|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:36:59 +0100, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did
spake, saying:
> Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
>> http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/06/30/come-back-xp-forgiven
>
>> Is it just me, or are all these complaints about Vista the exact same
>> things we heard about XP when moving from Win2k?
>
> There's one difference, though. When MS discontinued Win98 support in
> favor of WinXP, there was no petition signed by over 200000 users sent to
> Microsoft to keep the Win98 support going on. I think that's rather
> telling.
But XP did everything that 98 did only better, the changeover was
virtually seamless.
> Also I have the feeling that this time MS rushed the discontinuation of
> the previous version of Windows in order to artificially boost sales of
> the new version. IIRC when the Win98 line of Windows's was dropped, XP
> was already quite stable and popular. Not so with Vista.
As I think I said elsewhere I think the problems are that Microsoft
managed to produce an OS that really hit the mainstream when it was
stable, worked with the majority of programmes already used, and didn't
look much different from the previous version.
They then let it marinate in the user pool until everyone got used to it
and are now 'forcing' people to switch to something that seems to fall
over constantly, doesn't run any of 'my' software properly and
everything's moved from where I want it to be.
> (Btw, am I just being paranoid, or is one of the reasons for MS to so
> quickly stop support for XP that the music and film industry is
> pressuring
> MS to do so, in favor of the DRM technology in Vista? For some reason
> this
> oppressive DRM technology caused a furor years ago, but nowadays nobody
> remembers it anymore or talks about it. Why has everybody forgotten it?)
I think it's more shock therapy to get the markets moving.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> MS to do so, in favor of the DRM technology in Vista? For some reason this
> oppressive DRM technology caused a furor years ago, but nowadays nobody
> remembers it anymore or talks about it. Why has everybody forgotten it?)
Because they've taken to complaining about Vista in general instead? ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
By the way, what *does* Vista offer over XP? Besides DirectX 10, that is.
In other words, why should anyone switch voluntarily?
From what I have seen, the list of planned but later *dropped* features
is larger than the actual list of new features, compared to XP.
I can't resist the urge to, once again, admire Apple as opposed to MS.
Each new version of MacOS X has been faster and lighter than previous
versions, and with new useful features. Most MacOS X users *want* to
upgrade to the later version. Usually they don't need to be forced.
(Sure, exceptions *always* exist, but this is my general impression.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> (Btw, am I just being paranoid, or is one of the reasons for MS to so
> quickly stop support for XP that the music and film industry is pressuring
> MS to do so, in favor of the DRM technology in Vista? For some reason this
> oppressive DRM technology caused a furor years ago, but nowadays nobody
> remembers it anymore or talks about it. Why has everybody forgotten it?)
Because nobody buys music online? I never will, at least.
My entire music collection (now approaching 20 gigs - I never thought
I'd get this much!) is encoded from CDs.
I'm working on encoding my DVD collection, as well.
And guess what... none of it is infected with DRM! Eat that, MAFIAA!
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> And guess what... none of it is infected with DRM! Eat that, MAFIAA!
Give it a few years and it will be illegal to own a digital audio or
video device that does not enforce MAFIAA DRM policy. Eat that.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> By the way, what *does* Vista offer over XP? Besides DirectX 10, that is.
> In other words, why should anyone switch voluntarily?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_and_safety_features_new_to_Windows_Vista
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desktop_Window_Manager
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Management_features_new_to_Windows_Vista
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Imaging_Component
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Color_System
I didn't see mention of them in the wikipedia articles, but there are
supposed to be great improvements in how Windows utilizes all types of
memory (RAM, flash drives, and hdds). Things like using available
memory to preload your favorite programs, swapping data out to flash
drives instead of magnetic drives, etc, as well as better memory
partitioning and protection (OK, that parts in the "Security and safety"
above).
> From what I have seen, the list of planned but later *dropped* features
> is larger than the actual list of new features, compared to XP.
That's true of any software project, isn't it? But realistically, you
can't offer everything to everyone.
Besides which, some of the features just weren't good ideas. I mean,
making the entire file system a relational database? IIRC, they didn't
drop that one because of implementation problems, but because in
practice it sucked.
> I can't resist the urge to, once again, admire Apple as opposed to MS.
> Each new version of MacOS X has been faster and lighter than previous
> versions, and with new useful features. Most MacOS X users *want* to
> upgrade to the later version. Usually they don't need to be forced.
> (Sure, exceptions *always* exist, but this is my general impression.)
I recently had the opportunity to turn a white box PC into a Hackintosh,
and the results were less than astounding.
OK, I can understand things not working quite right since it wasn't
actually a Mac (though the main components were the same ones that Apple
uses, CPU, GPU, etc). But honestly, working with the OS itself...
maybe I'm just at the point where I'm OS agnostic, and don't care what
system the computer runs, as long as it does what I want it to do.
After using it for a while on the white box, Mac OS X failed to impress me.
What *does* impress me is the rabid fervor of its fans.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>
>> And guess what... none of it is infected with DRM! Eat that, MAFIAA!
>
> Give it a few years and it will be illegal to own a digital audio or
> video device that does not enforce MAFIAA DRM policy. Eat that.
>
Remember, remember, the 5th of November...
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Tue, 01 Jul 2008 15:48:01 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did
spake, saying:
> Chambers wrote:
>
>> And guess what... none of it is infected with DRM! Eat that, MAFIAA!
>
> Give it a few years and it will be illegal to own a digital audio or
> video device that does not enforce MAFIAA DRM policy. Eat that.
Nah DRM will just become defacto on mainstream devices and they won't play
any non-DRM content; and those devices that do play non-DRM conteny won't
be authorised to play DRM content. If any of the anti-DRM's protest
they'll just be called pirates.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> I didn't see mention of them in the wikipedia articles,
Yeah. In general, there's a whole bunch of stuff that end-users rarely
see. The whole protection bit, the whole secure-desktop-communication
bit. Stuff like System Restore in XP, and other stuff that programs can
use but which end-users don't really see (like transactional file
systems) keep showing up.
There's really only so much an OS can do for a user. You can make the
apps better, and Apple "improves" the OS by making better apps to come
with it. If MS did that, people would start suing them for monopoly
practices again.
So there's a number of things that either lead to better performance
(like the memory management) or to easier programming, but not a whole
lot you can do that the user is going to see vividly.
Of course, if it doesn't work, it's going to suck regardless of what
it's *supposed* to do.
> making the entire file system a relational database? IIRC, they didn't
> drop that one because of implementation problems, but because in
> practice it sucked.
Actually, it worked quite well for some systems. Like PR1ME, a business
mainframe. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Helpful housekeeping hints:
Check your feather pillows for holes
before putting them in the washing machine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
news:486a4450@news.povray.org...
> Besides which, some of the features just weren't good ideas. I mean,
> making the entire file system a relational database? IIRC, they didn't
> drop that one because of implementation problems, but because in
> practice it sucked.
From what I heard from one of the devs some time back, was that WinFS was
dropped because the feature set they were given was too ambitious. Instead
of starting small and building on that, the project was scoped to do
everything at once. It was taking too long and producing too little and got
scrapped.
It was more a failure of management than of technology.
Wasn't a complete loss. Several of the senior devs got folded into the SQL
Server dev team and contributed to enhancements of the SQL storage engine,
including the FileStream feature.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|