1) Far less expose to malware when they start going online for games.
2) More controls and monitoring and filters that makes it family friendly is built in.
3) Faster if the netbook has 1gb of RAM.

This way you can approve online children gaming sites without much worry and without keeping them offline.

This is a television device that is bypassing local network stations.

This hurts your local stations.

This is also why you see the same companies NOT blocking some Cable content channels, like CNBC, as the local affliates don't only broadcast NBC, not CNBC.

There are also legal issues with this, just like Directv and satelittle providers have had to deal with.

There are also the local Cable companies that have a stake in the advertising revenue that they miss out on as well.

--
What needs to happen are some regulations that create standards for Internet access to broadcast content, that still allows your local stations and cable companies to insert their advertising, instead of only getting national advertising revenue.

If your local ABC could get their local adversting spots inserted in the 'ad' stops, this would be far less of an issue legally and financially.

Google knows better, and could have been a key player in getting some standards and regulations for local cable/broadcast companies into the game with national content. Instead they thought they could get away with shoving this on a TV because they are Google?

Yes, I fully index file contents, and even have the Image Text Recognition turned on (Turn Windows features on or off, Windows TIFF IFilter), in addition to the Office and Adobe and various other application document searching IFilters installed with various software.

I had to manually turn on the 'file contents' of some of the text development file types that I have used over the years, so they are also getting fully indexed.

On my laptop (currently typing this), I only have a subset of my entire data collection (as when I am networked to my main data PC, it returns the results it maintains); however, even on this laptop there is about 200GB of data indexed, and 2,500,000 items indexed.

Results are instant, and very comprhensive, even returning OneNote meetings where someone 'said' something I am searching for.

Neither computer in my example is even above average, as this is a Core2 Duo laptop, so is the desktop data PC, except the data PC has several TBs of drive space available.

In contrast to Google Desktop Search, there is quite a jump in features that W7's Search offers, from the SQL access methods and inter-applicaiton access tools to even the network handing off of indexed locations to the managing PC/Server.

Also with Google Desktop Search, anything over about 1,200,000 items fully indexed would not only make the results slow, but make the system chug in keeping track of things.

W7's Search utilizes features in NTFS for a better and lighter job of tracking data that Google's Search doesn't seem to use or use as efficiently.

Which leads me to my final thought. Most of the time when there have been uses with people getting sub-par performance out of indexed locations, they are stored on FAT32 instead of NTFS partitions.

It is very important to make sure all the data you are storing and wanting to index is on NTFS partitions, as this is what W7 Search uses to make performance and the cost of indexing the locations effortless. (Storing large amounts of data on FAT32 is also dangerous, as there isn't even a fraction of the integrity that you get with NTFS.)

Good Luck

Althought this won't sit well on Slashdot...

1) Microsoft OneNote - best note gathering tool, also online coordination/sync if you want/trust. (Thus viewable on my phone as well)

2) Smartphone - Android

3) Windows7 and the built in Search indexing system, it keeps track of everything I have done for the past 20 years. With selective online Syncing of current documents and projects available to any PC I sign into with Live Essentials, or via a browser. (Millions and Millions of documents, notes, meeting recordings, ink drawings, development projects, etc. - all available instantly, something that made OS X choke when trying to index even a small portion of the TBs of data.) Add in 'previous versions' and the backup system and you have a very mature system of tracking the data of your life, and even seeing it at various time points.

OneNote and Vista/Win7's Search features are something that has keep me off of Linux as a primary desktop for a few years now. Gone are the days of 'find' and cobbled indexing solutions.

It is just too handy to type a partial line of code and get the project, or a few words from an email back in 1992 and have it at my finger tips.

Is this the end of the Mac as an open platform?'

For someone to have EVER considered the Mac an open platform on any level is freaking disturbing. From hardware to software, it is the most closed platform in the world.

Just because they ripped of XNU and it uses UNIX underpinnings as a model does not make it open in any sense of the imagination. If this is the standard of 'open' then Windows NT is also an open platform, as it has a full BSD subsystem.

Professor Plum run, we are now playing a game of 'Clueless'...

I have no problem with anyone using a cli, even I like more than the majority of the population.

I do have a problem with the assertion that a base cli is needed for an os and other operations should be structured from the cli or a cli model. In unix this seems more of a accepted idea and this is because of the definition of the unix model and it textual nature and file generic principles.

Powershell on nt is great too, but, because it brings a cli interface that natively works with nt's object model, a first for a cli to deal with objects inherently, that was needed to deal with an object based os.

*back to swype for next post, hate physical droid keyboard... typos will not be fixed :)

Sadly you don't even understand how silly your response is.

NT and piping are opposites in how the OS is designed. NT deals with objects and object passing and referencing, not generic I/o and piping.

Nt is specifically not designed like unix, which was my point and what you do not understand.

An OS that deals with an object model instead of generic I/o has no need for textual passing or piping.

More slashdot peeps truly should take a minute to learn why makes NT different and unique from standard unix OS models.

*posted from my droid...

Wow, I can't believe that this is just accepted.

With the advances in GUI design and beyond GUI design technology, a CLI should be obsolete, even if it is not obsolete in practice on the specific examples.

There is no reason a written script should be necessary, when an object constructed visual script could also be generated that is just as specific and functional. Again, just because the tools and technology are not common does not mean it is the standard and will always be a truth.

There was a time that writing software required 'writing code' as well, and today we have technologies that let graphic designers put together robust applications without writing a single line of code. (MS Blend for a simple example of XAML based GUI development.)

By nature Unix based OS models are CLI dependent(textual pipes and generic I/O constructs); however, this is not true of all OS models(NT is an object based OS, where a CLI is counter intuitive which makes PowerShell a brilliant CLI model that came years after the OS, and uses the object nature of the OS design).

Even with some imagination this isn't a 'truth' in a UNIX OS model either. There is no reason that all constructs have to derive or remain at a CLI level with a GUI strapping onto the CLI. Replace the CLI constructs with GUI based interactions and instead of textual pipes, object and graphical piping could be the model that replaces the CLI nature of UNIX.

This line of thinking is a failure of imagination and factually incorrect when viewed from an object based OS design like NT where the CLI(PowerShell) was an achievement to harness objects at a regressed CLI level.

Deepzoom doesn't require silverlight....

I don't get the sad Flash UI implemented for viewing the art. Why not just use DeepZoom or a variation to seamlessly zoom and pan the images. (Deepzoom is a MS technology, but it can be used with Silverlight or even generic HTML and is exactly what this company is trying to do.)

Love the high resolution images and availability; however, using the page UI and how freaking slow the UI is doesn't make a good impression.

The point isn't that NT Scales to 256 cores, the point is how efficient it is when scaling to this many processors. The NT Kernel in Win7 was adjusted so that systems with 64 or 256 CPUs have a very low overhead handling the extra processors.

Linux in theory (just like NT in theory) can support several thousand processors, but there is a level that this becomes inefficient as the overhead of managing the additional processors saturates a single system. (Hence other multi-SMP models are often used instead of a single 'system')

Just simply Google/Bing: windows7 256 Mark Russinovich

You can find nice articles and even videos of Mark talking about this in everyday terms to make it easy to understand.

the trade-off between the cost of managing firewalls on all the workstations in an enterprise, versus their inevitable half-assed-ness and tendency to get in the way, thereby consuming support hours.
But, where I work, we have a standard config that gets pushed out to all the systems,

Although this is a good thing to make people 'think', it is insane that today we still have IT people that are not using structured and centralized management. There is no reason any desktop should have a 'different/messed-up' configuration with either good distribution/scripting or simplistic tools like gropup policies on Windows.

IT people need to either retrain or learn to use the tools they have and stop micro-managing desktop, no matter if they are dealing with 5 or 500 systems.

A Desktop firewall should not be relied on to protect a computer, ever

You are missing something really big.

If the server/network firewall fails or is compromised, then the desktop solution will mitigate the damage or even protect the unit from other affected desktops behind the firewall.

When you have group policies and global controls there is no reason not to use a dual system of protection, especially considering how light the processing cost is per desktop.

We all like to believe that the main firewall is god-like and will protect everyone, but even with strict employee policies, you have people (often management) hooking in their iPhones/Androids and other crap that are risks.

Kernel has XFS for some, ReiserFS for others, ext4 for the rest of us, and then some: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_file_systems. You would score a point if you cited ZFS as a FS with "some fairly advanced features", but NTFS just isn't that advanced among the rest.

Ya, nice chart we have all read 1000 times. It doesn't even fully detail the features of every FS, and mainly compares the features that are heavily favored in the OSS world, and sometimes worthless in the real world.

Look at the table headings: Posix file permissions, Last archive time stamp, Checksum/ECC. Some of these things are meaningless as NTFS is used, and some of them are features in NTFS, but because they are implemented differently or have a different name, they are not counted - for example: Block Journaling

NTFS is the kitchen sink of FS technology, is built on some old, but solid designs that work well with the object based nature of NT, so that handling generic file streaming is not something that it has to be used for since the NT OS understands more than pipes and files, and can actually use Object properties and data properties and the metadata in ways not even possible on a *nix.

I wonder if anyone here has a clue why Microsoft designed an Object Based kernel model for NT instead of using a generic pipe/file textual model like UNIX? It certainly wasn't for the performance back in 1990 when referencing object properties ate CPU cycles that were so precious back then. (Hint: This is the same reason NT continues to easily extend like modifying the entire video subsystem structure, driver model structure in NT4/Win2k, and it also gives it modern tricks of getting more performance and access to kernel and OS operations because they are not all generic I/O.)

When you don't have to pick between several FS to get the features you want, or kill your FS performance by strapping on augmentations to the FS to add the featutes and can still pull of NTFS performance and reliability numbers, then lets talk. So far, ZFS was the closest thing to getting there, and it even fell short in features.

(Journaling that doesn't destroy performance, encryption, copy on write, compression, etc. - you know, the simple stuff that WindowsNT does everyday and users actually assume all OSes offer.)

Oh, and why doesn't everyone bring out the NTFS 'fragments' boogey man argument. I love it considering the table access method NTFS uses is very efficient even at fragmented file access, and it brings up the point that because of 'copy on write', NTFS by nature will always fragment more, just like ZFS did, and just like any FS you cite would if they implemented a more advanced feature like this.

Have they got a modern filesystem yet

Yes they did, it is magical and called NTFS and still is the FS that outperforms most *nix FS technology and offers 10x the features, and is considered the holy grail of non-MS OS FS technology that all *nix users get excited when a FS gets close to NTFS, like when ZFS was to be the next generation for *nix, and it even fell short of NTFS on features.

Thanks for playing, "Not only a Troll, but a Dumb Troll."