Microsoft VISTA

[El_Phil]

Well the RR engine was far better, as always , than any of the ****e GE and Pratt and Whitley tried to call jet engines. The problem was that the F-4 was a brick and bodging a decent engine into it was doomed, especially as it was done on a tight budget.

To quote the designer:
"All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics. TSR-2 simply got the first three right."

Now maybe I'm crazy, but I do think that supercruise, Mach 2.5+ sprint is far faster than anything else out there. Especially the B-1B.

This, along with virtually everthing any Labour goverment has ever done, is reason enough for the entire lot to be put up against a wall and shot. And their parents just to be sure. Bitter and twister? Damn right! The systematic destruction of most of the UKs heavy industry and f**king the country over totally whenever they were let into power is all the reason I need to have them all killed.

[Fyron]

Thermodyne, please do not quote huge posts in the future. Ellipses work miracles.

[Atrocities]

Man that was a read!

[Renegade 13]

There are unfortunately many examples of great aircraft that were scrapped due to politics.

A classic example is the Avro Arrow (CF-105). In the '50's, Canada commissioned the creation of a new fighter-interceptor to counter the threat of new Soviet long-range bombers. It was feared the Soviets would send their bombers the short way to North America, over the North Pole. These fighters were designed to intercept, and destroy the bombers before they reached inhabited areas.

In 1958 after 4 years of production, the first Arrow was completed. However, shortly thereafter, the current government was voted out. The new government, for some inexplicable reason, killed the project, even after a few prototypes had been constructed. All prototypes, blueprints, everything the gov't could get their hands on was destroyed. If the Arrow was allowed to enter service in the Canadian Airforce, they'd in some ways be more advanced than the aircraft of the Canadian military today.

I've left a lot out of the story, but it was simply tragic what happened to the project, if you are familiar with it's history.

If you're curious about the aviation "firsts" that the Avro Arrow incorporated, take a look at This List , it shows the many innovations the Arrow had (remember the year was 1958!)

Some more interesting info on thrust:weight ratios:

At a combined 60,000-Ib thrust for an approximate 60,000-Ib aircraft, the Iroquois would have provided a 1:1 thrust to weight ratio. This would have given the Arrow a better than Mach 2 speed and perhaps Mach 3, limitations due to structural heating, not lack of power.

Another webpage with historical, political, and technical information

[El_Phil]

Wouldn't have been as fast the Lightning And that was a design prototype not the production model.

Still the Lightning was an achingly fast plane, by any standards. Some of the stuff that plane did was ridiculous, for a plane designed in 1954 to climb, out speed and out accelerate every other NATO fighter for most of its career.

[Thermodyne]

Again, hind sight would tell us that it was the correct way to go. None of the Mach 3 fighters were built, and as it turned out, they were not needed. At about the same time, the US canceled the F107 and F108 fighter programs. And results of later designs like the SR 71 suggest that the original Mach 3 designs would have never have been completely successful because of unforeseen engineering problems. Also, the two questions that remains unasked and unanswered are how would it have been paid for and where would the titanium have come from. To build the SR 71, the US ran one of the largest ruses in history. The titanium for obtained from the USSR for the alleged purpose of manufacturing paint. Companies were set up all across the third world and the titanium was then diverted to the US. The F12 was also a victim of the titanium shortage, having to compete with the ballistic missile program as well as Gemini and Apollo which had the highest priorities. Only 1 YF12 was built, and the results of it flight testing have never been released.

[Sivran]

Rudeness does nothing to support your point.

Physical access leads to an exploited machine full stop. Operating system does not enter into it. Remotely, a patched 9x system might could be crashed, but you'll not be seeing it get rooted by the kiddies and worms running around. Anything more and again OS does not enter into it: the attacker was determined and, as any second year tech will tell you, a determined attacker is going to get in.

I do not advocate that businesses keep 98, much less choose 9x over 2000, however if they have existing 9x machines in low-risk areas performing tasks that won't be done any better on a newer OS, why should they bother with a newer OS? Don't fix what isn't broke, right?

As for end-users they probably have even more reason to stick with 9x if it is doing the job for them. Why should they bother with the hassle of switching? Again, they'll face the same dangers either way, assuming those dangers even apply, and 9x does the job. For what I do with my machines, 2000 does the job better and so that is what I use. 98SE however did the job quite respectably and crashed or required reboot almost as rarely as 2000 Server. The last 98 box in the house--tasked with playing movies to the TV in the living room on the weekends--suffers on rare occasions not because of the OS it's running, but because of the ancient video card. It doesn't crash, as most people seem to believe 98 is wont to do at the drop of a hat. It just sits there, providing internet access to that end of the house and providing entertainment (who needs media center? ). It couldn't possibly do its job any better if it were running XP or 2000. In fact, given the hardware in it, it'd most likely perform worse.

Insulting and talking down to those who still use 9x--hell my granddad still uses ME and has no problems--only shows your own arrogance and ignorance.

Use the right OS for the right job. 9x is just fine, even superior, in some situations. There are those situations where it doesn't matter, and in still others, yes it is inferior. That's a choice for the user to make. I'm sorry you can't seem to accept that.

As to dual-booting, why have two operating systems when one does most or everything a user needs equally well or with negligible difference?

[Thermodyne]

Again you post half truths and outright misinformation. Your first post is dead wrong. Physical access to an XP/2K system does not give you instant access to its information, where as 98 will allow anyone to logon and browse at will. And while the skilled hacker can root out any system, the majority of hackers are not that skilled. Less than .1% has that skill set and the low moral values required to put the skills to that use. And even the skilled ones are often stopped by modern domain security these days. Another correction would be that there is no such thing a properly secured 98 system. There hasn’t been a new security patch in what….two years now? And 9x is wide open to TSR’s. I won’t even bother to go into NTFS permissions or Group Policy; I seriously doubt you would take the time to digest the information.

To your second point I agree. But they should not be connected to LAN’s where sensitive data is stored. A 9x system can be bott'd with a script or TSR and used to compromise every system on said LAN. I am not a big fan of upgrading the OS’s on enterprise systems. The demands of newer OS usually require upgrading older system hardware to run properly, and the money would be better spent on new systems.

To your third point, no one is saying that 98 can’t fill a roll, and we are certainly not saying that your systems don’t serve you well, how would we know one way or the other. But, the average user will get a new OS when he replaces his equipment, 98 is obsolete and no longer licensed as preinstalled software on new systems. At no point have I spoken to the serviceability of your personal systems, I fail to see why you feel the need to defend them. But then perhaps you have good reasons that are unknown to us.

To your fourth point, I stand by my statement. Based on your first post, you don’t know what you are talking about, and it contains outright untruthful statements. And I fail to see why you brought your grand father into the discussion; it has no bearing what so ever in this exchange.

As to your point of using 98 in the right situations, that is true. But the situations are few. As a rig to run 9x series games on yes, because of economic constraints yes. But that is about it. And you’ll have to show me where I posted that I can’t accept people choosing to run 9x, I don’t recall saying that. To me it seems to be another untruth, this time veiled as if it was a statement I made. With the exception of 9x games or old down-level hardware, 9x is not superior.

And your last point makes little since. If you are keeping a 9x system just to run non NT compatible software, why keep a second system going? Unless of course there is another reason such as a user who relies on that system. I actually take it a step further by running more than on OS simultaneously. I don’t often advise this to others, as the hardware demands are more than the average system can provide.

My point is this, when looked at as a whole, XP is better than 2K or 9x. 2K can be adapted to standards that approach XP, but 9x can not. Longhorn will be better across the board than XP. But that does not mean that everyone should run out and buy it. I do object to people who have never used it crapping on it just because they think it’s cool to jump on the bandwagon and crap on anything new from MS. I will be glad to continue to debate the issue with you, but lets get more specific and leave grand parent and such out of it. Also, as of now, my opinion still stands, so here’s your sign.

[Fyron]

Thermodyne, you seem overly concerned with people hating Microsoft because it is trendy to hate it or because it is successful or whatever. This is blatantly opposite from reality for probably everybody that has posted in this thread. There are billions of valid reasons to hate Microsoft, none of which have anything to do with success or popularity.

Also, note that physical access to a machine guarantees compromise, period. It doesn't matter what is run on the machine, it will be compromised if the cracker means to compromise it. Noone said anything about "instant access." Guaranteed compromise has absolutely nothing to do with instantaneous access.

[Thermodyne]

People can hate anything they want, but they should be able to support their position.

As to access guaranteeing a compromise, I would have to argue that with you. But to keep this simple, why don’t you tell me how you would gain access to the data, then I tell you why it won’t work. And you get six tries, after that there is no data to get unless you are going to use some forensic recovery method. And for that you’ll have to remove the system which is beyond the scope of access.