IE 7 runs well and is a safe default for them to work from, particularily since they are running as limited users and don't have install rights. I like Firefox with NoScript, but I have enough knowledge to have some idea of what to enable and what to disable.
That's not what I was talking about, though it does have its share of security holes.
What I mean is that you're endorsing M$' proprietary 'standards'. If there's one browser that can be credited as holding back the web because of its wrong and vastly incomplete implementation of web standards, it's IE.
Webmasters know what browser you use to visit their site, and it's because most of the world still uses IE that they won't get their act together and correct their shitty code (which only renders correctly on lax IE), and/or remove their stupid browser detection scripts.
Please support open web standards and use any browser but IE.
It remains that the point I was trying to get across is that calling it a slightly enhanced GameCube is mistaken. The GameCube was much slower, and was not dual-core, etc.
I call bullshit. It's much more powerful than a GameCube. Just because they didn't make a drastic change in their architecture or GPU choice doesn't change that.
The fact is that the CPU is dual-core, and the little brother of the CPUs of the XBox 360 and PS3. The graphics chipset was vastly improved. The motherboard is entirely new.
Nintendo goes for cheap, not outdated. And they can do that because they have great quality control.
Well you could stretch a point by saying the Wii is Gamecube 2.0.
God, not that again. The Wii is NOT an upgraded or overclocked GameCube with motion sensing controls. The CPU is new, the little brother of the XBox 360's and PS3's CPUs, in fact. The graphics chipset is vastly improved. The motherboard is entirely new.
As for the Wii... It should be obvious that Nintendo will revamp it at some time or another, no doubt telling people how it fixes all sorts of issues with the first one. (snip) This is after all exactly what Nintendo have done with their handhelds for years now. How many Gameboy models were there?
Yes, they did that with their handhelds. But their home consoles? No. All I can think of is the second SNES model, which was just a bit smaller, but had the exact same features.
Which is why I said most households. I'm aware of the different data storage needs of businesses, the server market, researchers, other organisations, and (most) geeks.
The average household's needs don't change that much. Can you honestly say they fill even a 160 GB HDD? Most households just browse the Internet, occasionally saving some file.
Look at how we always get better compression to store the same movies in the same space with better quality. Needed storage doesn't grow that much.
The 640k quote is about something entirely different.
It has to change because companies want more control over your viewing.
They want to know what you watch and when you watch it.
They want to be able to cut off your signal when they feel like it.
They want to prevent you from recording what you watch.
They want you to buy new TVs.
I'm tired of everything becoming digital. They're taking away our freedom. And in the case of photo cameras, quality.
A couple weeks ago I wanted to watch a DVD. And I became slightly enraged at how I couldn't skip those damn publisher logo and copyright crap. It's all because of the digital age. With a tape, your VCR just played what was on it, and you go through it at will, no questions asked.
So what if we can get more channels? The current channels already offer so little to watch. More choice isn't necessarily good either. I can't watch multiple channels at the same time in case two or more happen to show something I want to see.
When are they going to stop to push down their latest technology innovations down the consumer's throat? Most households don't need a frigging TB of HDD space.
They should direct their sales to the server and business market.
the very company which left so many security holes in Win95
What? Which security holes? I know there are some, but nowhere near as many as you seem to claim. Are you talking about local security? Because there is none, really, and I don't think it needed it as a home OS.
If you're connected to the internet you need protection like Avast, Windows Defender, Windows Firewall, you'll also need to be sure they are enabled and you'll need to let them search your system now and then.
None of that is needed if you use common sense, like not opening attachments from people you don't know, using a secure browser, etc.
A hardware firewall is also much better than a software one.
Not use anything before XP.
I've been using Windows 95 for years, and haven't ever had an infection ever since I started using Mozilla (now SeaMonkey). Today's malware targets IE, XP's open ports and insecure network protocol implementations. None of that exists on Windows 95 (neither on 98 or ME).
That's where I live, and I have to say that while most are trilingual, the current generation sucks at French. Hard. They can barely mutter a French phrase, and writing isn't that stellar either.
I'm lucky in that I'm from a French-speaking family. I was instantly bilingual. English I learned later from TV and video games, and perfected it thanks to the Internet.
The perceived problem with mod chips is that they are generally used to allow the playback of any game disc, which includes pirated games. Obviously publishers wouldn't like people to be able to play those.
Yes, Netscape Communicator was closed-source, and yes, its source was released in 1998. However, the released source code was so unmanagable that they rewrote the entire thing. Mozilla (renamed later to Mozilla Application Suite) was born from that. It was an interface based on Gecko, the rendering engine.
As for Firefox, it's nothing more than an interface fork from the old Mozilla Application Suite.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not what I was talking about, though it does have its share of security holes.
What I mean is that you're endorsing M$' proprietary 'standards'. If there's one browser that can be credited as holding back the web because of its wrong and vastly incomplete implementation of web standards, it's IE.
Webmasters know what browser you use to visit their site, and it's because most of the world still uses IE that they won't get their act together and correct their shitty code (which only renders correctly on lax IE), and/or remove their stupid browser detection scripts.
Please support open web standards and use any browser but IE.
Vista? For your kids? What a horrible idea. What's wrong with Windows XP SP2? It's proven and stable. Not so with Vista.
And why IE7? I guess you don't care about the web being open and free?
And the computer may not have sensitive data, but I'm sure you don't want the Internet to gain another node in a botnet or to be a spam delivery node.
The web is HTML, not XML.
It remains that the point I was trying to get across is that calling it a slightly enhanced GameCube is mistaken. The GameCube was much slower, and was not dual-core, etc.
A single interview with a game designer (not programmer) doesn't cut it. It certainly doesn't discredit the facts I mentioned.
It's no secret that both systems are highly compatible with each other.
I call bullshit. It's much more powerful than a GameCube. Just because they didn't make a drastic change in their architecture or GPU choice doesn't change that.
The fact is that the CPU is dual-core, and the little brother of the CPUs of the XBox 360 and PS3. The graphics chipset was vastly improved. The motherboard is entirely new.
Nintendo goes for cheap, not outdated. And they can do that because they have great quality control.
God, not that again. The Wii is NOT an upgraded or overclocked GameCube with motion sensing controls. The CPU is new, the little brother of the XBox 360's and PS3's CPUs, in fact. The graphics chipset is vastly improved. The motherboard is entirely new.
You're right about Panasonic's Qube, but the 64DD was just a short-lived add-on, not a new Nintendo 64 model.
Yes, they did that with their handhelds. But their home consoles? No. All I can think of is the second SNES model, which was just a bit smaller, but had the exact same features.
Which is why I said most households. I'm aware of the different data storage needs of businesses, the server market, researchers, other organisations, and (most) geeks.
It just seems stupid to me to buy a HDD larger than you need. They should focus more on performance and reliability instead of size.
By the way, my non-development PC that I use most has a 6.2 GB HDD, which is currently barely 1.5 GB full.
The average household's needs don't change that much. Can you honestly say they fill even a 160 GB HDD? Most households just browse the Internet, occasionally saving some file.
Look at how we always get better compression to store the same movies in the same space with better quality. Needed storage doesn't grow that much.
The 640k quote is about something entirely different.
It has to change because companies want more control over your viewing.
I'm tired of everything becoming digital. They're taking away our freedom. And in the case of photo cameras, quality.
A couple weeks ago I wanted to watch a DVD. And I became slightly enraged at how I couldn't skip those damn publisher logo and copyright crap. It's all because of the digital age. With a tape, your VCR just played what was on it, and you go through it at will, no questions asked.
So what if we can get more channels? The current channels already offer so little to watch. More choice isn't necessarily good either. I can't watch multiple channels at the same time in case two or more happen to show something I want to see.
When are they going to stop to push down their latest technology innovations down the consumer's throat? Most households don't need a frigging TB of HDD space.
They should direct their sales to the server and business market.
What? Which security holes? I know there are some, but nowhere near as many as you seem to claim. Are you talking about local security? Because there is none, really, and I don't think it needed it as a home OS.
Excuse me, sir, but that's bogus.
None of that is needed if you use common sense, like not opening attachments from people you don't know, using a secure browser, etc.
A hardware firewall is also much better than a software one.
I've been using Windows 95 for years, and haven't ever had an infection ever since I started using Mozilla (now SeaMonkey). Today's malware targets IE, XP's open ports and insecure network protocol implementations. None of that exists on Windows 95 (neither on 98 or ME).
Bottom line: long live BRAIN.EXE
BRAIN.EXE
Text or it didn't happen.
That's where I live, and I have to say that while most are trilingual, the current generation sucks at French. Hard. They can barely mutter a French phrase, and writing isn't that stellar either.
I'm lucky in that I'm from a French-speaking family. I was instantly bilingual. English I learned later from TV and video games, and perfected it thanks to the Internet.
Actually, "the 90's" is wrong. It's "the 90s".
The perceived problem with mod chips is that they are generally used to allow the playback of any game disc, which includes pirated games. Obviously publishers wouldn't like people to be able to play those.
Your post leaves out some crucial details.
Yes, Netscape Communicator was closed-source, and yes, its source was released in 1998. However, the released source code was so unmanagable that they rewrote the entire thing. Mozilla (renamed later to Mozilla Application Suite) was born from that. It was an interface based on Gecko, the rendering engine.
As for Firefox, it's nothing more than an interface fork from the old Mozilla Application Suite.
Or you could just shut the computers off for the night. Saves electricity, too.
Are you running a server room, or something? It would certainly help if you shut down your computer each day.
I wish people would stop confusing plug-ins and extensions.
Anyway, a major offender that contributes a lot to Firefox' memory usage is the Java plug-in.