Windows assumes that if you don't manually create partitions and instead tell it to do it automatically, it can put things where ever it wants. You basically told Windows "hey, just drop your stuff anywhere, thanks." on the other hand, if you had manually created a partition and then told Windows to use it, it would have.
The behavior might be slihtly sketchy, but it's not some horrible conspiracy.
A recent World of Warcraft patch moved the entire game into "AppData" as well, they claimed it was a "necessity" for Windows Vista 64-bit compatibility.
WOW *does* incorrectly keep Add-Ons in Program Files, so what was happening is that some Vista users (depending on their permissions) were getting their Add-Ons installed into the fake Program Files folder that Vista keeps around for retarded software written by retarded developers who don't understand permissions. The solution to their problem was to move *just* the Add-Ons folder to where it should have been all along, not the whole multi-GB game! Idiots.
Except "Xbox360" isn't a word. The name of the product is "Xbox 360". (Note the space, it's important.)
Word just turns off spell-checking for "words" like aaaa0000 because it assumes you're entering parts numbers, or something else that wouldn't be in its dictionary.
That all said, your retarded "point" still kind of applies, since Word's dictionary *does* contain the word "xbox" and not the word "playstation" or "wii". But your post is still stupid.
Probably because you used the term "ribbon" which, as far as I know, only applies to Microsoft Office.
Also when you see a post whinging about "oh save the pixels! the wasted pixels! oh the humanity!" on Slashdot it's about the Office 2007 ribbon 99% of the time. Also, usually from people who've never actually measured how many pixels it takes up.
Anyway, I agree with you: the screenshot in the article shows a completely botched and useless implementation of a ribbon. I can only hope and pray that that's a screenshot from an early alpha and nothing even remotely close to release, because nothing's going to turn people off the ribbon concept like a shitty implementation of it.
(Just like Windows 95 Explorer turned people off a spatial interface, not because a spatial interface is bad, but because Microsoft's implementation was shitty.)
99.999% of the time you're already working on the files you're planning to upload, which means the explorer window is already open. Or, at least, that the files are already available in some other easily-accessed drag&droppable location, like a Visual Studio project window.
Yah, but the grandparent was talking about Classic Mac OS, not OS X. Totally different look.
I did find this example in Adobe GoLive, which admittedly does have tabs in it: http://www.schoollink.org/learng13.jpg But it's still not context-sensitive, it's still not attached to the document window, and it's still not arranged in anything but a simple grid.
None of those look, or behave, anything remotely close to how the ribbon does. Whoever posted that was either on crack, or has never used Classic Mac, or has never used Office 2007, or all three.
According to its website (http://www.getpaint.net/license.html) Paint.NET is MIT-licensed. I don't know which doublespeak definition of "free" that goes under, but it's definitely open source.
The best part of WinSCP is that you can turn off the retard feature most FTP clients have where they show local files in one pane and remote files in another. Hello, McFly! I don't need a listing of local files, I have WINDOWS EXPLORER OPEN RIGHT NEXT TO THE FTP CLIENT! The retardation of opening your FTP client, then having to navigate to the same window you have open in Explorer just amazes me.
If you minimize the Office 2007 ribbon, it takes the exact same amount of space as a menubar. Even when not minimized, the ribbon is smaller than the default Office 2003 toolbars. I don't know who keeps spreading this misconception, but please stop-- the ribbon uses no more pixels than the menu/toolbars it replaced.
In short, Microsoft *did* think of the small displays. You're just assuming they didn't because your head is full of misinformation from reading Slashdot.
They aren't even slightly alike. For one thing, it's attached to the window (floating toolbars *gasp* FLOAT). Floating toolbars generally didn't have multiple tabs of obtions in them-- I suppose there's no technical reason they couldn't have, but in my entire time using Classic Mac I never saw one. There's only one ribbon, where the typical Classic Mac app would have more than one floating toolbar. The ribbon has groups and a somewhat fluid grid layout, Classic Mac floating toolbars were just a simple grid.
Who modded this "Informative?" The ribbon is *nothing like* Classic Macintosh floating toolbars. The only similarity I can even think of it "they both have buttons."
Play Rocky's Boots by Warren Robinett. The almost-perfect educational game. (I had it on Commodore 64, but I believe there's a Apple II image downloadable from this site: http://www.warrenrobinett.com/rockysboots/ )
What would be the point of porting those applications while Linux's I/O and sound drivers are too poor to take advantage of them? It would be a waste of the programmer's time, and nothing but a huge source of frustration for you, trying to use them without the correct foundation in-place.
What "sophisticated features" do "professional writers" need that Word has, but other software (and even free software) doesn't? I don't think Word is bad, but I just don't understand the claim that nothing else "comes close."
(Disclaimer: I haven't tried the newest version of OpenOffice; some of these features might exist now.)
Word has Normal View (renamed to Draft View in 2007) that lets you focus just on the text and ignore all distractions from it. Word has a split-able scrollbar, so you can examine (and edit) two parts of your document at the same time. Oh and Word's Outline tool is far above-and-beyond anything OpenOffice offers. And Word has always had better performance than OpenOffice, which is weird since it has more features.
It's not some huge breathtaking night-and-day difference, but Word is the superior product.
This is the company that basically redefined an "operating system" to no longer just mean the basic power plant that manages the computer's operations...the "operating system" now takes care of antivirus/firewall, digital media, as well as internet browsing and more.
And I'm supposed to feel-- what? Upset? Angry?-- over that?
Of course, since Apple added a media player to their OS first (Quicktime 1.0), and since Apple added a firewall to their OS first, you're mostly griping about Apple and not Microsoft. But this is Slashdot, so whatever.
In short, if a standard CANNOT be implemented by GPL'ed software, then it CANNOT be an open standard. Why? That's because the GPL is by far the most popular open source software license; nothing else even comes close.
Software written for other Linux and OS X CANNOT be worthwhile. Why? That's because Windows is by far the most popular open source operating system; nothing else even comes close.
(Seriously, of all the places to argue that "popular = best", you picked Slashdot!?)
Microsoft has the mindset that anything executable that comes near their operating system should immediately be executed. CDs and DVDs autorun. USB devices autorun. Active-X controls autorun. Universal Plug and Play stuff autoruns. Yes, they now have some "security controls" on this, which sometimes actually work.
And can you name a couple of examples of this happening in Windows Vista or Windows 7? Vista has been out for 2 years now, it is, like it or not, "the current Windows version." And it does none of the things you mention, except Auto-Run, but even that has a big security screen in front of it.
If you're going to post anti-Microsoft screeds, please at least make sure they're up-to-date. Yours sounds like you haven't used a copy of Windows since Windows 98.
Thirty years of buffer overflows. The fundamental problem is that the C and C++ concept of arrays is broken. The language has no idea how big an array is. That's defective by design. The C++ crowd tries to paper over the problem with templates, but the mold always comes through the wallpaper. Most of the newer languages come with a gonzo interpretive system underneath, which makes them slow, overly complex, or both.
That is something I 100% agree with, and also one of the reasons Microsoft's emphasis of C#/.net is so important.
Same argument you made in a different article about IE. Funny how you always seem to reply to these with the same boiler plate responses. Microsoft's dominance over the Web came with Windows 98's bundling of Internet Explorer 4. The Netscape rewrite had nothing to do with it, and there were other rendering engines and browsers out at the time besides Internet Explorer and Netscape.
Liiiiike...?
You mean Opera? Opera's so pathetic, it can't do better than 5th place *now*, in a world where it's: A) Free B) ~30% of web users are on an alternate browser.
On Mac you had... iCab? I guess. On Windows? There was nothing.
Oh, and speaking of Macs, how come IE beat Netscape on Mac OS? If you were correct, Netscape and IE should have both been neck-and-neck on Macintosh, since the OS vendor didn't promote one over the other. (Mac OS CDs either had neither, or both, of those browsers.) And yet finding a Mac that ran Netscape over IE 4.5 was like finding a needle in a haystack.
Look, Microsoft didn't update IE because the competition disappeared. The competition disappeared because Netscape *fucked up*. I don't see that as even being debatable-- when you don't release a product for three years and change, your customers go away. Duh.
Since you're just a paid Microsoft shill, this conversation is pretty much over.
Ooo, ooo, am I a paid shill too!? Awesome, I could use the spare cash!
You'll always make false claims and bend the truth to make it seem like IE's rise to fame was based on merit, rather than monopoly abuse.
It's impossible he actually holds an opinion independently arrived at! Obviously he should think identically to everybody else on this forum.
Yeah, but Opera has crappy market share (on the desktop) now and it'll have crappy market share after Windows 7 is over and done with. Opera couldn't beat IE when IE6 was crap and Firefox didn't even exist, what makes them think they can beat out IE8, Firefox, Safari *and* Chrome? They'll be lucky if they end up number 4, instead of number 5.
Slashdot Mirror
Windows assumes that if you don't manually create partitions and instead tell it to do it automatically, it can put things where ever it wants. You basically told Windows "hey, just drop your stuff anywhere, thanks." on the other hand, if you had manually created a partition and then told Windows to use it, it would have.
The behavior might be slihtly sketchy, but it's not some horrible conspiracy.
Considering GREP doesn't even exist in CMD and FIND does, I think the grandparent has it right and you're the one who is confused.
The command works fine, in Vista at least. Probably requires Admin privileges for full results.
A recent World of Warcraft patch moved the entire game into "AppData" as well, they claimed it was a "necessity" for Windows Vista 64-bit compatibility.
WOW *does* incorrectly keep Add-Ons in Program Files, so what was happening is that some Vista users (depending on their permissions) were getting their Add-Ons installed into the fake Program Files folder that Vista keeps around for retarded software written by retarded developers who don't understand permissions. The solution to their problem was to move *just* the Add-Ons folder to where it should have been all along, not the whole multi-GB game! Idiots.
Except "Xbox360" isn't a word. The name of the product is "Xbox 360". (Note the space, it's important.)
Word just turns off spell-checking for "words" like aaaa0000 because it assumes you're entering parts numbers, or something else that wouldn't be in its dictionary.
That all said, your retarded "point" still kind of applies, since Word's dictionary *does* contain the word "xbox" and not the word "playstation" or "wii". But your post is still stupid.
Probably because you used the term "ribbon" which, as far as I know, only applies to Microsoft Office.
Also when you see a post whinging about "oh save the pixels! the wasted pixels! oh the humanity!" on Slashdot it's about the Office 2007 ribbon 99% of the time. Also, usually from people who've never actually measured how many pixels it takes up.
Anyway, I agree with you: the screenshot in the article shows a completely botched and useless implementation of a ribbon. I can only hope and pray that that's a screenshot from an early alpha and nothing even remotely close to release, because nothing's going to turn people off the ribbon concept like a shitty implementation of it.
(Just like Windows 95 Explorer turned people off a spatial interface, not because a spatial interface is bad, but because Microsoft's implementation was shitty.)
99.999% of the time you're already working on the files you're planning to upload, which means the explorer window is already open. Or, at least, that the files are already available in some other easily-accessed drag&droppable location, like a Visual Studio project window.
Yah, but the grandparent was talking about Classic Mac OS, not OS X. Totally different look.
I did find this example in Adobe GoLive, which admittedly does have tabs in it: http://www.schoollink.org/learng13.jpg But it's still not context-sensitive, it's still not attached to the document window, and it's still not arranged in anything but a simple grid.
But the canonical example would be Apple's application switcher, which looked like this: http://www.cbtcafe.com/mactutorials/applicationswitcher/images/4.gif
None of those look, or behave, anything remotely close to how the ribbon does. Whoever posted that was either on crack, or has never used Classic Mac, or has never used Office 2007, or all three.
According to its website (http://www.getpaint.net/license.html) Paint.NET is MIT-licensed. I don't know which doublespeak definition of "free" that goes under, but it's definitely open source.
Agreed.
The best part of WinSCP is that you can turn off the retard feature most FTP clients have where they show local files in one pane and remote files in another. Hello, McFly! I don't need a listing of local files, I have WINDOWS EXPLORER OPEN RIGHT NEXT TO THE FTP CLIENT! The retardation of opening your FTP client, then having to navigate to the same window you have open in Explorer just amazes me.
If you minimize the Office 2007 ribbon, it takes the exact same amount of space as a menubar. Even when not minimized, the ribbon is smaller than the default Office 2003 toolbars. I don't know who keeps spreading this misconception, but please stop-- the ribbon uses no more pixels than the menu/toolbars it replaced.
In short, Microsoft *did* think of the small displays. You're just assuming they didn't because your head is full of misinformation from reading Slashdot.
What. The. Fuck.
They aren't even slightly alike. For one thing, it's attached to the window (floating toolbars *gasp* FLOAT). Floating toolbars generally didn't have multiple tabs of obtions in them-- I suppose there's no technical reason they couldn't have, but in my entire time using Classic Mac I never saw one. There's only one ribbon, where the typical Classic Mac app would have more than one floating toolbar. The ribbon has groups and a somewhat fluid grid layout, Classic Mac floating toolbars were just a simple grid.
Who modded this "Informative?" The ribbon is *nothing like* Classic Macintosh floating toolbars. The only similarity I can even think of it "they both have buttons."
Play Rocky's Boots by Warren Robinett. The almost-perfect educational game. (I had it on Commodore 64, but I believe there's a Apple II image downloadable from this site: http://www.warrenrobinett.com/rockysboots/ )
Watch this sort of announcement very, very carefully. Microsoft loves to describe Linux as a 'UNIX variant'.
They do? News to me.
What would be the point of porting those applications while Linux's I/O and sound drivers are too poor to take advantage of them? It would be a waste of the programmer's time, and nothing but a huge source of frustration for you, trying to use them without the correct foundation in-place.
The old format, or the new one? Which version of Word were you using?
You *do* realize that Microsoft created a new file format specifically to address situations like the one you mention, right?
What "sophisticated features" do "professional writers" need that Word has, but other software (and even free software) doesn't? I don't think Word is bad, but I just don't understand the claim that nothing else "comes close."
(Disclaimer: I haven't tried the newest version of OpenOffice; some of these features might exist now.)
Word has Normal View (renamed to Draft View in 2007) that lets you focus just on the text and ignore all distractions from it. Word has a split-able scrollbar, so you can examine (and edit) two parts of your document at the same time. Oh and Word's Outline tool is far above-and-beyond anything OpenOffice offers. And Word has always had better performance than OpenOffice, which is weird since it has more features.
It's not some huge breathtaking night-and-day difference, but Word is the superior product.
That's an exploit, not "the mindset that anything executable that comes near their operating system should immediately be executed."
If you meant to include exploits, well, ok, but that's not what you *said* originally. Also, all OSes have exploits.
This is the company that basically redefined an "operating system" to no longer just mean the basic power plant that manages the computer's operations...the "operating system" now takes care of antivirus/firewall, digital media, as well as internet browsing and more.
And I'm supposed to feel-- what? Upset? Angry?-- over that?
Of course, since Apple added a media player to their OS first (Quicktime 1.0), and since Apple added a firewall to their OS first, you're mostly griping about Apple and not Microsoft. But this is Slashdot, so whatever.
In short, if a standard CANNOT be implemented by GPL'ed software, then it CANNOT be an open standard. Why? That's because the GPL is by far the most popular open source software license; nothing else even comes close.
Software written for other Linux and OS X CANNOT be worthwhile. Why? That's because Windows is by far the most popular open source operating system; nothing else even comes close.
(Seriously, of all the places to argue that "popular = best", you picked Slashdot!?)
What for? It doesn't really go any faster than I can walk,
Not that I disagree with the rest of your post, but you can *walk* at 12 MPH? That's impressive; you should call Guinness.
Microsoft has the mindset that anything executable that comes near their operating system should immediately be executed. CDs and DVDs autorun. USB devices autorun. Active-X controls autorun. Universal Plug and Play stuff autoruns. Yes, they now have some "security controls" on this, which sometimes actually work.
And can you name a couple of examples of this happening in Windows Vista or Windows 7? Vista has been out for 2 years now, it is, like it or not, "the current Windows version." And it does none of the things you mention, except Auto-Run, but even that has a big security screen in front of it.
If you're going to post anti-Microsoft screeds, please at least make sure they're up-to-date. Yours sounds like you haven't used a copy of Windows since Windows 98.
Thirty years of buffer overflows. The fundamental problem is that the C and C++ concept of arrays is broken. The language has no idea how big an array is. That's defective by design. The C++ crowd tries to paper over the problem with templates, but the mold always comes through the wallpaper. Most of the newer languages come with a gonzo interpretive system underneath, which makes them slow, overly complex, or both.
That is something I 100% agree with, and also one of the reasons Microsoft's emphasis of C#/.net is so important.
Same argument you made in a different article about IE. Funny how you always seem to reply to these with the same boiler plate responses. Microsoft's dominance over the Web came with Windows 98's bundling of Internet Explorer 4. The Netscape rewrite had nothing to do with it, and there were other rendering engines and browsers out at the time besides Internet Explorer and Netscape.
Liiiiike...?
You mean Opera? Opera's so pathetic, it can't do better than 5th place *now*, in a world where it's:
A) Free
B) ~30% of web users are on an alternate browser.
On Mac you had... iCab? I guess. On Windows? There was nothing.
Oh, and speaking of Macs, how come IE beat Netscape on Mac OS? If you were correct, Netscape and IE should have both been neck-and-neck on Macintosh, since the OS vendor didn't promote one over the other. (Mac OS CDs either had neither, or both, of those browsers.) And yet finding a Mac that ran Netscape over IE 4.5 was like finding a needle in a haystack.
Look, Microsoft didn't update IE because the competition disappeared. The competition disappeared because Netscape *fucked up*. I don't see that as even being debatable-- when you don't release a product for three years and change, your customers go away. Duh.
Since you're just a paid Microsoft shill, this conversation is pretty much over.
Ooo, ooo, am I a paid shill too!? Awesome, I could use the spare cash!
You'll always make false claims and bend the truth to make it seem like IE's rise to fame was based on merit, rather than monopoly abuse.
It's impossible he actually holds an opinion independently arrived at! Obviously he should think identically to everybody else on this forum.
At the very least replace it with a decent Photoshopping job. Christ, Iran's government makes better images.
Yeah, but Opera has crappy market share (on the desktop) now and it'll have crappy market share after Windows 7 is over and done with. Opera couldn't beat IE when IE6 was crap and Firefox didn't even exist, what makes them think they can beat out IE8, Firefox, Safari *and* Chrome? They'll be lucky if they end up number 4, instead of number 5.
What, you don't have police?
Put those youths in prison if they're committing crimes. What do cameras have to do with anything?