Re: Summary (Re: XP: Cool feature with a weakness)

On Apr 14, 12:14 pm, Snit <S...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Wally" <w...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
C246E9C7.323E4%wa...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 4/14/07 5:27 AM:



On 14/4/07 5:31 PM, in article mr-51124F.11312714042...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
"Sandman" <m...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

1. Snit claimed that monitor rotation was a weakness in XP
since it affected other accounts than the one rotating the
screen

Actually no! Snit has specifically stated....

"Compare that with the Windows machines in question, relatively new Dells,
where switching the screen orientation to be sideways or upside down carries
over to the log in screen ... I did not test to see if it carried over to
other users."-Snit

I don't believe that Snit has claimed what you state wrt other accounts! I
will happily accept differently if he now says otherwise!

You are, finally, correct. I stated it effected other *users*, and perhaps
that is where the confusion came from - even though I was quite clear that I
meant it effected the login screen and not, as far as I have tested, other
user *accounts*

....which it does.


2. Snit was shown that XP had no such feature, and that any monitor
rotation was done with graphic drivers

XP *still* allows for this... and these drivers are the stock drivers in at
least some standard Dells... thus it is a part of the common XP
experience... even though it is not consistent from one machine to anther.

That's like calling AOL 9.0 the "XP experience" because Dell preloads
it.


3. Snit refused to admit that his initial claim of XP weakness was
incorrect

I noted that I was in reference to the XP experience... and, yes, it is a
part of the common XP experience.

I have to agree with other people here. Third party software is NOT
the "XP experience". What is the "XP experience" is that no graphics
settings are stored on a user-by-user basis. The screen rotation
function is NOT part of the "XP experience".

I clarified that point for the nit picky
morons who cannot get past it. Nothing about my view, however, changed. In
other words, sure, more details have come out in the umpteen dozen posts on
the subject - that is *not* a sign of a change of opinion or a flip-flop or
anything of that nature...

4. Steve seemed to want to claim that Snit was a hypocrite since OSX
had similar "weaknesses" and presented the "invert screen" command
in Universal Access

Yes, Steve *wanted* to claim that, and even did... but his claim is
completely incorrect, being that he was flat out wrong about the "invert
screen" command effecting the login screen - as he flat out stated it did:

I had noted about XP machines in a lab:

Here is the weakness: I can change the orientation from my
user account, even a non-Admin, and the orientation will
stay altered even when I log out...

As I discussed that, Steve stated:

> Do you have any thoughts on the fact that, at least in the case I
> described, a non-Admin user can alter settings for other users?
As can they alter settings on a Mac. Big f*cking deal.

But, as you note above, on OS X a user cannot do that. Steve was simply
wrong. Steve also said, of OS X:

I can, from a user account, hold down the control, option
and Apple keys on a modern Mac while pressing the number 8
and it will "screw with" others (who may want to run
graphics apps or whatever)... and it'll stay that way when I
log out. There is no video card in this equation... but I
guess you'll say it's OK due to the 'consistency'. LOL!

But, again, Steve is wrong, at least based on all accounts from others - if
a user presses the control+option+command+8 and goes to "black on white"
mode, the effect does not carry over to the login screen.

"it'll stay that way when I log out" could be interpreted as the
invert setting for that user stays that way when the user logs out,
not that the system stays in invert mode.


5. Steve, however, didn't show how this carried over to other accounts
(which it doesn't) so it's not similar to this supposed "weakness"
of XP that didn't exist.

As I believe "other accounts" was not claimed by Snit wrt XP this last point
against Steve would likewise not apply if I am correct!

Apart from that...a reasonable summary!

Well, if you are not able to understand what you read it may be considered a
reasonable summary...

--
€ OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
€ OS X users are at far less risk of malware then are XP users
€ Photoshop is an image editing application


.

Relevant Pages

  • Steve Kramer might be going to jail.....
    ... permitted other accounts. ... the mother of all snitches Steve Kramer. ... could end up in jail if you don't snitch on him. ... In addition there is a fairly active market in second hand SIM ...
    (soc.culture.thai)
  • Steve Kramer might be going to jail...
    ... permitted other accounts. ... the mother of all snitches Steve Kramer. ... could end up in jail if you don't snitch on him. ... In addition there is a fairly active market in second hand SIM ...
    (rec.knives)
  • Steve Kramer might be going to jail...
    ... permitted other accounts. ... the mother of all snitches Steve Kramer. ... could end up in jail if you don't snitch on him. ... In addition there is a fairly active market in second hand SIM ...
    (rec.travel.asia)
  • Re: Receiving issues after installing a NetGear DG834GT router
    ... What error message do you get when you try to receive mail? ... Steve also suggest that you create a POP3 log. ... Have deleted and added all the accounts as well as turned off all and ... using either Outlook or Outlook Express. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.inetexplorer.ie6_outlookexpress)
  • Re: MMX Expected Shft.
    ... >> But aren't MMXs considered to be in an inerial frame? ... > Generally, yes, because that simplifies the analysis considerably. ... > accurate analysis that accounts for the rotation of the interferometer ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)