Windows 7 RTM’ed
Yes, that's correct. Windows 7 was officially released to manufacturing and this version should be available over the course of the next few days.
Here's the comemoration video the guy at Microsoft made to celebrate the launch:
For the whole release schedule, hit up the Windows Team Blog.
Google Chrome OS – First Screenshots! [UPDATE]
Here they are! The (supposed) first screenshots of what is to become Google's Operating System. The credibility and plausibility of those screenshots is actually flaky, but it's the best we have at the moment. Whether they are photoshopped or the real thing, time will tell.
The blog the images were taken from: here.
[via Engadget]
Update: The blog is a lie! Like I suspected, the leaked screenshots are actually fake. It didn't look so bad though!
The end of the Ubuntu vs. Windows war!
YAY!
Christopher Dawnson over at ZDNet has announced the end of the Ubuntu vs. Windows war, the world is safe again!
Till the next time!
WAIT! Hold it!
What the heck?! Wasn't ZDNet supposed to be a reliable source of information regarding technology? So what are these shenanigans about his 17 year old saying that they're the same? I'll tell you what it is: it is the most bold statement I've heard all year, and also the most idiotic one. So just because a 17 year old says that they're the same, 6 billion people will just agree and this fact will just be set in stone? Bullshit.
Windows and Linux are different; it's about time people realize that. I absolutely need both so is this proof enough that they are ultimately different?
Christopher says: "Their underlying architectures are quite a bit different, Gnome looks different than the 7 UI, etc.". The underlying architectures are quite a bit different, Gnome looks different than 7 does, but apart from that, which by the way is everything that effing matters in an Operating System, they're pretty much the same.
I have a Hyundai Getz, my neighbour has a Ferrari, but apart from the engine and the chassis they're pretty much the same. They both have wheels! A whole set of four! So they must be the same...
Come on guys... get serious.
iPhone 3.0 Jailbreak and ultrasn0w? It is out!
It might be old news for some, but I am sure that not everyone is aware of this yet.
The good folks at the iPhone Dev Team did it again and after some days that just seemed too long, they released the new tool called redsn0w. This tool is meant to jailbreak the iPhone 3G only, and only with the firmware 3.0 - jailbreak for the 3GS still hasn't been released but since the flaw seems to exist in the 3G, it should only be a matter of days (and of the Dev Team getting their hands on a 3GS - feel free to chip in) until the jailbreak is released.
The process is pretty simple, just update to 3.0 normally through iTunes and when that's done, search for the correct IPSW in the following folder (if you're using Vista or 7):
C:\Users\<username>\AppData\Roaming\Apple Computer\iTunes\iPhone Software Updates
(For XP, search around the Application Data folders under Documents and Settings)
When you have this file, just feed it to redsn0w and follow the steps. In under 5 minutes you should be running a jailbroken 3.0.
After this is done, if you also want to operator-unlock your phone, you'll need ultrasn0w. This is the replacement for the long-lived yellowsn0w. In case you weren't aware of this fact, the new baseband has a hole again, which allows for it to be hacked. This way, we can all use different operator SIM cards without a problem.
To install ultrasn0w, you simply need to add the repo http://repo666.ultrasn0w.com and then search and install the application ultrasn0w on Cydia. Reboot your phone, and you're done. It really is THAT easy!
So what are you waiting for? Go for it!
Was Windows Vista a mistake? Not really!
With the advent of Microsoft's latest operating system, the Windows 7, many people have come to state that Windows 7 is Windows Vista done right. Well, excuse me tech whizzes but as an IT professional myself, I beg to differ.
Windows Vista was a massive stepping stone in Microsoft's history. It was the first upgrade from the ever so loved Windows XP, that admittedly had its flaws at birth but it grew to become perhaps the most stable operating system that Microsoft had built until then. It is lightweight and to prove that we have the netbook market share that is dominated by Microsoft.
Now, we have to be analytic. What did Vista bring to the table when compared to XP? In a very brief and sketchy approach, it brought cleanliness to the user folders (no one really liked the spaces in 'Documents and Settings'), it brought UAC that albeit poorly-loved, it brought with it a great layer of security, it brought some driver modifications including a redesigned sound-stack and these last two put together with the bloated memory usage, made Vista Microsoft's bastard child.
Well, when you look at it closely, pretty much every Vista driver will work on Windows 7, including the soundcard drivers. UAC is also part of Windows 7 and has been partly redesigned so that it isn't so naggy. Still, my bottom line is that when switching from XP, Microsoft was always going to get complaints. When you add security, people will complain because the system is more restrictive. When you add features that change the way people interface with the computer, people will complain because we have an inertial nature and are typically against change.
However, now that Vista was Microsoft's escape goat for all the changes that simply had to be made, Windows 7 can come in its shinning armour and save the day. Because Windows 7 is so much better than Vista, even though it's actually Vista, just lighter.
The Mozilla Mystery
Howdy readers,
Today I bring you one of the long time mysteries for me. Why in heavens does Mozilla insist on making different menus for Firefox and Thunderbird depending on whether you're using it on Linux or Windows? Seriously, I just can't figure out the reason for this... the Options menu sits in the Tools toolbar in Windows, whereas in the Linux version, it goes under Edit. But WHY?!
'Till the next time!
Office 2007 SP2 reduces interoperability – tough luck?
Jeremy Allison over at ZDNet has just posted an article where in a nutshell he states that Microsoft broke the interoperability of the ODF format between Office 2007 and other implementations of this format. According to this gentleman, the guys over at Microsoft are mean little bastards because they implemented the ODF standard verbatim. Whoa, whoa, whoa little Timmy!
Last I checked, there was a war going on towards Microsoft because they were mean chauvinistic bastards who insisted on not making Internet Explorer more standards compliant, because the standards were the way to go and anything other than the standards just breaks pages on browsers that implement the standard. I totally agree with this point, but by the same measure, I have to disagree with this ODF quarrel.
With SP2, Microsoft implemented the ODF specification to its fullest. Then there are other implementations like OpenOffice's that have additions to the specification, but that aren't part of the standard! Yet, it is Microsoft that people come out to the streets to criticize, and not the people who engineered a poorly designed standard. Please, don't take me wrong. I am also against OOXML, but that doesn't mean that the alternatives are perfect and perhaps Microsoft is just proving a point amongst narrow-minded people who don't care for a little reasoning.
Want spreadsheets to properly support formulas in ODF? Make it part of the friggin' standard! Don't expect Microsoft to deviate from the standard for interop's sake, especially now when you have before criticized the company for not being standards-compliant.
My bottom-line is: who is to decide whether a standard should be implemented in a strict manner or not? And to which extent should interop efforts be made? All in all, if Microsoft designs interoperability towards OpenOffice, it might just break things with another Office Suite that decided to implement things differently.
The First Flaw in Windows 7
Hold your horses, this isn't a flaw per se. There isn't a massive hole in Windows 7 that allows the execution of malicious code. Instead, there's a legacy feature that has been around ever since Windows 98 (maybe even 95, but that I do not know for sure) that is used by virus writers to fool users into executing their viruses.
The feature I am talking about is the ability to hide the extension for known file types. This comes enabled by default on XP and Vista and it was not addressed in Windows 7. Basically, as Adrian over at ZDNet reports, with this feature enabled, a file with 'double extension' can easily be fooled for its fake extention. For example, a file named Report.txt.exe will automatically have the '.exe' extension hidden, and to the eyes of the less computer-savvy it can easily be mistaken for an innocent Report.txt file. Moreso when the creator of the virus is careful enough to add an innocent notepad icon to the malevolent application.
To be perfectly honest, I agree with Adrian. This is a feature that I disable right after I install Windows. More often than not I find myself having to change the extension of a file, and it's impossible to do so with this feature enabled and without resorting to the command line.
This feature is dangerous and it has been the gateway for many viruses to spread. Adrian also suggests adding some sort of overlay to the icons of executable files that aren't digitally signed - this is an incredibly good idea. Maybe something glarey as the icons of running applications on the new Windows 7 start bar. If properly done, this could be flashey and would cause a good impression on end-users, both visually and safety-wise. Personally, I would remove the feature altogether and leave it off - and please, without the possibility of working around it on the registry - but that's just my two pennies worth of opinion.
Have a good one.
Windows 7 RC out – maybe
Alright ladies and gentlemen, the announcement is out: the first (and hopefully only) Release Candidate of the newest, mind blowing, operating system from the folks at Redmond is out. Or is it really? There's a Microsoft Partners' page announcing the event and I say that that's as reliable as it gets.
According to said page, the RC should be available right now for MSDN and TechNet subscribers but well... it ain't. The same page also announces that a global (and I guess, public) release will be done on May 5th which is actually pretty close in time.
My guess is that we just sit and wait, and that within the day, this RC will be made available on the MSDN downloads page. Or so I hope.
Finally, this release is more coherent with Ed Bott's speculative timeline over at ZDNet which places the Windows 7 RTM release on late August of 2009. At this point, we just wait and see - being a 7 Beta user, I am happy and borderline ecstatic to get a RC release so soon. Way to go, Microsoft!
Courtesy of Neowin.net