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."

Because the press has blamed Linux for everything (including things which clearly are not Linux's fault), and they couldn't withstand the public pressure any more. Note that 80% of the users were satisfied with the new desktop, and a further 10% just complained about transient problems

You make it sound like end users just being picky, when it is about end users not being able to do their job or the OS/Apps not being capable of providing the features they need. This is also not about application lock in, but about fundamental shortcomings in Linux that will not be addressed without a lot of bandaids from people that spend time outside the Linux world and go, oh, we can't do that, or that, or that.

Additionally, it was not just about the end user results. The process of getting to where they are even today was horribly painful.

These are the same flaws that non-fans see everyday and deal with everyday and have to sort out and deal with users everyday.

I think people have left Windows and other options for far too long, this is no longer 2000, and WinME is the alternative.

Windows7 does some pretty impressive feats on a rather robust kernel model, that is often faster. NTFS still is offering features that takes several layers of software on Linux to copy, and the WDDM/Video subsystem is still years ahead of anything in the Linux or any OS's world, with fairly advanced rendering features, but important things like GPU scheduling so that the OS controls the GPU and application usage and allows for non-graphical GPU processing without worry that games or the application UIs will suffer, stall, and fail to render.

Users are not only giving up features from 2001 they are used to, but they are also missing out on a ton of features that are years off in the Linux world, that Microsoft has been shipping since Vista was released.

Linux had a huge chnace here and instead demonstrated what many of us find all too often, for an old kernel model, and an old OS model, and an old graphical protocol, it is not a mature OS for the mainstream. Good concepts, but dated, and too many bandaids to try to bring these to modern computing effectively.

http://download.live.com/

Install Windows Live PhotoGallery from the Windows Live Essentials. This is exactly what it is designed for and can do smart tagging.

Even though Win7 doesn't install the 'Essentials' applications, they really are 'Essential' to get the most out of Windows7. There is also a download link for them in the Start Menu, and you can pick and choose what you want easily.

Doing all your tagging via Explorer is functional, but not the optimal way of dealing with Photos in Windows 7. In Photogallery you just drag and drop to tag photos or use the face identification system.

(The June beta of the next generation of Live Essentials and PhotoGallery should be along soon as well with several new tricks that pulls in several of the MS Photo R&D work.)

*Don't waste your time with 'Album' or other tagging software that shoves your photos into their file structure, which is a LOT of them.

I wouldn't say you are stupid...

However, once you 'grasp' the basic concept of the libraries and don't overthink them they are a handy feature, especially for the average home/office user.

Vista had featurs likes the Libraries, they were not something MS set up for the users. They are a variation of a 'Saved Search' or 'Search Folder' except they just return the contents of 'locations' based on the type you specify.

You can make your own libraries for things like Books, Presentations, etc.

You can also do like you could in Vista and use a 'Search Folder/Saved Search' to open a folder than 'returns' a criteria of content from specified locations. For example, create a Search for MP3 that looks everyone on your hard drive, and it will open a folder showing you all your MP3s as if they were in a single folder, no matter where you stored them.

Libraries are a bit too simplistic for advanced users, and that is where you use Search Folders to produce your own location and content results.

Ya, it is called reading the news or you can Google:

iPad browser speed
iPad crashes

The iPad overall and browser speed is 2X the iPhone, which is 20x slower than a low end netbook for page rendering, thus making the iPad still 10x slower than a low end netbook for Web Page Rendering. The best comparison has it at 5X slower than two year old Atom based Netbook. Look it up, or do the tests yourself.

As for crashing, even in the Mac world of reviews, almost every report stated the device or applications crashed during their initial tests. This is further demonstrated with a simple search, show everything from video to even the browser itself crashing about once a day for average users.

You act like people like myself don't have the money or time to test these devices ourselves as well, and I can assure you the iPad is FAR FROM crash free, and FAR FROM the stability of Windows7.

If you want to find more information of crashes and failures in document usage, just Google: iPad iWorks

The iPad is a good device, but in comparison to a full OS Tablet with handwriting and voice recognition technology that might weigh 8oz more with 2hrs less battery life is not a great trade off for the loss of speed and functionality.

I hope you love your iPad, but don't tell me how the iPad sitting on my desk performs based on your 'love' of the device.

Even though people like to tout Objective-C as Object Oriented, technically it is only Object Based just like C++.

If you want a real OO language you have to look to C# or many other more mature languages that understand the difference between the two.

It may seem simple, but there is a big difference between Object Based and true Object Oriented.

Side Note:

Sadly this is something I have come across a lot in the past few years, and wonder if it is the OSS movement or just the lack of general education that teaches true Object Oriented thinking and programming.

Even C++ and what Object Based abilities it offers are so often lost when a C programmer just mangles together code from a C perspective that only has the appearance of having any object based design.

The OS and software development architectures of Linux and BSD are not object based let alone object oriented frameworks and even the upper layer library sets reflect this non-object thinking. This also occurs in the Win32/Windows world, which is sad considering NT is an object based OS model and by nature the API sets are conducive to thinking in object principles.