It is well known fact, that internal to MS, and to the top executives there, that they did not think Vista had ANY issues at all. Why do you think they spend all those MILLIONs of dollars on Mojave and the silly SienField commercials? They actually THOUGHT it was PUBLIC perception problem, not a technical one.
Your RANDOM capiTALIZATION doesn't change THE fact that it *is* a public PERCEPTION proBlem, not a technical ONE.
Actually, I'll qualify that a bit: in the very early days, it was a technical problem, but not Microsoft's problem. It was a problem of OEMs not writing/QAing drivers for the OS. That has long-since been solved, though.
If your iPhone is crashing, perhaps it's because you jailbreaked it.
Never even thought about jailbreaking it. I wouldn't even know where to begin.
My iPhone is crashing because Safari on iPhone is a buggy piece of shit that crashes ALL THE FUCKING TIME. It crashed on me twice this morning, in fact I think I can almost repro it every single time: 1) Open a site that has links that spawn new windows 2) Click a link to a sizeable page, > 200k or so; Safari opens a new browser and begins loading the page 3) Wait until the page is fully loaded 4) Click the "browser windows" button on the lower right of the screen (sorry I don't know the name of it) 5) Press the close box in the second window
Safari will freeze-up for a solid 30 seconds to a minute, then crash to the home menus. Strangely, if you close the window *while* the page is loading, Safari works fine-- this is how you can recover when Safari tries to load the same two pages again when it restarts.
Amazing how stable a browser can be when it's NOT saddled with crap like Java and Flash.
From my experience, the answer is "not very."
Ah, so the poor registry design (see Single Point of Failure) is my fault, and any problems with it are also my fault.
The Registry exists to support features OS X doesn't even have, such as Group Policy or WSUS. And it's not a single point of failure, as the OS keeps multiple redundant copies of it and can silently recover from registry errors.
Was the registry buggy in older versions of Windows? Yes. Is it now? No.
Yup, that makes sense. And you said that *Mac* users are dicks.
Mac users are dicks. I used to be one, I know... I even used to be a dick, before I realized that a Windows computer could do everything a Mac can do with less expense.
I have to say, after being subjected to the abuse known as Age of Conan, I sure do appreciate World of Warcraft. I've never seen a game before so eager to alienate new players. Oh, and having voice overs for every single NPC doesn't help if the voice actors are so bad they could be classified as a war crime.
The B2 and F-117 are military aircraft. They don't need to be attached to a gate at a airport, unload and load hundreds of passengers and their luggage in a reasonable amount of time. All that new loading that was developed for the A-380? You'd have to start over from scratch for this plane, and I don't see any way you'd be able to pack them at the terminal as densely as current airframes can, not if they're decent-sized.
But what it really comes down to is that if these planes were as safe an investment as you seem to think they are, Boeing would be half done with the model by now. Seriously, you're talking about hauling the same number of passengers with half the fuel-- either you're lying about the fuel numbers, or there's something so hideously wrong with the idea that Boeing and Airbus won't pursue it regardless of fuel consumption.
I still think the X-48 is well within the realm of fantasy, at least in the next twenty years. The practical questions are overwhelming-- to consider even just the airport renovations alone would be crazy amounts of work.
"Security through obscurity" is no security at all.
You hear that statement on Slashdot all the time, and it's complete bunk. Maybe it applies to some technology product, fine, but to pretend it applies to everything in the real world is just ridiculous.
If a thief breaks into my house, and can't find my safe because it's hidden behind a secret panel, then my safe doesn't get stolen. That should be obvious.
Sports betting is legal in Nevada. Which brings up an interesting point-- when the feds were coming up with that total, did they subtract the bets coming from Nevada?
I've never even heard of "Live Messenger". (I'm guessing that's what MSN is called now?) I guess good for you if you know the tiny number of people who use it, but most of us are on widely-used networks.
Live Messenger: 330 million active users Yahoo Messenger: 248 million AIM: 53 million
So, congratulations on being utterly ignorant of a product literally hundreds of millions of people use, and one that's leading its industry by a fair margin.
"Most of us are on widely-used networks?" Live Messenger is the most widely-used network there is, outside of China.
Actually, I think your little quote up there is actually *so* stupid it's actually rolled-around to being purposefully stupid. It's impossible to believe there's a human being capable of posting to Slashdot who hasn't ever heard of Live Messenger. So why are you pretending to be so moronic? Is there some kind of anti-Microsoft motivation in there somewhere?
Frankly I don't use AIM much anymore either, but it at least used to have users.
There's a large proportion of people who couldn't sit through 2001: A Space Odyssey when it came out. That has nothing to do with the soundtrack or "cheesiness," it's just one of those movies that people either love or hate.
Kubrick generally got the people wrong, (i.e. the USSR still existing in 2001, the stewardesses, the video phone, etc) but the tech remains extremely plausible. Except HAL.
Unfortunately Sci fi is a genre that doesn't age well unless its done *really* well. Cheap sets, tacky costumes, poor technology (sorry , a wardrobe with flashing lights and some tapes spinning doesn't cut it in 2009) and bad acting end up making something made in the 70s or 80s almost comical now. One of the few exceptions I can think of is Space 1999 (not sure if the yanks ever got that) which I watched last year and though it looked a bit dated the effects somehow still worked and Martin Landau was/is a fscking good actor.
ROFL, while I generally agree with you-- Space: 1999 is your best example?! The best thing you can say about Space: 1999 now is that its opening credits inspired BSG's. (i.e. credits that contain clips from the episode you're about to see.) Every time the chick who could turn into things (Maya, I think?) turned into something, I nearly died laughing at the ridiculous costume/puppet/whatever.
The Eagle from Space: 1999, though, still holds up as an excellent spaceship model, and one of the most plausible ever put on TV.
Here's some better examples:
1) Buck Rogers from the 80s. Don't laugh. Other than the episodes that featured disco dancing, this show actually still works very well. The effects are definitely passable by modern standards.
2) Blake's 7. This one also holds together well when you remember that the crappy effects were crappy even when the series was originally aired. (That's important to remember, because the effects really are extremely crappy.) Also, Blake's 7 purposefully takes place in an extremely cluttered and busy version of "space", which can make it look like a bad 50s sci-fi movie at times, but I'm sure was done intentionally. (Look at the title screen: http://www.crunchgear.com/wp-content/uploads/blakes7.jpg they have like 7 planets in a single frame!)
3) The original Star Trek. The good thing about being decades ahead of your time is that when you're in re-runs, you still look pretty good. The worst offender in the old Star Trek is the miniskirts. The effects (done on film, as film effects technology were more perfected than video effects) still mostly pass muster, and there's very little dated about the scripts. Some scripts probably seemed *more* cheesy when they aired than they do now-- like the episode that featured space-hippies.
BTW for the importance of Star Trek's film effects, compare Star Trek effects with, say, Blake's 7 or Dr. Who from the same approximate era. The BBC, possibly to save money, insisted on doing all of their effects with video equipment, avoiding film. While they undoubtedly invented tons of new techniques in the process, the results were pretty pathetic.
The nuclear holocaust happened in the original series, too. It was less graphic- all they really showed was a couple of Cylon fighters gunning down a peace celebration-- but the exact same event happened off-screen. Just saying.
I'm guessing the name was necessary to obtain funding for the series.
"I want to make an gritty and edgy new sci-fi series, loaded with violence and moral conflicts. Oh, and in the first episode, 50,000,000,000 people die."
"No."
"Ok. My second proposal: A re-imagining of Battlestar Galactica."
1) Microsoft basically invented the concept of software licensing in the first place, and so got a good head-start 2) Microsoft began as a software (only) company, therefore they were able to sell their OS to dozens of OEMs, and not only on their own machines (as opposed to, say, Commodore or Apple.) 3) Europe/Asia/the rest of the world, for some reason, was *waaay* behind on the whole affair. What I don't get is why Japan buy Windows-- Japan was building computers for decades, it never occurred to anybody there to make a home-grown OS? Why didn't France make one? What's the UK's version of Microsoft? In fact, why is every non-English-speaking country running an OS created by the whitest of the white Americans in Redmond, WA?
A year ago, the text-editing panel didn't show up for any text fields in Pidgin, nor did they get identified as controls to the speech recognition system. Maybe they've fixed that; frankly I doubt it.
I guess what you're doing is using the tablet's on-screen keyboard, and not editing fields in-place. Yes, that works, because the on-screen keyboard is treated as just a keyboard, but it's a far cry from "supporting tablet input".
(BTW, when I say "it doesn't work", I don't mean "it crashes," I mean "it doesn't work correctly.")
Pidgin-- unless you have a tablet PC or use voice recognition, Pidgin doesn't work with either of those. (Nor do any GTK+ applications on Windows, at least none I've seen... if anybody tells you a GTK+ app has a native look&feel, please slap them. Thank you.)
Anyway, I "solved" my problem by just switching to Live Messenger, which works with all of Microsoft's UI features, and all my friends were on anyway. The two people I had left on AIM, I just told them they'd have to switch too if they wanted to IM me. I'm a jerk that way. (One has.)
Unfortunately, I have a job. Which makes it like playing World of Warcraft-- no matter how good I was at it, no matter how knowledgeable, skilled, determined-- I'd never be able to beat out the 14-year-olds living in their parents' basement.
Besides, I honestly believe Wikipedia is beyond repair at this point. Just need someone to come up with the new great idea in Wikis to replace it.
Being mean to newcomers is pretty much the *only thing I've ever seen Wikipedia editors do*. Well, that, and delete pages. If you really care, and you're not just pretending, you have a huge, huge problem to solve, buddy.
Slashdot Mirror
It is well known fact, that internal to MS, and to the top executives there, that they did not think Vista had ANY issues at all. Why do you think they spend all those MILLIONs of dollars on Mojave and the silly SienField commercials? They actually THOUGHT it was PUBLIC perception problem, not a technical one.
Your RANDOM capiTALIZATION doesn't change THE fact that it *is* a public PERCEPTION proBlem, not a technical ONE.
Actually, I'll qualify that a bit: in the very early days, it was a technical problem, but not Microsoft's problem. It was a problem of OEMs not writing/QAing drivers for the OS. That has long-since been solved, though.
My problem with Warcraft III was that it wasn't any fucking fun.
I'm sorry to have insulted your God-like Warcraft skills, or whatever the hell prompted you to reply to my post with at rambling, ass-kissing, screed.
If your iPhone is crashing, perhaps it's because you jailbreaked it.
Never even thought about jailbreaking it. I wouldn't even know where to begin.
My iPhone is crashing because Safari on iPhone is a buggy piece of shit that crashes ALL THE FUCKING TIME. It crashed on me twice this morning, in fact I think I can almost repro it every single time:
1) Open a site that has links that spawn new windows
2) Click a link to a sizeable page, > 200k or so; Safari opens a new browser and begins loading the page
3) Wait until the page is fully loaded
4) Click the "browser windows" button on the lower right of the screen (sorry I don't know the name of it)
5) Press the close box in the second window
Safari will freeze-up for a solid 30 seconds to a minute, then crash to the home menus. Strangely, if you close the window *while* the page is loading, Safari works fine-- this is how you can recover when Safari tries to load the same two pages again when it restarts.
Amazing how stable a browser can be when it's NOT saddled with crap like Java and Flash.
From my experience, the answer is "not very."
Ah, so the poor registry design (see Single Point of Failure) is my fault, and any problems with it are also my fault.
The Registry exists to support features OS X doesn't even have, such as Group Policy or WSUS. And it's not a single point of failure, as the OS keeps multiple redundant copies of it and can silently recover from registry errors.
Was the registry buggy in older versions of Windows? Yes. Is it now? No.
Yup, that makes sense. And you said that *Mac* users are dicks.
Mac users are dicks. I used to be one, I know... I even used to be a dick, before I realized that a Windows computer could do everything a Mac can do with less expense.
Warcraft III was pretty underwhelming.
I have to say, after being subjected to the abuse known as Age of Conan, I sure do appreciate World of Warcraft. I've never seen a game before so eager to alienate new players. Oh, and having voice overs for every single NPC doesn't help if the voice actors are so bad they could be classified as a war crime.
Ooo, ooo, I want to pile-on the dumb post!
iPhone 3G and newer have GPS chips in them. Only the first generation iPhone uses cell towers to figure out its position!
Woo! Now I get a redundant mod!
This differs from the built-in Google Maps... how?
There's no pitch here, just a claim that it adds a feature iPhones already had!
The B2 and F-117 are military aircraft. They don't need to be attached to a gate at a airport, unload and load hundreds of passengers and their luggage in a reasonable amount of time. All that new loading that was developed for the A-380? You'd have to start over from scratch for this plane, and I don't see any way you'd be able to pack them at the terminal as densely as current airframes can, not if they're decent-sized.
But what it really comes down to is that if these planes were as safe an investment as you seem to think they are, Boeing would be half done with the model by now. Seriously, you're talking about hauling the same number of passengers with half the fuel-- either you're lying about the fuel numbers, or there's something so hideously wrong with the idea that Boeing and Airbus won't pursue it regardless of fuel consumption.
I still think the X-48 is well within the realm of fantasy, at least in the next twenty years. The practical questions are overwhelming-- to consider even just the airport renovations alone would be crazy amounts of work.
For those who have no idea what the parent is talking about, I Googled it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-48
If the 787 is having so many problems with a mostly conventional design, imagine how many problems that X-48 airframe would have.
"Security through obscurity" is no security at all.
You hear that statement on Slashdot all the time, and it's complete bunk. Maybe it applies to some technology product, fine, but to pretend it applies to everything in the real world is just ridiculous.
If a thief breaks into my house, and can't find my safe because it's hidden behind a secret panel, then my safe doesn't get stolen. That should be obvious.
Sports betting is legal in Nevada. Which brings up an interesting point-- when the feds were coming up with that total, did they subtract the bets coming from Nevada?
Can you imagine the energy requirement and the number of laser necessary to deflect a full scale attack of say, the russian ?
Which one?
I declare them a failure because, despite years of constant press about them, you still can't walk into a Fry's and buy one.
You're being pedantic. You know what I meant by "support tablet input."
I've never even heard of "Live Messenger". (I'm guessing that's what MSN is called now?) I guess good for you if you know the tiny number of people who use it, but most of us are on widely-used networks.
Live Messenger: 330 million active users
Yahoo Messenger: 248 million
AIM: 53 million
(From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_messaging )
So, congratulations on being utterly ignorant of a product literally hundreds of millions of people use, and one that's leading its industry by a fair margin.
"Most of us are on widely-used networks?" Live Messenger is the most widely-used network there is, outside of China.
Actually, I think your little quote up there is actually *so* stupid it's actually rolled-around to being purposefully stupid. It's impossible to believe there's a human being capable of posting to Slashdot who hasn't ever heard of Live Messenger. So why are you pretending to be so moronic? Is there some kind of anti-Microsoft motivation in there somewhere?
Frankly I don't use AIM much anymore either, but it at least used to have users.
Yeah; they all switched to Live Messenger.
There's a large proportion of people who couldn't sit through 2001: A Space Odyssey when it came out. That has nothing to do with the soundtrack or "cheesiness," it's just one of those movies that people either love or hate.
Kubrick generally got the people wrong, (i.e. the USSR still existing in 2001, the stewardesses, the video phone, etc) but the tech remains extremely plausible. Except HAL.
Unfortunately Sci fi is a genre that doesn't age well unless its done *really* well. Cheap sets, tacky costumes, poor technology (sorry , a wardrobe with flashing lights and some tapes spinning doesn't cut it in 2009) and bad acting end up making something made in the 70s or 80s almost comical now. One of the few exceptions I can think of is Space 1999 (not sure if the yanks ever got that) which I watched last year and though it looked a bit dated the effects somehow still worked and Martin Landau was/is a fscking good actor.
ROFL, while I generally agree with you-- Space: 1999 is your best example?! The best thing you can say about Space: 1999 now is that its opening credits inspired BSG's. (i.e. credits that contain clips from the episode you're about to see.) Every time the chick who could turn into things (Maya, I think?) turned into something, I nearly died laughing at the ridiculous costume/puppet/whatever.
The Eagle from Space: 1999, though, still holds up as an excellent spaceship model, and one of the most plausible ever put on TV.
Here's some better examples:
1) Buck Rogers from the 80s. Don't laugh. Other than the episodes that featured disco dancing, this show actually still works very well. The effects are definitely passable by modern standards.
2) Blake's 7. This one also holds together well when you remember that the crappy effects were crappy even when the series was originally aired. (That's important to remember, because the effects really are extremely crappy.) Also, Blake's 7 purposefully takes place in an extremely cluttered and busy version of "space", which can make it look like a bad 50s sci-fi movie at times, but I'm sure was done intentionally. (Look at the title screen: http://www.crunchgear.com/wp-content/uploads/blakes7.jpg they have like 7 planets in a single frame!)
3) The original Star Trek. The good thing about being decades ahead of your time is that when you're in re-runs, you still look pretty good. The worst offender in the old Star Trek is the miniskirts. The effects (done on film, as film effects technology were more perfected than video effects) still mostly pass muster, and there's very little dated about the scripts. Some scripts probably seemed *more* cheesy when they aired than they do now-- like the episode that featured space-hippies.
BTW for the importance of Star Trek's film effects, compare Star Trek effects with, say, Blake's 7 or Dr. Who from the same approximate era. The BBC, possibly to save money, insisted on doing all of their effects with video equipment, avoiding film. While they undoubtedly invented tons of new techniques in the process, the results were pretty pathetic.
The nuclear holocaust happened in the original series, too. It was less graphic- all they really showed was a couple of Cylon fighters gunning down a peace celebration-- but the exact same event happened off-screen. Just saying.
I'm guessing the name was necessary to obtain funding for the series.
"I want to make an gritty and edgy new sci-fi series, loaded with violence and moral conflicts. Oh, and in the first episode, 50,000,000,000 people die."
"No."
"Ok. My second proposal: A re-imagining of Battlestar Galactica."
"GREAT IDEA!"
I'm no history buff, but the way I see it:
1) Microsoft basically invented the concept of software licensing in the first place, and so got a good head-start
2) Microsoft began as a software (only) company, therefore they were able to sell their OS to dozens of OEMs, and not only on their own machines (as opposed to, say, Commodore or Apple.)
3) Europe/Asia/the rest of the world, for some reason, was *waaay* behind on the whole affair. What I don't get is why Japan buy Windows-- Japan was building computers for decades, it never occurred to anybody there to make a home-grown OS? Why didn't France make one? What's the UK's version of Microsoft? In fact, why is every non-English-speaking country running an OS created by the whitest of the white Americans in Redmond, WA?
A year ago, the text-editing panel didn't show up for any text fields in Pidgin, nor did they get identified as controls to the speech recognition system. Maybe they've fixed that; frankly I doubt it.
I guess what you're doing is using the tablet's on-screen keyboard, and not editing fields in-place. Yes, that works, because the on-screen keyboard is treated as just a keyboard, but it's a far cry from "supporting tablet input".
(BTW, when I say "it doesn't work", I don't mean "it crashes," I mean "it doesn't work correctly.")
Pidgin-- unless you have a tablet PC or use voice recognition, Pidgin doesn't work with either of those. (Nor do any GTK+ applications on Windows, at least none I've seen... if anybody tells you a GTK+ app has a native look&feel, please slap them. Thank you.)
Anyway, I "solved" my problem by just switching to Live Messenger, which works with all of Microsoft's UI features, and all my friends were on anyway. The two people I had left on AIM, I just told them they'd have to switch too if they wanted to IM me. I'm a jerk that way. (One has.)
Hi.
You're an asshole.
Just thought someone should say it, since everybody's thinking it.
Unfortunately, I have a job. Which makes it like playing World of Warcraft-- no matter how good I was at it, no matter how knowledgeable, skilled, determined-- I'd never be able to beat out the 14-year-olds living in their parents' basement.
Besides, I honestly believe Wikipedia is beyond repair at this point. Just need someone to come up with the new great idea in Wikis to replace it.
Being mean to newcomers is pretty much the *only thing I've ever seen Wikipedia editors do*. Well, that, and delete pages. If you really care, and you're not just pretending, you have a huge, huge problem to solve, buddy.