5 hours ago,Sven Groot wrote

@fknight: That hasn't happened to me with Mesh either during the beta or since the RTM.

23 hours ago,ManipUni wrote

 

1 hour ago,Bas wrote
Also I still find the way messenger works with the Windows 7 taskbar cumbersome.

 

Go to the Messenger folder
e.g. C:\Program Files (x86)\Windows Live\Messenger\

And set Compatibility Mode to Windows Vista (Service Pack 2). That will fix the Taskbar suck.

I guess that's what they mean when they say it was designed from the "ground up" for Windows 7. LOL

I wonder if they're still pushing updates out for Live Mesh on a near daily basis - -each of which used to kill the entire taskbar and restart it when Live Mesh would update (by design), causing everything that was sitting in the "notification area" to disappear (yet still continue to run). It's pretty much why I stopped using Live Mesh . because I was tired of basically having a semi-daily scheduled crash of my taskbar.

rhm said:

Dinjuk said:

*snip*

That's handy.

 

But did anyone really use Vista's backup. I didn't see this thread when it was originally posted, but I have to agree with the OP - it's a completely worthless piece of software from the department of dumbing down that took over with Vista and seems to still be in charge of Win7.

 

People that want a good backup can download Crashplan for free.

Actually, one of the primary reasons for me upgrading from Vista to 7 was that they restored functionality to the Backup and Restore application, such as the ability to backup specific folders and files. Additionally, the ability to back up to a network location actually works now. Windows 7's backup/restore application is much, much better than Vista's. Vista's was indeed a complete joke.

GoddersUK said:

spivonious said:

*snip*

In the US the physical network provider also provides the DSL/ADSL service right? And you normally only have one such provider? Allowing them to screw you over with no repercussions. In Europe (or the UK at least) the regulators force the large infrastructure companies to allow competitors to provide services over their lines. (ie. in the UK BT, which has an effective monopoly on the telephone network, is forced to allow competitors to use it's lines, exchanges etc. Sadly it doesn't apply to all providers so Virgin Media - BT's only competition in terms of infrastructure provider, isn't forced to allow competitors to use their networks. Also unlike BT they don't have an obligation to provide universal service, so they only connect the profitable areas).

Forced-access regulation for telephone companies exists in the United States also since the Telecommunications Act of 1996. If I recall correctly, however, it only applies to telephone companies and not cable companies. Verizon provides all of the DSL loops in my area, but I don't necessarily have to use Verizon as my DSL ISP, Verizon is required to allow other ISPs to provide DSL service over Verizon's copper.

As far as what I have, Verizon FIOS (fiber), with the 20Mbps Downstream/5Mbps Upstream tier. As part of the Triple Freedom bundle with TV and landline, the Internet is $33. My speed is consistently thus:

Sven Groot said:

magicalclick said:

*snip*

In the Netherlands, you can put a sticker on your mailbox indicating that you do not wish to receive unaddressed mail. The people who deliver advertisement flyers etc. are required by law to adhere to that.

 

The problem of having an automated system decide what is or isn't spam simply doesn't exist for physical mail. The analogy is therefore flawed.

The  analogy is meaningless based simply upon two concepts: 1) we're not talking about physical spam at all, and 2) that just because you can't do anything about physical spam doesn't mean you can't do anything about electronic spam. The analogy is completely irrelevant - we're not talking about physical spam. We're talking about electronic spam transmitted over a computer network, sitting on computers whose sole design purpose is to perform tasks rapidly for humans.

We're talking about sifting through 300 messages every morning, all of which look nearly identical when you're staring at a long scrolling list of messages in the Outlook inbox, with maybe one or two legitimate messages hidden in there somewhere --- while any one of the other 298 messages could blow up your computer or trigger a cascading deluge of more spam if you so much as highlight it.  Things like that don't happen with physical mail because people go to Federal Prison for it.

Dealing with electronic spam as above is a far, far cry from throwing away 5 flyers which are obviously from a catalog company, 6 envelopes which are obviously credit offers, and 2 coupon sheets.

Electronic spam is simply not the same as physical spam and any analogy is not only flawed, but completely baseless on its face.

W3bbo said:

fknight said:

*snip*

I use Exchange, and my OST files are still under AppData\Local\Microsoft\Outlook

 

Why would the PSTs be under Documents? It isn't a human-readable file.

"I'm reinstalling Windows and I need to backup my email so I still have it after the reinstall."

<proceed to walk a non-technically inclined user through the process of unhiding folders, possibly needing to cover the concept of user profile directories, and other additional things depending on his configuration>

XLS files aren't human readable either. Nor are JPEGs, PNGs, GIFs, MP3s, AVIs, or PDFs. Like PST files, they all need a program to open up the data file and present the information to the user.

And like XLS files, JPEGs, PNGs, GIFs, MP3s, AVIs, and PDFs, Outlook's PST files need to be in a place that's accessible to an end-user who has no interest in earning an MCSE certificate just so he can back it up when he needs to reinstall Windows or migrate to another PC.

OST files can stay where they are because they're not used directly by the end user and serve only as a cache. They have no need to be touched, located, or backed up by a non-technically inclined end user.

exoteric said:

magicalclick said:

*snip*

I believe this is a failure to understand the importance of usability. A cube mapped desktop or window flip may have some initial attraction but its appeal will quickly fade and it has near zero usability advantages.

 

Interestingly, I think this presentation on digital comics by Scott McCloud shows great usability ideas. Highly recommended.

 

I especially liked the part of the movie where the virtualized instance of Windows XP ran pretty smooth, but the native OS w/Compiz running on the bare metal lagged most of the time. I know for a fact from using Ubuntu 10.04 that it really isn't as laggy as the video indicates -- it's actually quite smooth with all of the effects -- I just thought the fact that this video was judged adequate to put on YouTube is humorous -- and if I didn't know better and was only exposed to this video, I'd stay the hell away from Compiz.

Bass said:

AndyC said:

*snip*

You are free to think Compiz is yawn worthy, I guess that is one of the many places where we differ. Fact of the matter is, I can't get it on Windows.

Yes,  but wasn't the question about applications?  No one uses a computer just so they can use the window manager and nothing else.

AndyC said:

JoshRoss said:

*snip*

Perceived risk may explain why some people pirate Windows as opposed to buying it, but it doesn't really explain why people pirate Windows instead of using a free alternative. The only real explanation for that is that people want Windows more.

This is exactly right. People would rather risk criminal fines, lawsuits, and closure of their business than use Linux. That's how good Windows is.

Shining Arcanine said:

allenf said:

*snip*

Install Gentoo Linux on your laptop and tune it for speed. When they see that your boot times and shut down times are half of those of Windows 7, your desktop is always responsive (which probably puts it on par with Windows 7) and application start times are minimal, they will want it on their systems too.

My Windows 7 desktop is always responsive and my applications start quickly. 

Why do you have to reboot and shut down your Gentoo Linux machine so often that boot times are even an issue? I last booted my Windows machine 18 days ago. And geez -- you have to "tune" your OS to be responsive? Mine worked out of the box.

Shining Arcanine said:

blowdart said:

*snip*

I seem to have become spoiled by Gentoo Linux. It does nothing for me. I need to specify everything that I want it to do, so doing things like running network services is not something that I can accomplish by clicking "next, next, forward" in a GUI. This is why I am surprised to see all of the ports open on Windows, because I do not recall explicitly hunting for each service that I wanted and turning it online. :/

 

Anyway, I looked up some of the ports and some of them seem reasonable for the services I use (or used to use; I now print to file on my systems most of the time and file-sharing is usually done via SSH), but what did I out of ignorance do that caused msrpc to run on port 135? I cannot seem to find out how I could have unwittingly opened that one.

When Windows asked you if you were on a Public network or a Home or Workplace network, it also explained to you, in detail, the consequences of whichever selection you chose -- including opening up the firewall ports related to file and print sharing. You should probably have read it.

turrican said:

and.... http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1651889/google-stolen-wifi "Google wants to keep stolen WiFi data" ... Google ignored last week the first deadline set by German regulators to fork over hard drives containing the data it had collected in Germany, and is apparently working towards a compromise after its lawyers advised the company not to comply. Unsurprisingly, handing the data over to governments isn't welcomed by some Internet subscribers and organisations either, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).

Turrican : actually the disposition of the data that Google collected is sort of up in the air right now -- several countries ordered Google to delete the data, yet several other countries ordered them not to delete the data --- if, at some point charges are brought against Google, they can't very well be allowed to destroy evidence.

longzheng said:

fknight said:

*snip*

You're welcome

Thanks. It obviously reminds me of Tweetdeck, but it's not as "in your face" as that application. The notification windows also tend to not appear as much of a disturbance as other applications. I can't wait to see how this application progresses in the future.

It could be slightly smoother moving the columns around -- but otherwise, this app appears great.

Ray7 said:

ZippyV said:

*snip*

Wow. 

 

How'd he manage to get that wrong?

 

Easy to get stuff wrong when your talking points are from 10 year old Slashdot posts.

"Windows & Windows Live accounted for 48 percent of the five Microsoft divisions' combined operating profit during fiscal 2010 third quarter -- that's without factoring in expenses or other charges."

If that's "without factoring in expenses or other charges" -- why is the article author using the word "profit?" 

Additionally, this article author better clue himself in as to what operating system most of those 500 million Facebook subscribers are using to access Facebook.

Dumb article.

blowdart said:

It changes, in order of the last used symbol.

Which also means the OP had to open up the More Symbols dialog, change font, and do a half dozen other clicks to get it to get all three to appear in the recently used symbol box in that order.

CreamFilling512 said:

W3bbo said:

*snip*

I never understood what was the big deal about that line.  It's just a metaphor, why chastise the guy?  I'd probably say something similar if I was talking to a bunch of lawyers.

I'll bet a year's pay that a few techies actually explained the Internet to Senator Stevens using that exact tube analogy.

W3bbo said:

fknight said:

*snip*

Check your browser settings because I don't have that problem at all. The textbox retains focus before, during, and after the fade.

I noticed that I didn't have the issue today. They must have changed something recently (perhaps with their redesign), but it was definitely not my browser settings as I experienced it on every machine. Then again -- maybe it was an issue with Chrome -- which I use on all those PCs.

What I don't like about Google is that once they added that stupid "fade in" months ago, I've had to manually click in the search box to start typing. It used to have focus when I brought up the page. Now I bring up google.com, the box has focus, and then immediately loses focus half a second later when the rest of the page fades in.

exoteric said:

fknight said:

*snip*

I agree with you but some of the physics and ideas in there look quite good to me. The room aspect is indeed horrible.

Definitely. I'm just guessing -- but I agree it's about physics, etc.