Questões de Concurso
Sobre sinônimos | synonyms em inglês
Foram encontradas 1.586 questões
ENERGY IS EVERYTHING

Harry McCracken, PC World
Monday, October 19, 2009 10:00 AM PDT
Reading about a new operating system can tell you only so much about it: After all, Windows Vista had far more features than XP, [CONJUNCTION] fell far short of it in the eyes of many users. To judge an OS accurately, you have to live with it. Over the past ten months, I've spent a substantial percentage of my computing life in Windows 7, starting with a preliminary version and culminating in recent weeks with the final Release to Manufacturing edition. I've run it on systems ranging from an underpowered Asus EeePC 1000HE netbook to a potent HP TouchSmart all-in-one. And I've used it to do real work, not lab routines. Usually, I've run the OS in multiboot configurations with Windows Vista and/or XP, so I've had a choice each time I turned the computer on: [MODAL] I opt for Windows 7 or an
older version of the OS? The call has been easy to make, because Win 7 is so pleasant to use.
So why wouldn't you want to run this operating system? Concern over its performance is one logical reason, especially since early versions of Windows Vista managed to turn PCs that ran XP with ease into lethargic underperformers. The PC World Test Center's speed benchmarks on five test PCs showed Windows 7 to be faster than Vista, but only by a little; I've found it to be reasonably quick on every computer I've used it on - even the Asus netbook, once I upgraded it to 2GB of RAM. (Our lab tried Win 7 on a Lenovo S10 netbook with 1GB of RAM and found it to be a shade slower than XP; for details see "Windows 7 Performance Tests.").
Here's a rule of thumb that errs on the side of caution: If your PC's specs qualify it to run Vista, get Windows 7; if they don't, avoid it. Microsoft's official hardware configuration requirements for Windows 7 are nearly identical to those it recommends for Windows Vista: a 1-GHz CPU, 1GB of RAM,
16GB of free disk space, and a DirectX 9-compatible graphics device with a WDDM 1.0 or higher driver. That's for the 32-bit version of Windows 7; the 64-bit version of the OS requires a 64-bit CPU, 2GB of RAM, and 20GB of disk space.
Fear of incompatible hardware and software is another understandable reason to be wary of Windows 7. One unfortunate law of operating-system upgrades - which applies equally to Macs and to Windows PCs - is that they will break some systems and applications, especially at first.
Under the hood, Windows 7 isn't radically different from Vista. That's a plus, since it should greatly reduce the volume of difficulties relating to drivers and apps compared to Vista's bumpy rollout. I have performed a half-dozen Windows 7 upgrades, and most of them went off without a hitch. The
gnarliest problem arose when I had to track down a graphics driver for Dell's XPS M1330 laptop on my own - Windows 7 installed a generic VGA driver that couldn't run the Aero user interface, and as a result failed to support new Windows 7 features such as thumbnail views in the Taskbar.
The best way to reduce your odds of running into a showstopping problem with Windows 7 is to bide your time. When the new operating system arrives on October 22, sit back and let the earliest adopters discover the worst snafus. Within a few weeks, Microsoft and other software and hardware companies will have fixed most of them, and your chances of a happy migration to Win 7 will be much higher. If you want to be really conservative, hold off on moving to Win 7 until you're ready to buy a PC that's designed to run it well.
Waiting a bit before making the leap makes sense; waiting forever does not. Microsoft took far too long to come up with a satisfactory replacement for Windows XP. But whether you choose to install Windows 7 on your current systems or get it on the next new PC you buy, you'll find that it's the unassuming, thoroughly practical upgrade you've been waiting for ? flaws and all.
(Adapted from http://www.pcworld.com/article/172602/windows_7_revi...)

considere o texto abaixo.


Business Week - December 5, 2007
by Jennifer Fishbein
It seems like everywhere you turn these days, a new
high-speed train is whisking more passengers across longer
distances faster than ever before. A [NOUN] to Paris from
London is quicker than flying; Japanese bullet trains traverse the
320 miles from Tokyo to Osaka in two and a half hours; and
magnetic levitating trains in Shanghai cut through the city at 268
miles per hour. But while high-speed trains may grab all the
glamour, the more mundane business of subway construction is
what's driving the biggest growth for transportation companies.
Indeed, the world is seeing an unprecedented boom in new
subways and expansion to existing systems. Thanks to surging
economic growth and urban populations, demand for subways is
soaring in China and India. Lots of other places around the
world also are building new lines, from Dubai to Santo Domingo,
capital of the Dominican Republic. And many European and
American cities ? including even such improbable locales as Los
Angeles and Phoenix ? have caught the transit bug.
Problem-Solving and Prestige
Some cities build out of necessity. Rising prosperity
prompted Dubai residents to buy so many cars that they realized
they could [ADVERB] longer drive these cars because they
were stuck in traffic. Others are keen on the environmental
benefits of metros, which produce far less pollution and
encourage drivers to leave cars at home. Some places, mainly
in the Middle East, are looking to diversify their oil-dependent
economies. And others, to be honest, are chasing an urban
status symbol. Building a metro won't turn any old town into
Paris or London, but it does tell the world that you've arrived.
"You have in some cases a prestige issue, which is more
the case in young cities in need of an image," says Jean-Noël
Debroise, vice-president for product and strategy at Alstom
(ALSO.PA), the French transport company that has built a
quarter of the world's metros.
Rennes is an example of the new trend. The city of about
212,000 people in northwestern France was looking to raise its profile when it installed a metro in 2002. It raised the bar by
opting for a driverless system made by Siemens ? just like the
shiny new No. 14 line in Paris ? protecting passengers from the
French penchant for transit strikes. Turin, Italy, did the same to
help win its bid for the 2006 Winter Olympics; its driverless
system opened just before the games. Even the Spanish island
of Mallorca inaugurated a short metro line in April in hopes of
luring even more tourists to its capital, Palma. Alas, it closed
indefinitely in September due to flooding, amid charges of
mismanagement.
A Boon for Transit Builders
The world's three largest metro manufacturers, Montrealbased
Bombardier (BBDB.TO), Alstom, and Munich-based
Siemens (SI) report high demand for mass transit, including
tramways and light-rail systems that run both under and
[PREPOSITION] ground. The global subway market was worth
9.3 billion dollars in 2005 and is projected to grow at a rate of
2.7% per year until 2015, according to a 2007 study by the
European Railway Industry Assn. Subway lines [TO BUILD] or
extended in 20 European cities and five Middle Eastern ones,
and dozens of towns are constructing light-rail systems, reports
the Brussels-based International Association of Public
Transport.
The size of a city determines its need for a metro system.
Cities of a few million people ? or those anticipating huge
population growth ? really can't do without a mass transit
system. But cities of one or two million inhabitants can choose
between a subway and a surface tramway, which costs far less
but also runs more slowly. [CONJUNCTION] funding is an issue,
cities usually will spring for a subway, says Debroise. "The
tramway has a very old image of the 19th century, with horses in
the streets," he says.
(Adapted from http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/
content/dec2007/gb2007125_600001.htm?chan=top+news_
top+news+index_global+business)
Let's talk about User Account Control ? the Windows
Vista security element that was a prominent example for
everything that bothered people about that OS. UAC aimed to
prevent rogue software from tampering with your PC by
endlessly prompting you to approve running applications or
changing settings. The experience was so grating that many
users preferred to turn UAC [PARTICLE] and [VERB] their
chances with Internet attackers. Those who left it active risked
slipping into the habit of incautiously clicking through every
prompt, defeating whatever value the feature might have had.
Whereas Vista's notorious User Account Control gave
users no control over the feature other than to turn it off,
Windows 7's version of UAC lets users choose from two
intermediate notification levels between 'Always notify' and
'Never notify'.
Windows 7 gives you control over UAC, in the form of a
slider containing four security settings. As before, you can
accept the full-blown UAC or elect to disable it. But you can also
tell UAC to notify you only when software changes Windows
settings, not when you're tweaking them yourself. And you can
instruct it not to perform the abrupt screen-dimming effect that
Vista's version uses to grab your attention.
If Microsoft had its druthers, all Windows 7 users [TO
USE] UAC in full-tilt mode: The slider that you use to ratchet
back its severity advises you not to do so if you routinely install
new software or visit unfamiliar sites, and it warns that disabling
the dimming effect is "Not recommended."
, Redmond: Ihave every intention of recommending the intermediate settings
to most people who ask me for advice, since those settings
retain most of UAC's theoretical value without driving users
bonkers.
(Adapted from
http://www.pcworld.com/article/172602/windows_7_review.html)


















