and it hides again.
Office 2007 really should have publicized this better. 2010 has a button you can click specifically to collapse or expand the ribbon, and while I don't personally use it (double-click is faster for me) it's amazing how many people thought it was a completely new feature just because the button was new.
Several other of your points have been addressed already (seriously, this is the first complaint about the breadcrumb navigation that I've ever seen) but your third one is just WTF? Define "alternate" filesystems, please; I run programs off CDFS (CD), UDF (DVD), and FAT32 (flashdrive) all the time. Granted, those are filesystems that ship with Windows, so maybe that's not what you meant. Ignoring the question of *why* you would have Windows binaries on a non-Windows filesystem, as long as the execute bit was set (or the FS driver reported it to be set - EXT2FS, for example, ignores most of the permissions bits) Windows should be able to execute it. I'm still not getting the "why" part though - most people don't ever connect a device that Windows doesn't ship the filesystem for, and for cross-OS compatibility, the OSS drivers for NTFS are better than the NT drivers for the myriad OSS filesystems.
It's also worth pointing out that Office 97 was a Windows release and 2008 was a Mac release. The same code is generally used behind-the-scenes for Windows and Mac versions, but they may have dropped some of the compatibility stuff from he Mac version.
Wow seriously, a complaint that he can't find a "Up" button in the same sentence as a complaint about the breadcrumb navigation bar...
The "Up" button you want is just click on the name of the folder above your current one! Heack, you can even go up THREE folders with one click, if you want to! Seriously, I'll grant you that it's different and therefore a certain portion fo the community will automatically think "bad" but come on, the breadcrumb navigation is FAR better than a single "go up one level" button.
Also, while Backspace works perfectly well, what it does is go Back, not Up (it's always done this, and consistently does this across everything from IE/Firefox/Whatever to the various wizards and installers that have multiple steps with a Back option). Sometimes going up a directory is not a Back option (if you jumped into the middle of a folder tree) and therefore Backspace won't go where you want. He was also asking for a mouse-based solution.
Being able to use Alt-F4 on the desktop is a feature; it's an easy way to shut the system down using the keyboard alone, even if you don't have a WinKey (rare today, but there was a time that not many keyboards had one). Believe it or not, you can navigate pretty much the entirety of Windows without a mouse (and if your mouse or mouse drivers ever get whacked, you'll need to).
If you want to do a bunch of configuration for one session, either turn off UAC temporarily, log in as Administrator (which by default has UAC disabled, although the account itself is also disabled by default), or put up with a handful of confirmation dialogs. It's not like they take that much time to deal with, and I've blocked programs even from reputably good sources (i.e. commercially purchased through retail or Steam) when they wanted to do something as Admin with no good reason.
I'll be honest; I'm not sure why there's so much delay before the general release anyhow. The RTM build was signed off on months ago, and went up for MSDN subscribers (a very small portion of the general public, but often people with very little connection to MS) only a few days later. At my school, through the MSDN Academic Alliance program (free MS software to endingeering students) we've been able to get Win7 for some weeks (and via http://dreamspark.com/ all students with a .edu email address can get Server 2008 R2, the server version of the Win7 release).
So... why so long before boxes hit shelves? It seems very odd to me.
Indeed. For example, I believe OpenBSD was the first production (non-research) OS to implement Address Space Layout Randomization. This is the kind of forward-thinking and comprehensive defense-in-depth approach that OpenBSD takes; even if an application vulnerability is found, it's hard to make an exploit that will *do* anything.
http://openbsd.somedomain.net/index.php?version=latest+release
List of all their torrents, by architecture and type. Search for the text "install" to find the binary install images (rather than source code or package bundles).
From the top story at Distrowatch.com, the link to the OpenBSD torrent site is http://openbsd.somedomain.net/index.php?version=latest+release
The ones you're mostly likely interested in:
http://openbsd.somedomain.net/torrents/OpenBSD_4_6_i386_install46_iso-2009-10-18-1238.torrent (i386)
http://openbsd.somedomain.net/torrents/OpenBSD_4_5_amd64_install45_iso-2009-04-30-2207.torrent (x86_64)
http://openbsd.somedomain.net/torrents/OpenBSD_4_5_macppc_install45_iso-2009-05-01-1435.torrent (PPC)
The distinction mostly ends up being a matter of the ability to install programs. Even that's a bit blurry - my very basic dumbphone can download little Java ME games if I pay through the nose for it - but Symbian, WinMo, Blackberry, and of course the iPhone are almsot built around the ability for users to install software.
To look at it another way, gaming consoles are often the most powerful computer in a person's house. However, they aren't counted among computers - simply because they aren't designed to be used like one. Similarly, smartphones/PDAs (the significant difference being the presence of a cellular radio) are essentially hend-held computers, used to run programs, browse the web, check email, and so forth (although of the various ones I've tried, Maemo for the Nokia N8x0 is the only one where I could literally take an application written for desktop Linux, recompile it without touchin the source, and have an app that works on the N800). Dumbphones, including "texting" phones (with keyboards and such) are specific-purpose devices, much like a game console. For this reason, they are tracked differently (and sell at different prices).
There are *some* limits on replicator capability. They require energy to run, which typically comes from matter/antimatter reactors. There's no indication that the replicators can produce antimatter, and there are occasional references to needing to conserve supplies of it. There are other limits (dilithium for the reactors required mining, at least in TOS and I believe in TNG as well). There may have been other references to natural resources as well. In any case, I don't recall any particular sign that ships were so incredibly readily accessible as you imply. Indeed, TOS and TNG were remarkably short on civilian vessels, and when encountered it was usually because they were in some sort of trouble. That doesn't suggest a universe where anybody who wants to can get their own little starship.
As for the gold-pressed latinum issue, this is purely trivia but latinum itself (a silvery liquid) was the part that couldn't by replicated. The gold was just to make it possible to handle the stuff; there was no indication that gold couldn't be replicated easily enough.
QT allows use of just the core libraries, so that's not a concern. Why do you talk about "only" targeting Windows or Linux, though? QT runs on OS X, WinCE, and other platforms as well. For example, if Skype runs on it, you can bet QT does too.
It's mostly because they aren't answering the OP's question, and aren't contributing any useful information to the discussion. Compare the posts above with the following:
From what I've heard, one of the best cross-platform libraries for C++ is QT, (originally developed by Trolltech, now by Nokia). It's available either open source (LGPL) or commercially, and while best known for its UI toolkit also provides an extensive library of other functions. Wikipedia has a long list of things it has been used for, and other information.
On the other hand, if you're not too wedded to C++ specifically, Java, C#, or Python might be good alternatives. Syntax-wise, C# and Java are extremely similar to C++, and all three have extensive libraries (built in) that provide the functionality you're looking for. They're also cross-platform (with C# you'd need to stick with stuff Mono can do, but that's still pretty extensive) and you don't even need to re-compile. Speed-wise, both Java and C# are nearly as fast as native code for most applications today, as are certain Python run-time environments. If you need explicit memory management for something, you can even do that with C# (although at that point it may be better to stick with C++).
Windows (in the modern sense) has nothing at all to do with DOS aside from including a 16-bit virtualization layer (in the 32-bit versions) and R/W support for its filesystem (not that you'll see many FAT16 volumes these days).
Windows, or more correctly NT, was designed from the ground up to be 32-bit, multi-user, preemptive multitasking, support multiple APIs and/or ABIs (DOS, Win16, Win32, OS/2, and POSIX), be portable (the DOS-based Windows versions used assembly heavily, which made them fast and lightweight, but prone to bugs and impossible to port; NT is almost entirely C and has been ported to several completely different architectures), and be suitable for servers and workstations (not, initially, home computers). The lead designer of NT (and author of much of its kernel), Dave Cutler, used to be one of the leaders on VAX/VMS and other projects by DEC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Cutler
Claiming that Windows was "morphed from DOS" indicates either a stunning lack of knowledge about the modern software world (the last Windows version in any way based on DOS was ME, which was quickly replaced with the NT-based 2000 and XP), or that you are simply a troll.
Since nobody in the top 200 posts seems to have posted it:
The Alpha Centauri system is under 4.5 LY from Sol, but that's certainly still a damn long journey. Theoretically we probably have the technology* to send a probe out that way, but it would be very expensive, take most likely centuries, and have a very low chance of actual success at the end. At this point, the cost is completely not worth the potential benefit. Do a bit more exploration of our own system, testing the types of technology a starship would need to have, before you consider actually building one. I'm in my 20s and don't really expect to see a starship launch within my lifetime (although I sincerely hope one will, even if it's unmanned and won't arrive until my great-grandchildren are long dead).
* Ion/plasma drives (still require a bit of fuel, but mostly they require lots of electricity), powered by fission reactor (would need replace the fuel en route, since I think current designs only operate for 30 years or so per fueling). Would need to be either built in space or launched from Earth's surface by a rocket. Extremely slow initially, building up to being eventually extremely fast (at which point the dangers of impacting with *anything* solid are severe). AI-controlled since it would need to operate outside usable radio control range. Very powerful antenna with extremely good directionality for sending data back.
For what it's worth, Office has had significant SKU differentiation (usually in which portions of the full suite were included, sometimes in what features of individual programs were available) for probably over a decade now. Nobody seems overly bothered by it. Each versions spells out what is and is not included, and the one that most people find most necessary (Word) is included in every suite SKU (you can also buy the individual programs, if none of the suites fit your needs).