9 posts • joined 14 Aug 2008
Re: SteveK "Any way to block?"
So... App-V then?
Why focus on startup (and immediately post-startup) performance?
Anyone familiar with optimization should know that you look at frequently-hit sections of code that would yield a benefit even if relatively small - tweaking the system to make the one-off process quicker is a waste of effort.
Using hybrid sleep makes way more sense - then it's less than 2 seconds to your desktop from sleep, plus you don't incur any disk hammering as the system cache is already populated (by Superfetch or through regular file I/O).
Speeding up the boot process makes as much sense as whining about the disk footprint of an OS, or doing regular reboots to "keep memory clean and get rid of leaks".
"Will the XP-mode VM also require its own IP address or will it NAT off the W7 host?"
Out of the box, the XP mode VM uses NAT through the host, but it can be plumbed into a NIC if needed.
Are people really surprised that XP Mode is a full VM?
The Windows Virtual PC beta has been available for ages, and is a pre-requisite for the XP Mode VM image...
I think as the XP SP3 license is free, application vendors should consider offering implicit licenses for their products inside VMs too, for WVPC environments.
I can't see any administrative nightmares, as WVPC is not intended for large enterprises anyway, MED-V is... this is a stop-gap measure to help those with deployment-blocking LOB apps that need a rewrite being able to upgrade to a more recent version of Windows.
Really serious rollouts of WVPC would most likely build off their own XP SP3 images anyway - have users not logged on as admins, get domain-joined for maintenance, etc. rather than use the clean XP Mode image.
More free software, yet more complaints
Makes me laugh how people just love to bash MS given the opportunity - especially when there are remarks like "they release the software for free to make a profit..." :)
At least take a look at the product before making judgement!
Awful idea :/
Security is the obvious one - making things "too easy" to share files in an unproven protocol will lead to botnets and DDoS.
People won't realise that sharing files and having a number of other users dowloading from them will eat into their own upstream bandwidth, and complain to their ISPs that "my Internet is slow".
We don't need yet more global bandwidth wasted on crap - let people understand file serving and social networking services better, that will fullfil all their needs I am sure.
I for one hope ISPs block unite:// links unless expressly requested by their customers.
Any defence for these muppets is simply an attempt to justify theft, I have no sympathy and think it's a great result.
Well, I like it ;p
I don't bother to compare FF + numerous plugins with IE8, as it's more applicable to compare with IE7 sans plugins - and in that respect it's an improvement.
And judging a product by its virtual resource consumption, especially when it is BETA, is somewhat silly.
And one thing I think MS do better than most is the UI, for pretty much all their products - open source products remind me of cheap knockoffs and always look dated to me.
Wouldn't it have restarted automatically?
XP defaults to generating minidumps and auto-restarting on bugchecks - so that blue screen should have been there for less than 1 second before the 64k minidump was created and then the system restarted...
- Fee fie Firefox: Mozilla's lawyers probe Dell over browser install charge
- Did Apple's iOS make you physically SICK? Try swallowing version 7.1
- Pics Indestructible Death Stars blow up planets using glowing KILL RAY
- Neil Young touts MP3 player that's no Piece of Crap
- Review Distro diaspora: Four flavours of Ubuntu unpacked