Any guesses at the version number?
i'll go for Firefox 2692
51 posts • joined 20 Jun 2007
You really should think before you post. You can submit a document to amazon and they will convert it and send it straight to your kindle for you. No matter what format. Or if you want to do it yourself you can use e-calibre and upload your content straight to it. Not exactly locked down like an Crapple is it?
I'm not certain if the people who have commented on Ian's post have read it the way it was intended. Ian seems to indicate that he is against his 6 YO being taught JOINED UP WRITING and if that is the case, I agree with him. I was taught joined up writing at school but i don't use it now. I see no need to join up my letters when i write. It is a skill that is no longer needed except in very small circles and should be dropped in favour of more useful skills.
If Ian is referring to writing with a pen and paper in general however, then i encourage him to immediately attempt to gain himself a Darwin award and i weep for his children
"...the sunrise rules state that applications must be for an exact-match string only, excluding non-compliant symbols, so the owner of a trademark on "example.com" would only be able to block "examplecom.xxx", not "example.xxx"..."
How can any .XXX domain be purchased before the sunrise period ends on 28th October? And how can you block gay.xxx under the sunrise rules unless the address owned is www.g.ay
Can anyone explain that please?
"but still an important step towards XP, tying 9x and NT together."
not quite. W2k was supposed to tie 9x and NT together but it didn't do it well enough for people using 95/98 to upgrade to it. Many applications (mostly games) wouldn't work on it and it was for that reason that Microsoft inflicted ME on us all. It was considered the upgrade route for people running 98. XP had lots of problems when it came out, and that was mostly because it was rushed out to replace ME, but it did do what w2k failed to do, it united the 9x and NT bases together.
This is ridiculous but I bet the reason it's classed as publishing is because it was sent to another computer during the chat. It's not the log itself but the log provides evidence that text was transmitted to another computer and therefore was being "published". It's clutching at straws but since most of the court cases recently seem to be based on some technicality you can bet that's what the reasoning is.
"The OS then calculates how much this figure has decreased from the capacity provided by the battery's original design specs"
Could it be that the information on the original design specs is faulty/corrupted? If the original design specs data that Windows 7 accesses indicates a battery life to be twice what it should be then Windows 7 will report a failing battery even if said battery is brand new.
Anyone know where Windows actually gets the information on the original design specs? if it's held in an internal database then it's possible the information is wrong or has been corrupted somehow.
Forget all of the opera bashing and MS bashing and EU bashing. Forget even who is right and look a little deeper at this.
Microsft have said they have removed IE from windows for the Europeon release and that now the user will be offered a choice of browser. If the screenshot is indeed what the user will be presented with, there is a glaring fault there.
Notice the title bar says windows internet explorer with an internet explorer icon. There is also an internet explorer icon on the tab of the page. This would suggest that in actual fact all Microsoft have done is cripple IE. (well, cripple it even more then it usually is :D)
The problem as far as i'm concerned isn't that IE is bundled with windows, it's the fact that it cannot be removed from windows. I don't use Internet Explorer and i haven't for a few years, but I know that there's quite a few people who begrudge having a piece of software on their computer that they don't want.
The selection page should not be in a webpage format, as to display it will require an Internet Browser and that's what Microsoft say the EU version of windows hasn't got. Anyone else spot the flaw in the logic?
After looking at the Windows 7 RC, I would not get it if Microsoft offered ME £500 for it. It is a DOWNGRADE from Vista. Vista does have problems (the HAL removal is the biggest) but these problems are still contained in Windows 7 and now they have added the removal of windows mail to the list. The official line is that you can download Windows Live Mail which has all the features of Windows Mail. Except it doesn't. If you have an email with an attachment that Microsoft considers "unsafe" (even if it is saved on your computer) Windows Live Mail does Microsoft's party trick of "we know better then you" and DISABLES the attachment. No way to turn the feature off. Same for MSN nowadays, you can't send an exe file because it MIGHT be "unsafe" even some picture formats are blocked!!! You can't even set up message rules in Live Mail!!
And this is the same thought process through the whole of Windows 7.
You WILL use the new start bar because it is better (don't care i PREFER the classic style)
You WILL use our new Windows Live programs because we don't have to do as much work with them
Windows 7 is a poor attempt to paper over the bad publicity attached to Vista which on a well powered machine runs fine. A lot of the problems people were having were due to the deal Microsoft and Intel struck to allow the older intel chipsets to be "Vista certified"
The facility to run XP programs in Windows 7 via an inbuilt Virtual Pc enviroment is a good idea in THEORY but why bother paying to get the new OS to do what the old OS did, but slower? You can do the same with Vista anyway, it's called Virtual PC since if you have XP programs chances are you'll have an XP licence and which you can use as it is still on the same computer.
Windows 7 is a service pack for Windows 7 - with a few more useful features removed
The same comments keep appearing constantly. Most (not all) of the peole who bad mouth Vista have not used it for an extended period, or have used it at work where it's usually locked down by sysadmins.
I have had Vista since it came out. I fix people's PC's as my job and knew that what was going to happen was people would end up with Vista so i needed to know it inside and out. The easiest way was to use it as my main OS. I hated it for the first 3 weeks cause MS did what they do best....move everything. Now i have no problem with it. Yes, i have a much more powerful machine then i did 2 years ago but the machine i had 2 years ago would run Vista better then a minimum spec xp machine (233mhz with 64MB RAM). Anyone want to try using that specwith an xp SP3 (or even SP2) install?
For the people complaining about Vista and saying they won't upgrade cause XP works fine: then don't upgrade!!! XP is still supported, however, if you buy a new machine then why use an old OS? (a new PC will probably use SATA disks, so make sure you have a floppy disk handy to install the SATA drivers - make sure the new PC actually HAS a floppy as well)
The simple fact is that Vista is to XP what 98 was to 95. Different, but largely the same. old hardware not working is something that is down to hardware manufacturers (the good ones will HAVE drivers that will work on Vista64 bit AND XP32 - Xyzel for example). The install routine is quicker and much easier. The file copying seems to take about the same time on XP and Vista, but vista has the nice feature of allowing you to select "do the same for the next 18 million items" - no more holding your finger down on Y to respond to XP's question each time.
As for DRM, like i have seen commented a few times, no one seems to have actually noticed any evidence of any DRM related problems. Can anyone provide any?
MS have dropped the ball in a lot of respects regarding Vista; IPX/SPX over Netbios is not supported in 64bit and the removal of HAL for Directsound is a biggie but the balance between positives and negatives is closer then a lot of people think.
And befpre any fanboys start having a go, I think linux is a very good OS just not ideal for me. OSX has it's place but it's not my choice because the software i want to run doesn't come on a Mac
I thought a comedy was a program that made you laugh. The IT Crowd is the most unfunny show EVER!!! Even Eastenders can produce more humourous moments. The only decent comedy since Red Dwarf has been My Family. For anyone thinking i've forgotten The Office, i'll just point out that it was just Rick "god i'm so untalented" Gervais being a complete prick which seems to be what passes for humour nowadays. I thought people wanted less crap on TV, obviously there are still a few people with the brain capacity of a dead flea who will laugh at anything
"Network Address Translation (NAT), which makes it possible for several systems to share a single IPv4 address"
Actually, no it doesn't. Network Address Translation allows multiple machines to use multiple IP addresses. The correct term is PAT (Port Address Translation) which converts the information from your internal IP address to be converted to a port on your router allowing multiple systems to use a single external IP address.
192.168.0.1 ------> 184.108.40.206
192.168.0.2 ------> 220.127.116.11
192.168.0.1 ------> 18.104.22.168 (55874)
192.168.0.2 ------> 22.214.171.124 (59653)
(OK, I know i'm being fussy about this but after working on a helpdesk you start to hate people referring to things by the wrong name. how often have you heard the desktop wallpaper called "my screensaver"?)
"We have the ability to provide an 'update' through the existing Kraken protocol that can simply remove the Kraken zombie"
ok, in that case why not just do an 'update' that just changes the ip address that the machine reports to to 127.0.0.1. it wouldn't remove the zombie true, but it would disable the network and as it's not making any major change to the program, there shouldn't be any way that it would course the machine to crash
....like certain AV vendors are worried about how their products are going to fare. Ok, so Virus databases will get bigger. That's going to happen anyway. But what's to say that the method of modification used by someone during the contest is the same method that some bright spark hadn't though of already and was already starting modify known virus code?
I'd rather have AV vendors be PRO-active instead of RE-active, in the same way that i'd rather the virus couldn't get on my machine then have to put up with a couple of days worth of infection until the vendor sorted out an update.
A lot of you seem to be stating that because the isps have sold an unlimited service that they now have to suffer. Well it's reality check time. NOT ONE OF YOU HAS AN UNLIMITED SERVICE. Every ISP has a fair usage policy so it's actually tough shit on customers. Basically you and the ISPs have agreed that you can have an unlimited service as long as you don't use too much of it.
There is SO many things wrong here that each company needs to be blamed for something.
ISPs: SHOULD NOT advertise unlimited service if it is limited. They should only provide customers with what they can actually sustain (faults on the network obviously is not included in that statement as that is not always something that can be controlled)
BBC: The iPlayer is a P2P sharing program in essence. Instead of streaming it realtime make it downloadable to a timelimited cache so that the bandwidth doesn't have to be used all at once (since most people will be trying to watch stuff during peak hours when they are home from work)
BT: The majority of ISPs in the UK resell the ADSL connection from BT who charge massive amounts for that connection. This means that the ISPs can only operate on a very small profit margin which is worked out on average usage.
All that is going to happen is that the prices for internet connections will rise which means all customers will end up paying more and the internet as a whole will get slower as lost of connections will be running at max capacity during peak times.
As a side note, as the BBC is funded solely from the licence fee/goverment taxes, why should you have to pay more for what you technically already pay for?
Steve Pettifer has got it exactly right, and your comments make you the moron. A recent survey that was done indicated that the people DON'T want all the pointless stuff that comes on Mobile phones.
The most important thing that was required was battery life and in fact MORE people DIDN'T want a camera on the phone then people who did. Mobile Phones are getting worse as they try and put more and more pointless rubbish into them. Nearly all mobile phones now give you the ability to do video calling, but how many people do you know who use it? The fact is that a mobile phone's job is to be EXACTLY that. Anything else is a gimmick which is why not many phones last more then the length of the contract without going wrong at least once. The most reliable phones were the old nokia "bricks". (can't remember the model number but everyone seems to have had one) They lasted for ages without needing to be recharged and the one I had only stopped working when someone i knew threw it at a wall.
I think that some people have a need to use mobile internet, but now that the mobile companies have the Broadband dongles there's not much point putting web access on the phones
Just a side note, i wonder how many people that are defending this constant increase of pointless phone features are the same people that are slating Vista for exactly the same thing
999 is the emergency number in the UK. Although (apparently) 112 does work from the uk, people don't use it because it is NOT OUR EMERGENCY NUMBER!!
The vast majority of people in this country want nothing to do with Europe.
On the subject of the topic though, Goverments need to stop trying to impose there own laws and regulations on International sites. NO emergency number should be on the webpages, but it should be common sense for facebook and myspace to include a link to their support/abuse department for that reason.
I'll get the Linux / MaC / PC issue sorted straight away. The operating system you pick is based on the software you run. If you run software that ONLY works on windows then it's a bit pointless people saying install Linux or get a Mac. (The phrase horses for courses comes to mind)
The issue with Vista is a straight fight against XP. the simple thing is that if you are running a 32Bit system, stick with XP for now, maybe even after SP1 is out. As it stands XP runs better on the same hardware as Vista. No contest. (if you want to take it further though, 98SE runs better then XP on the same hardware provided your hardware supports 98SE now!!)
The saving grace for Vista in terms of Windows is that XP64 is SOOOO bad it makes using Windows ME look like a realistic choice. Vista 64Bit is the 64Bit operating system to have if you want Windows OS.
Everybody is slagging off Vista, even the IT sites on the internet, but the one thing that people seem to be ignoring is that everyone is comparing 32Bit systems. you can't compare Vista to XP properly unless the 64Bit systems are included and as i have used both as my primary OS for an extended period (nearly a year at least) i can happily say i would rather drill out my eyeballs then go back to XP64.
if I have to install a 32 Bit system though, i won't touch Vista even if you paid me (OK, maybe we could negotiate a little........i won't have to use it, right?......)
MS has done nothing illegal here (first time for everything I suppose!!)
The machines that were labled as "Vista Capable" were indeed "Vista Capable", however, that is like Ferrari selling a brand new car which only has a 2 stroke engine in it. It's advertising and advertising is all about the wording.
The minimun spec for Windows XP is a 233 MHz processor with 64MB Ram. Would ANYONE even think of installing XP on something like that? (Note to self: find 233 processor and 64 MB RAM)
I wouldn't be surprised if in fact XP will run on a lower spec machine but MS decided the minimum limit. With Vista, they have set it too low. If it was to help out Intel then they have had their fingers burnt but it's a bad business decision, not an illegal one.
Of course, after saying all that, any machine with a Vista capable sticker on should be able to run all versions of Vista 32 (maybe not brilliantly but still run). If they don't, then there is a case for false advertising, but even then the defence would be:
"It runs Vista Home Basic, therefore it's Vista Capable"
I have spotted these advertising tricks before, I complained about DELL having a voice over saying "Dell PC's contain Intel Pentium 4 processors" despite the fact they had advertised in the same advert a PC with a celeron processor. Their defence (and i have the letter from the ASA to prove it) was that they didn't say "ALL Dell PC's contain Intel Pentium 4 processors". Very subtle.
"I'm definitely upgrading from XP to Vista because I want a 64bit Operating system that is windows based.
Vista is not even worth comparing to XP if you are talking about a 32 bit system. But if you tried XP 64, you'll know that the XP version is SO bad it makes Windows ME look like a resonable alternative!!!
Totally agree with you up until a point.
"All that Vista has is some new bells and whistles." - Not quite true, it has some very good features (and some moronically bad ones as well!!!)
some of the features (like DX10) are unnecessary at the moment and others like the UAC is just annoying!! however, the windows firewall has been revamped to do the one job that i would've used Zone alarm for in the first place, it's now able to block OUTGOING traffic as well.
"Vista may not support all your old hardware and software." - True again, however this is more the manufacturer's fault then MS. Case to point, I had a creative webcam, and had the RC2 of Vista. Driver not available from creative's website but windows update installed the driver. When Vista was released, the driver could not be found anywhere including Windows update and Creative have denied knowledge of the driver EVER existing!
"I'll take a mature version of XP over Vista anyday." - I challenge you to use XP 64 for 6 months and NOT to beg for Vista 64. I have used both and i can say without any doubt the improvements of Vista 64 over XP 64 are greater then the negatives of Vista 32 compare to XP 32.
I've said it many times before, if you are not going to to use 64 bit computing, stick with XP 32. Vista 32 IS slower and more bloated and is, quite frankly, pointless. However, if you're going to build a new pc, or even upgrade to 64 bit capable computers, put Vista 64 on and force yourself to use it for a month. Once you get used to what MS have renamed everything (WHY DO THEY INSIST ON DOING THAT?????) you'll have no problems with it.
To all Linux and Mac users, they are not my preference for a computer but that is not to say that I think theey are crap, if your computer does everything you want of it and you are happy and competent using it then good luck to you. can we not have the usual flame wars for once though, this is a MS article, lets stick to discussing MS (and ways that we would hurt Bill if we had the chance!!!)
i stopped using seti@home when they released that awful boinc software.
I don't want to attach any other studies to it.
i don't want a rotating 3D sparkly grid
if they ever decide to re-release the original looking software (with the security fixes naturally) then i'll use it again, but not before
Time for an education lesson. Of course the kernel has changed. If it didn't change, it would still be Windows XP. That is a stupid statement to make. Every new OS has a different kernel.
Vista is built on XP which is why there is compatability in Vista for XP. And as most new hardware actually does work if you force XP (and sometimes even W2K) drivers to be used, this makes your argument worthless.
And BTW, if you go back and READ my post you will see that as I have stated and for your benefit will state again, I agree there is a performance drop in Vista to XP on the same hardware. Logically if you stick to your argument, you'll still be using windows 3.1 as no Microsoft OS can perform as well as DOS 6.22 and Windows 3.1 on the same hardware.
To say that Vista is crap because of performance issues is a very poor argument. There are several issues that are negative points for Vista and there are several plus points as well.
As i must keep saying, if you are going to compare XP to Vista, make sure you are comparing EVERYTHING.
XP 64Bit versus Vista 64Bit, I dare you to still say XP is better (if you do prepare to be riduculed by everyone who has ever used XP64).
And BTW, as NT4 and 95 worked completely differently, you might want to retract your statement which undermines your arguments even further almost to the point of them being just an Anti-Vista rant from someone who has clearly not used it.
This post has been deleted by a moderator
I presented what I hoped was a balanced argument (thank you for the acknowlegement) but to respond with "Vista is SHIT" is just an awful response. Like i've said, I've been using it for nearly a year. I still find some things about it annoying, but that is to do with the UI. There are a few features removed which again is annoying but not critical.
As I have stated, use XP if you are not going for 64Bit computing, but there is almost nothing (and I have found a few things which personally I find annoying or inconvenient) that is in XP but NOT in Vista.
Vista is XP with a flashy UI. Personally, I wish they had left the UI alone. Some things about it look nice but that doesn't bother me. In turns of performance, Vista is slower then XP on the same hardware, no argument there either.
Saying that Vista is shit though is just not true, UAC (which i turn off) is annoying but then if you speak to the vast majority of computer users, UAC is something they need to protect them. Yes it is a typical bolt on from MS, but to an ignorant user it MIGHT just stop them doing something stupid.
In the end of the day, Vista just takes a couple of weeks of using to get used to and then the UI stops getting in the way because you've learnt all the new names and the new routes to all the old stuff in XP. Use it for a while and you'll see it's not the radical change that MS wants people to think it is and, unfortunately, a lot of people have fallen into that trap
In essence Vista is to XP what 98 was to 95.
It's the 64Bit support that is the real difference
Can people who are comparing XP to Vista take a step back and THINK first. Vista is no WAY similar to ME. ME was an attempt to remove DOS from Windows 98. This rendered it unstable. Vista is built on XP and is NOT unstable as an OS however, due to the lack of driver support provided by manufacturers, there is a lot of hardware that DOES cause the OS to crash. This problem existed for EVERY version of windows since 95.
As for Vista being a resource hog, It is clear that people have very short memories. Windows 98 ran fine on 32MB of RAM (24MB was recommended, 16MB was minimum), however the resource hog XP needed 64MB minimum, TWICE as much, and had 128MB recommended. And that was only after 3 years!! XP is 6 years old!! Relaistically now if you have under 512MB of ram XP will run like a dog. Vista memory specs are in truth just double what you would expect to run XP on and with memory prices being so low now, this is MUCH cheaper then the hardware upgrade needed to go from 98 to XP.
Finally for those of you who are reluctant to change, how long were you stuck on windows 3.1 before you moved to windows 95? The change is NOT about moving from XP to Vista, it's moving from 32Bit to 64Bit computing. Try using XP64, it's a whole new world of hurt that even ME can't match!! Personally i see no advantage to using Vista 32Bit and if you don't have a 64Bit machine, stick with XP a bit longer. XP is still a solid OS (for a Microsoft operating system anyway!!), but after having been using Vista for a year and replacing non-compatible hardware, I have a computer now that doesn't crash (it actually is a bit more reliable then XP for that) and has no compatability problems.
XP: If you can't change to 64Bit, stick with it a while longer
Vista: Look to build a new machine and consider peripherals and also enquire about software. It's a bigger step then people realize to go from 32 to 64Bit but it's a change that will have to be made
I went through the same problems when I went from 16bit to 32 but this time i was better prepared
The fact that your IP address hasn't changed is NOT an indication of a lie from NTL, sorry VirginMedicNeeded, sorry VirginMedia (get it right in a minute (Or is that their line?)).
Anyway, as i was saying, the IP address you have assigned is matched to the MAC address of the device connected to your cable modem and it has a lease of at least a week last time i checked. (Change your MAC address and you get a different IP address, reconnect the original MAC address and you'll get the original IP)
The excuse given though would not cause the disconnection for the extensive period. In fact, if they had turned off the DHCP server it wouldn't make a difference to anyone already connected. Therefore, they had a pretty serious system outage last night and they're not talking!!
Virgins keep their mouths closed as well it seems!
I wonder how many of the current bunch of Internet "Service" Providers will be remembered as fondly.
I left Compuserve the day AOL bought them. It's not the first time that the better company was bought by a useless bunch of wasters that should be eradicated from history!!
Farewell to a legendary name
According to the Star Trek Encyclopedia timeline, the first captain of the enterprise (NCC-1701) was Captain Robert April who captained the ship on it's first 5 year mission before Christopher Pike, why has there been nothing about him or his crew??
I suspect a cover up by starfleet due to presidential assassination attempts or fake Rigel 7 moon landings!!
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020