The engine room: the scale was completely wrong, and was jarring. I liked the idea of having a 'mechanical' engine room, this looked more like a Detroit Big-3 factory then a nuclear sub.
Looked nothing like a Detroit factory-- no conveyers, no robots moving around, no cranes or lifters. It looked more like a cheese factory: nothing but tanks and pipes.
The Romulans now look different, and not for the better. They were extremely unlikable,
The villains of the movie were unlikeable? SHOCKER!
This is why I stopped watching Enterprise and didn't like The Phantom Menace.
The reason everybody else didn't like The Phantom Menace was Jar Jar Binks. Star Wars fans weren't outraged because the movie was stomping over their continuity, they were outraged because it was a bad movie.
a Sherlock Holmes movie where he runs around with a giant gun killing people until he solves the crime.
When does that hit theaters? I'm *so* there.
Yeah, it might be a good action movie or whatever, but is hardly consistent with the philosophical underpinnings of the original work.
Puhlease. The best Trek movies are the (mostly) action movies-- Wrath of Khan, Undiscovered Country, First Contact-- and the (mostly) comedy-- The Voyage Home. Or do you disagree with this list?
Do you actually think The Final Frontier, where all the characters wouldn't shut the hell up about philosophy, was the best in the old series? If so, I think you're in the minority, buddy.
Good question. Some MS products let you change the license number, if you first enter an invalid one (like Server 2008; presumably that feature disappears after it's activated.) So it's definitely technically possible for them to do it.
I doubt they will, though-- remember you're supposed to only be installing this Windows 7 release on *test* machines, not live machines. Therefore, you should fully expect to have to lose everything on it when you upgrade to the release version of Windows 7. It would be nice if Microsoft let you switch over without re-installing, but they really have no reason to. (And nor should you expect it.)
But you seem to massively generalize and well... I dunno what to say, but... you do not make your people look very good. ^^
I massively generalize!? You generalized an entire nation's electronic payment system, thus judging the nation itself, based on a single Slashdot post-- one that was actually factually incorrect. And I'm the one who's "massively generalizing!"
It's also possible that my posting was made with my tongue firmly in-cheek.
The whole of mathematics is really just a language of form and structure, a system to systematize and decribe structure and forms (relationships are a type of form).
I like how the "killer feature" (according to T-Mobile's flash site on the phone) is that it tracks your carbon impact and you can buy carbon credits right from the phone! That's going to get me off my iPhone? That's seriously the best you got?
Oh man you Germans! You're so much better than us Americans! There's nothing I love more than to log on to Slashdot and see tons of posts from Europeans telling us how shitty we are! Especially ignorant ones!
See, we have debit cards in the US. You can issue a chargeback to your debit card provider if you get delivered a defective product. There's also no particular requirement to ship the item back, although if you're not an ass you'd call up the retailer and ask about it.
There's no 15 day limit, but I think it depends on the bank. (It can be long if you can demonstrate identity theft; when I found my card was being used by some scammer, and started looking closely at my statements, I found fraudulent charges from 2 months before. My bank refunded those, no questions asked.)
We generally do not have Collect On Delivery (COD) anymore, although you can still find a few catalog shops that offer it. Why? I think it's generally because people in the US usually aren't home when packages are delivered. We have these things called "jobs." (And if you get the package delivered to your workplace, the receptionist there isn't authorized to pay for you, and the delivery guy would probably get pissed waiting around 15 minutes for you to get up to the reception desk.)
Stuff like getting in trouble because you want it delivered where you work, because you can't be at home in work hours, is a total non-problem here.
It's a total non-problem in the US. I get stuff delivered to my workplace all the time, and I've never had my workplace address added to my debit card "approved address" list. Contrary to what the parent was saying, most retails *don't* check the approved address list on your card, or at least not for smaller purchases. Dell/Alienware is unique on that one. I get orders from Amazon, Newegg, GoGamer, tons of places, shipped to work, never had a problem.
I wonder how one could make this better in the USA too. I guess other than opening a new bank, offering new methods and technologies, and paying huge sums for being protected from other banks and the government crushing you because you do so, it's pretty much impossible.:( But hey, one can always move to another country.:)
Please come save us, Europeans! We're so weak and fragile on our own!
It's their legal right to refuse sale to anybody they want. At least, in the US it is. At least, in most states in the US it is-- some states have exceptions.
In short, it might be a stupid business move, but they're not actually doing anything illegal.
Most companies (well, at least all the ones I've worked for) already have a system in-place to move your voicemails into Outlook or whatever email system they use.
The only factor Google's adding here is the speech-to-text transcription, which I don't see as that big a deal-- answering voicemails like we answer emails is 100 times more efficient than those lousy phone menus, ask anybody who's used an iPhone. The speech-to-text might add a little benefit in addition to that, but the major benefit is already easy to get from a dozen vendors.
Or is it also illegal to fire an employee who simply happens to say "I hate my job"?
No, that is legal, AFAIK. (And why shouldn't it be?)
This case we're discussing is not that. It's completely different than that. Entirely, utterly, 100%, completely different situation.
The point you're missing is that the courts almost always side with the employee; if the employee says it's politically-motivated, and the employer says it's an "attitude problem", I can guarantee the courts are going to proceed on the assumption that the employee is correct.
When you enter an "at-will" state, do you envision cackling demons whipping employees with spike-encrusted dried entrails while they're bathed in a pit of fire? A dark red sky, raining brimstone?
How is this any different than in most states in the USA, which have "at-will" employment where an employee can apparently be fired for any reason that isn't illegal?
It's illegal in "at-will" states. Political affiliation is a "protected class" (Federally, actually, not even at the state level), which means you can't base hiring/firing decisions on it. You can't even ask about it during interviews, legally. Yes, even in "at-will" states.
Please refrain from commenting if you haven't read his paper.
Link to his paper then. The link you gave me was a long article, that the author himself says is mostly obsolete, and a set of slides from some presentation. You didn't LINK to his paper.
You're being silly -- not even DRM proponents deny that there's content protection technology in Vista.
That's not the part that's bullshit. The part that's bullshit is where people claim it stops users from doing tasks they could do in XP, and where people claim it somehow slows down your computer. That part is bullshit.
Of course content protection is there, but it's no detriment to the OS because it doesn't DO anything at all unless you're playing media (like Blu-Ray) with that type of DRM embedded on it. In which case, the only "disadvantage" Windows has is that it can play Blu-Ray disks and no other OS can. The items in the paper ONLY apply when there's a Blu-Ray disk playing in the computer, and even then I'm pretty sure half of it's bullshit.
There's nothing you can do in Windows XP that you can't in Vista. It doesn't somehow "slow down" your computer, it doesn't make your normal DVDs stop working, it doesn't stop you from downloading 400 movies a week from Pirate Bay if you want to.
If you don't like the DRM, that's fine-- but go after the people who mandate its use. Don't go after Microsoft, they're just trying to give their customers the features they're asking for.
Well, good point. If I were buying hardware for an enterprise that cared about this issue, I'd just buy the AMD hardware. But if those people continue buying Intel, then it *could* potentially be a boon for Intel, as they'd be spending more on CPUs.
Only on that last gig...was my computer fairly locked down...but, even then, no there was no backup thing set up like you describe.
How do you know? You never used the damned My Documents folder! For all you know, if you had used it, you'd have gotten roaming profiles, shadow copy/previous versions, backup-- all with zero effort on your part.
Hmm...windows isn't really much of a multi-user system...
Yes it is, as much so as any other OS.
I've never been to a site where > 1 one person uses a single computer...we all get one each to use.
Same here, but what the fuck is your point? If you worked at a Linux shop where every Linux user had their own computer, would you then declare that "Linux isn't really much of a multi-user system..."
Again: how in the world is it possible you work with computers and, somehow, simultaneously know NOTHING about computers? It boggles the mind.
I do a lot of admin work, so I guess I've never had to deal with a computer as locked down and ruled by an IT department like you describe,
What does using the My Documents folder have anything to do with being "locked down and ruled"? You're conflating two entirely different things here. And they are not mutually-exclusive.
For the record, my workplace maps My Documents to a network share, meaning we get the features mentioned above (backups, shadow copy, roaming profiles) and we also have full control and full administrative access over our own computers.
Interesting to hear what you and some others here have described...
How have you NOT heard it?
It's not new, and it's not like your Solaris and Linux computers work any differently. (You *do* save Linux/Solaris files in your user account and not the root directory, right? Or maybe you're doing it wrong there, too.) It's almost unbelievable that you don't know that Windows also does this. So does OS X, BTW, if you ever end up in front of a Mac.
I feel really secure knowing the DoD hires such clueless people for development tasks.
Interesting, I just had to go look.I thought that the MyDocuments thing was just some preset stuff from MS. I didn't think of adding folder IN the thing. I know it is usually kept at C:\Documents and Settings\[username]\My Documents.
You have to be shitting me. My Documents has been around since Windows 95, and you've never even LOOKED at it? Not even to find out if it's a normal folder (which it is) or some... other weird thing you assumed it was? On that point, why would you even assume it's anything but a normal folder?
Am I on candid camera?
No, taking for instance that I have only one drive, C: I open up windows explorer, and I see that most programs install by default in C:\Program Files. I often set up things like c:\database and from there c:\database\oracle_info or c:\database\postgresql_stuff c:\pictures c:\picture\cancun_2009
Even though that: 1) Breaks virtually all Windows multi-user features, and many security features (UAC in Vista, for example, will be broken by that.) 2) Takes a lot more effort than just putting them in My Documents in the first place?
What do you mean my workplace uses? I've never been directed by a company/contract/customer where to put my files on my computer??
Do you have an IT person in charge of your computer?
If you're freelance, then the question doesn't apply. If you *do* have an IT department in charge of your computer, how would you expect them to be able to back up your files if you're shitting them all over the root level of the drive instead of putting them in the proper place?
But the main answer, I'm used to creating my own subfolders off the root directory to sort out my files.
The world has changed since 1992, grandpa. You are seriously unbelievable. Only on Slashdot could you hope to find someone who works with computers, and yet is *that* monumentally out-of-touch with how computers work.
Well, obviously. It works in enough cases, though, that I find it to be an indespensible feature.
It only works on accident, though. Because it just so happens that you're renaming a text file (with a certain extension) into another text file (with a different extension).
In fact, I think it's safe to say that text-based formats are the ONLY formats your method works with. You just happen to spend most of your time on text-based formats... what about the poor guy who edits photos for a living? Or creates Excel spreadsheets? So your method still doesn't work for the majority of people and the majority of formats, and it only works for you by accident.
Other than the fact that they aren't? One is HTML, a text-based format, and the other is Javascript, a different text-based format.
If you're going to redefine "file format" to mean something other than "the format of the file," then I suppose I can't argue with your logic.
But both.html and.js files are in the same format, to any normal human being who doesn't twist the meaning of words at a whim. They're both text files. (Given, HTML has some additional formatting that goes beyond text files, but it's still a text file.)
I'm just saying that opening a dialog is almost by definition slower than hitting F2 and typing something. I'd have to mouse to the correct field, select it, modify it, and confirm.
Well, two points: 1) Who the fuck said it was going to be in a dialog? You pulled that out of your ass; I certainly said nothing of the type. 2) You can use the keyboard to navigate dialogs, too.
I'm used to the unix/linux way...treating everything as a folder...so, I am used to setting up folders for my work, and storing things in their place...not all jumbled up.
That's fine, but you can do that *in* the My Documents folder.
It's just the way you phrased your original post, as if these two statements:
"Does no one still get into the tree structure to create their own folders to organize things?" "Or...do most people just put everything in My Documents?"
were mutually-exclusive somehow.
I still don't get *where* you're putting files, if not in My Documents. Do you just put them on the root of the HD? If so, why? (Or is it just an old habit you've never re-examined, even as Microsoft has been giving "subtle hints" and made it increasingly harder and harder to do that?)
Also, what does your workplace do with their files? They don't use My Documents?
Weird. My post wasn't even the first post-- although I guess it was the first reply to an early post. In any case, it sounds better than "somebody with mod points is out to get you!!"
Or, I can right-click, N, T, which takes less than half a second. Renaming it to give it the correct extension doesn't take much longer. Hit enter 3 times, and it opens in the appropriate application. I'm sure it's far easier and quicker than any "improved" system you could come up with.
Well, first of all, how can you definitively declare it's faster than anything else ever, since the "anything else" doesn't even exist? That's like people pre-1904 saying heavier-than-air flight is impossible and, again, just reinforces my point that you have no imagination whatsoever.
Secondly, your method doesn't even work with most files. If you create a new Excel file, for example, and rename it to be ".doc" it just doesn't work. It only works when you're creating files that are the same TYPE of file in the first place (i.e. if you create a text file using "New Notepad File" and then rename it to a Javascript file, that would work.)
In short, your method doesn't work *now* for the vast majority of file types.
Um, what? "A text file that contains HTML" has a.html extension. What sort of.js file contains HTML? Obviously HTML files can contain Javascript, but these end in.html, not.js. Opening and editing is no problem, because both HTML and Javascript are understood by the browser and are editable in any text editor.
I apologize; my explanation was riddled with typos.
Here's the point I was trying to make, and this time I'll proof it better before hitting submit.
Both the.html and the.js file are the same type: they're both text files. I can open both of them in ANY application that supports opening text files, everything from Notepad to Word to OpenOffice to Visual Studio. There's no reason both of those files shouldn't have the type of (in the old System 6 parlance) "TEXT".
But! I want some text files (.js) to open in Visual Studio, others to open in Expression Web (.html) and yet others to open in Notepad (.txt.) Right now, we use file extensions to communicate this to the computer-- "this text file is the type of text file I want to open in a HTML editor." This is obviously a wrong way of doing that, since there's no actual difference in the format of a file that contains HTML and one that contains Javascript. They're both text files.
Currently, there's no way to communicate this subtlety to the computer. So we end up with a situation where, for example, Word is capable of opening a.js file but it doesn't *know* it's capable of it.*
You also end up with a situation where it's impossible for me the user to say, "I want this.html file to open in Visual Studio, and this other.html file to open in Expression Web." There's no additional piece of meta-data to support that.
All those subtleties could be communicated in Mac System 6, none can be in any modern OS.
That's what "Open With..." is for, and if you have enough.js files that you want to open with MSVS as opposed to wscript, go into Folder Options -> File Types, add it as an action, and change the default.
But "Open With" doesn't know one.html file from another. I have no way of telling it that I *always* want to this particular.html file with X, and this other particular.html file with Y. And that's just on my own personal machine. There's another layer of complexity getting *other* systems to recognize that preference, when I move the file around various networks.
I'd have to go into some properties window to change it, which would be a pain. Thanks, but no thanks. Changing the extension is easy and simple.
How do you know you would? It's not even implemented yet!
and all of the "better" solutions are just the opposite.
But you don't know that because it's not even implemented yet! Christ,
And yet it still requires users who have perfectly serviceable hardware running XP to upgrade to new hardware to run Win7 + XP
Ok, you're confused in a few ways.
The XP feature is intended for business users only. Not home users. If a business has "perfectly serviceable hardware running XP", they're not going to upgrade the OS.
and if you buy new hardware, well, you'll probably have Win7, and corporate users are just going to upgrade and leave XP.
Yes... and now that they can use Windows 7 to run their ancient XP-only applications, they'll be happy with their Windows 7 purchase and not bother to downgrade back to XP.
That's the *entire point* of it-- currently a lot of corporate users *can't* upgrade and leave XP because they have applications that only run on XP. This virtualization environment will allow them to move to Windows 7 without leaving those applications behind.
Really, what's the point again -- I need to buy new hardware to continue to use XP?
Assuming you mean "I, personally", then no. This feature is not intended for you. If you buy new hardware you'll get a copy of Windows 7 without the XP virtualization ability.
Maybe I'm confused about your entire post.
Off-topic, but I'd love to see the rationale from whoever moderated my first post in this thread "Redundant." Redundant with what?
Slashdot Mirror
The engine room: the scale was completely wrong, and was jarring. I liked the idea of having a 'mechanical' engine room, this looked more like a Detroit Big-3 factory then a nuclear sub.
Looked nothing like a Detroit factory-- no conveyers, no robots moving around, no cranes or lifters. It looked more like a cheese factory: nothing but tanks and pipes.
The Romulans now look different, and not for the better. They were extremely unlikable,
The villains of the movie were unlikeable? SHOCKER!
This is why I stopped watching Enterprise and didn't like The Phantom Menace.
The reason everybody else didn't like The Phantom Menace was Jar Jar Binks. Star Wars fans weren't outraged because the movie was stomping over their continuity, they were outraged because it was a bad movie.
a Sherlock Holmes movie where he runs around with a giant gun killing people until he solves the crime.
When does that hit theaters? I'm *so* there.
Yeah, it might be a good action movie or whatever, but is hardly consistent with the philosophical underpinnings of the original work.
Puhlease. The best Trek movies are the (mostly) action movies-- Wrath of Khan, Undiscovered Country, First Contact-- and the (mostly) comedy-- The Voyage Home. Or do you disagree with this list?
Do you actually think The Final Frontier, where all the characters wouldn't shut the hell up about philosophy, was the best in the old series? If so, I think you're in the minority, buddy.
Good question. Some MS products let you change the license number, if you first enter an invalid one (like Server 2008; presumably that feature disappears after it's activated.) So it's definitely technically possible for them to do it.
I doubt they will, though-- remember you're supposed to only be installing this Windows 7 release on *test* machines, not live machines. Therefore, you should fully expect to have to lose everything on it when you upgrade to the release version of Windows 7. It would be nice if Microsoft let you switch over without re-installing, but they really have no reason to. (And nor should you expect it.)
But you seem to massively generalize and well... I dunno what to say, but... you do not make your people look very good. ^^
I massively generalize!? You generalized an entire nation's electronic payment system, thus judging the nation itself, based on a single Slashdot post-- one that was actually factually incorrect. And I'm the one who's "massively generalizing!"
It's also possible that my posting was made with my tongue firmly in-cheek.
(This left the shortest dial time area code for a statewide code as 201, which went to New Jersey.)
0 takes forever to dial. It's past 9 on a rotary phone. 212 would be three times faster to dial. You fail rotary phone-ology.
The whole of mathematics is really just a language of form and structure, a system to systematize and decribe structure and forms (relationships are a type of form).
So... mathematics is the vaguest thing possible?
I like how the "killer feature" (according to T-Mobile's flash site on the phone) is that it tracks your carbon impact and you can buy carbon credits right from the phone! That's going to get me off my iPhone? That's seriously the best you got?
According to Slashdot posters, it should happen in about... 5 years ago.
Oh man you Germans! You're so much better than us Americans! There's nothing I love more than to log on to Slashdot and see tons of posts from Europeans telling us how shitty we are! Especially ignorant ones!
See, we have debit cards in the US. You can issue a chargeback to your debit card provider if you get delivered a defective product. There's also no particular requirement to ship the item back, although if you're not an ass you'd call up the retailer and ask about it.
There's no 15 day limit, but I think it depends on the bank. (It can be long if you can demonstrate identity theft; when I found my card was being used by some scammer, and started looking closely at my statements, I found fraudulent charges from 2 months before. My bank refunded those, no questions asked.)
We generally do not have Collect On Delivery (COD) anymore, although you can still find a few catalog shops that offer it. Why? I think it's generally because people in the US usually aren't home when packages are delivered. We have these things called "jobs." (And if you get the package delivered to your workplace, the receptionist there isn't authorized to pay for you, and the delivery guy would probably get pissed waiting around 15 minutes for you to get up to the reception desk.)
Stuff like getting in trouble because you want it delivered where you work, because you can't be at home in work hours, is a total non-problem here.
It's a total non-problem in the US. I get stuff delivered to my workplace all the time, and I've never had my workplace address added to my debit card "approved address" list. Contrary to what the parent was saying, most retails *don't* check the approved address list on your card, or at least not for smaller purchases. Dell/Alienware is unique on that one. I get orders from Amazon, Newegg, GoGamer, tons of places, shipped to work, never had a problem.
I wonder how one could make this better in the USA too. I guess other than opening a new bank, offering new methods and technologies, and paying huge sums for being protected from other banks and the government crushing you because you do so, it's pretty much impossible. :( :)
But hey, one can always move to another country.
Please come save us, Europeans! We're so weak and fragile on our own!
Can you point to the exact law they're breaking?
This is the first I've heard of any such thing. Citation needed.
It's their legal right to refuse sale to anybody they want. At least, in the US it is. At least, in most states in the US it is-- some states have exceptions.
In short, it might be a stupid business move, but they're not actually doing anything illegal.
Most companies (well, at least all the ones I've worked for) already have a system in-place to move your voicemails into Outlook or whatever email system they use.
The only factor Google's adding here is the speech-to-text transcription, which I don't see as that big a deal-- answering voicemails like we answer emails is 100 times more efficient than those lousy phone menus, ask anybody who's used an iPhone. The speech-to-text might add a little benefit in addition to that, but the major benefit is already easy to get from a dozen vendors.
Or is it also illegal to fire an employee who simply happens to say "I hate my job"?
No, that is legal, AFAIK. (And why shouldn't it be?)
This case we're discussing is not that. It's completely different than that. Entirely, utterly, 100%, completely different situation.
The point you're missing is that the courts almost always side with the employee; if the employee says it's politically-motivated, and the employer says it's an "attitude problem", I can guarantee the courts are going to proceed on the assumption that the employee is correct.
When you enter an "at-will" state, do you envision cackling demons whipping employees with spike-encrusted dried entrails while they're bathed in a pit of fire? A dark red sky, raining brimstone?
How is this any different than in most states in the USA, which have "at-will" employment where an employee can apparently be fired for any reason that isn't illegal?
It's illegal in "at-will" states. Political affiliation is a "protected class" (Federally, actually, not even at the state level), which means you can't base hiring/firing decisions on it. You can't even ask about it during interviews, legally. Yes, even in "at-will" states.
So... that's how it's different.
Good job advertising your ignorance, though.
Please refrain from commenting if you haven't read his paper.
Link to his paper then. The link you gave me was a long article, that the author himself says is mostly obsolete, and a set of slides from some presentation. You didn't LINK to his paper.
You're being silly -- not even DRM proponents deny that there's content protection technology in Vista.
That's not the part that's bullshit. The part that's bullshit is where people claim it stops users from doing tasks they could do in XP, and where people claim it somehow slows down your computer. That part is bullshit.
Of course content protection is there, but it's no detriment to the OS because it doesn't DO anything at all unless you're playing media (like Blu-Ray) with that type of DRM embedded on it. In which case, the only "disadvantage" Windows has is that it can play Blu-Ray disks and no other OS can. The items in the paper ONLY apply when there's a Blu-Ray disk playing in the computer, and even then I'm pretty sure half of it's bullshit.
There's nothing you can do in Windows XP that you can't in Vista. It doesn't somehow "slow down" your computer, it doesn't make your normal DVDs stop working, it doesn't stop you from downloading 400 movies a week from Pirate Bay if you want to.
If you don't like the DRM, that's fine-- but go after the people who mandate its use. Don't go after Microsoft, they're just trying to give their customers the features they're asking for.
Well, good point. If I were buying hardware for an enterprise that cared about this issue, I'd just buy the AMD hardware. But if those people continue buying Intel, then it *could* potentially be a boon for Intel, as they'd be spending more on CPUs.
Only on that last gig...was my computer fairly locked down...but, even then, no there was no backup thing set up like you describe.
How do you know? You never used the damned My Documents folder! For all you know, if you had used it, you'd have gotten roaming profiles, shadow copy/previous versions, backup-- all with zero effort on your part.
Hmm...windows isn't really much of a multi-user system...
Yes it is, as much so as any other OS.
I've never been to a site where > 1 one person uses a single computer...we all get one each to use.
Same here, but what the fuck is your point? If you worked at a Linux shop where every Linux user had their own computer, would you then declare that "Linux isn't really much of a multi-user system..."
Again: how in the world is it possible you work with computers and, somehow, simultaneously know NOTHING about computers? It boggles the mind.
I do a lot of admin work, so I guess I've never had to deal with a computer as locked down and ruled by an IT department like you describe,
What does using the My Documents folder have anything to do with being "locked down and ruled"? You're conflating two entirely different things here. And they are not mutually-exclusive.
For the record, my workplace maps My Documents to a network share, meaning we get the features mentioned above (backups, shadow copy, roaming profiles) and we also have full control and full administrative access over our own computers.
Interesting to hear what you and some others here have described...
How have you NOT heard it?
It's not new, and it's not like your Solaris and Linux computers work any differently. (You *do* save Linux/Solaris files in your user account and not the root directory, right? Or maybe you're doing it wrong there, too.) It's almost unbelievable that you don't know that Windows also does this. So does OS X, BTW, if you ever end up in front of a Mac.
I feel really secure knowing the DoD hires such clueless people for development tasks.
Interesting, I just had to go look.I thought that the MyDocuments thing was just some preset stuff from MS. I didn't think of adding folder IN the thing. I know it is usually kept at C:\Documents and Settings\[username]\My Documents.
You have to be shitting me. My Documents has been around since Windows 95, and you've never even LOOKED at it? Not even to find out if it's a normal folder (which it is) or some ... other weird thing you assumed it was? On that point, why would you even assume it's anything but a normal folder?
Am I on candid camera?
No, taking for instance that I have only one drive, C: I open up windows explorer, and I see that most programs install by default in C:\Program Files. I often set up things like c:\database and from there c:\database\oracle_info or c:\database\postgresql_stuff c:\pictures c:\picture\cancun_2009
Even though that:
1) Breaks virtually all Windows multi-user features, and many security features (UAC in Vista, for example, will be broken by that.)
2) Takes a lot more effort than just putting them in My Documents in the first place?
What do you mean my workplace uses? I've never been directed by a company/contract/customer where to put my files on my computer??
Do you have an IT person in charge of your computer?
If you're freelance, then the question doesn't apply. If you *do* have an IT department in charge of your computer, how would you expect them to be able to back up your files if you're shitting them all over the root level of the drive instead of putting them in the proper place?
But the main answer, I'm used to creating my own subfolders off the root directory to sort out my files.
The world has changed since 1992, grandpa. You are seriously unbelievable. Only on Slashdot could you hope to find someone who works with computers, and yet is *that* monumentally out-of-touch with how computers work.
Well, obviously. It works in enough cases, though, that I find it to be an indespensible feature.
It only works on accident, though. Because it just so happens that you're renaming a text file (with a certain extension) into another text file (with a different extension).
In fact, I think it's safe to say that text-based formats are the ONLY formats your method works with. You just happen to spend most of your time on text-based formats... what about the poor guy who edits photos for a living? Or creates Excel spreadsheets? So your method still doesn't work for the majority of people and the majority of formats, and it only works for you by accident.
Other than the fact that they aren't? One is HTML, a text-based format, and the other is Javascript, a different text-based format.
If you're going to redefine "file format" to mean something other than "the format of the file," then I suppose I can't argue with your logic.
But both .html and .js files are in the same format, to any normal human being who doesn't twist the meaning of words at a whim. They're both text files. (Given, HTML has some additional formatting that goes beyond text files, but it's still a text file.)
I'm just saying that opening a dialog is almost by definition slower than hitting F2 and typing something. I'd have to mouse to the correct field, select it, modify it, and confirm.
Well, two points:
1) Who the fuck said it was going to be in a dialog? You pulled that out of your ass; I certainly said nothing of the type.
2) You can use the keyboard to navigate dialogs, too.
Wait, you mean this isn't going to be offered on all/most versions of Win 7?
You mean exactly like Microsoft's been saying since they first announced it? Yes.
It'll go on Windows 7 Business/Enterprise and Windows 7 Ultimate (which has everything.) No home versions will get it.
I'm used to the unix/linux way...treating everything as a folder...so, I am used to setting up folders for my work, and storing things in their place...not all jumbled up.
That's fine, but you can do that *in* the My Documents folder.
It's just the way you phrased your original post, as if these two statements:
"Does no one still get into the tree structure to create their own folders to organize things?"
"Or...do most people just put everything in My Documents?"
were mutually-exclusive somehow.
I still don't get *where* you're putting files, if not in My Documents. Do you just put them on the root of the HD? If so, why? (Or is it just an old habit you've never re-examined, even as Microsoft has been giving "subtle hints" and made it increasingly harder and harder to do that?)
Also, what does your workplace do with their files? They don't use My Documents?
Weird. My post wasn't even the first post-- although I guess it was the first reply to an early post. In any case, it sounds better than "somebody with mod points is out to get you!!"
Thanks.
Or, I can right-click, N, T, which takes less than half a second. Renaming it to give it the correct extension doesn't take much longer. Hit enter 3 times, and it opens in the appropriate application. I'm sure it's far easier and quicker than any "improved" system you could come up with.
Well, first of all, how can you definitively declare it's faster than anything else ever, since the "anything else" doesn't even exist? That's like people pre-1904 saying heavier-than-air flight is impossible and, again, just reinforces my point that you have no imagination whatsoever.
Secondly, your method doesn't even work with most files. If you create a new Excel file, for example, and rename it to be ".doc" it just doesn't work. It only works when you're creating files that are the same TYPE of file in the first place (i.e. if you create a text file using "New Notepad File" and then rename it to a Javascript file, that would work.)
In short, your method doesn't work *now* for the vast majority of file types.
Um, what? "A text file that contains HTML" has a .html extension. What sort of .js file contains HTML? Obviously HTML files can contain Javascript, but these end in .html, not .js. Opening and editing is no problem, because both HTML and Javascript are understood by the browser and are editable in any text editor.
I apologize; my explanation was riddled with typos.
Here's the point I was trying to make, and this time I'll proof it better before hitting submit.
Both the .html and the .js file are the same type: they're both text files. I can open both of them in ANY application that supports opening text files, everything from Notepad to Word to OpenOffice to Visual Studio. There's no reason both of those files shouldn't have the type of (in the old System 6 parlance) "TEXT".
But! I want some text files (.js) to open in Visual Studio, others to open in Expression Web (.html) and yet others to open in Notepad (.txt.) Right now, we use file extensions to communicate this to the computer-- "this text file is the type of text file I want to open in a HTML editor." This is obviously a wrong way of doing that, since there's no actual difference in the format of a file that contains HTML and one that contains Javascript. They're both text files.
Currently, there's no way to communicate this subtlety to the computer. So we end up with a situation where, for example, Word is capable of opening a .js file but it doesn't *know* it's capable of it.*
You also end up with a situation where it's impossible for me the user to say, "I want this .html file to open in Visual Studio, and this other .html file to open in Expression Web." There's no additional piece of meta-data to support that.
All those subtleties could be communicated in Mac System 6, none can be in any modern OS.
That's what "Open With..." is for, and if you have enough .js files that you want to open with MSVS as opposed to wscript, go into Folder Options -> File Types, add it as an action, and change the default.
But "Open With" doesn't know one .html file from another. I have no way of telling it that I *always* want to this particular .html file with X, and this other particular .html file with Y. And that's just on my own personal machine. There's another layer of complexity getting *other* systems to recognize that preference, when I move the file around various networks.
I'd have to go into some properties window to change it, which would be a pain. Thanks, but no thanks. Changing the extension is easy and simple.
How do you know you would? It's not even implemented yet!
and all of the "better" solutions are just the opposite.
But you don't know that because it's not even implemented yet! Christ,
And yet it still requires users who have perfectly serviceable hardware running XP to upgrade to new hardware to run Win7 + XP
Ok, you're confused in a few ways.
The XP feature is intended for business users only. Not home users. If a business has "perfectly serviceable hardware running XP", they're not going to upgrade the OS.
and if you buy new hardware, well, you'll probably have Win7, and corporate users are just going to upgrade and leave XP.
Yes... and now that they can use Windows 7 to run their ancient XP-only applications, they'll be happy with their Windows 7 purchase and not bother to downgrade back to XP.
That's the *entire point* of it-- currently a lot of corporate users *can't* upgrade and leave XP because they have applications that only run on XP. This virtualization environment will allow them to move to Windows 7 without leaving those applications behind.
Really, what's the point again -- I need to buy new hardware to continue to use XP?
Assuming you mean "I, personally", then no. This feature is not intended for you. If you buy new hardware you'll get a copy of Windows 7 without the XP virtualization ability.
Maybe I'm confused about your entire post.
Off-topic, but I'd love to see the rationale from whoever moderated my first post in this thread "Redundant." Redundant with what?