Macs have shipped with wide screens for years. The zoom behavior exists for the same reason that LaTeX defaults to using large margins. Most web sites will expand to fill the width of of the window. On a screen that is 16" wide, a page full of prose will have lines that are way too long to read smoothly. The designers of the software are fully willing to set the defaults to sensible values, even if the users are not sensible.
For pretty much every other app, the zoom button will only expand the window as much as is useful. However, with web browsers (especially with tabbed browsing) this behavior can be annying. Still, it works for most pages. If it weren't for tabbed browsing, the OS X zoom button would exhibit pretty much optimal behavior.
You know that in some places, recording someone in a dubious state of undress without their permission and then publishing the results would be illegal, right?
The Internet is obviously not one of those places.
She measured the spectra of known household substances and got numbers that fit with published data. That is a decent basis for calling it accurate, especially when you consider that her design can probably be improved quite a bit without making it much more expensive. A mass-produced, quality-controlled spectrograph based off her design could revolutionize the way such devices are used, because they are so cheap.
It would if this were only, say, January of 1996. But in reality, you now have quite a bit of evidence that there is not a regular periodicity to collecting traffic citations.
However, in the case of the volcano, we are only 1/15th of a cycle late. It is too early to say that we have totally bucked the trend.
It sounds patentable. They are just a few decades late to the game. But at least this is not a totally obvious "invention" like the doubly-linked list.
Yep. I'm in the same boat. BMI of 16.5. Shopping for clothing is very depressing, since I'm not fond of suspenders. I do, however, buy a lot of long socks.
Not too many years ago, the skinniest sizes were for people in the bottom half of the range considered healthy. How I long for the good old days...
(And don't tell me to go see a doctor. I live with one.)
Hmm... It appears that both Linux and OS X have a graphical utility to do something, but your os, Windows XP, requires you to do that with a command line. If you really don't like the idea of using a command line, I guess Windows just doesn't cut it.
All in ones exist today. Palm has seen it come and done nothing.
Apple is attempting to make a sexy all in one taht doesn't rely on windoze mobile and market the hell out of it. Palm has done nothing. Palm saw it coming, and they created the Treo. Then they sat around rotting, selling off their software business, and experimenting with Windows Mobile. Palm really has been doomed since they screwed up the 68k-ARM transition. (And the other issues of the time, like Xerox)
It doesn't seem that you know that ReactOS and WINE share a lot of work. For example, the wine Task Manager was created for ReactOS and then integrated into wine. So far, ReactOS has benefitted more from the sharing, but as ReactOS gets more complete, the extent of the sharing increases.
It's well known that Apple does not charge any significant premium over vendors. They just don't sell crap.
They do, however, sell basic, simple computers. The low-end iMac is $900 and does not come with bluetooth, the remote, a 3d graphics chip, or a DVD burner. It does have the built-in webcam, but that is obviously not contributing much to the price. The standard speakers/sound chips are also above the baseline for corporate computers, but such things can come in handy, and are nice for those with their own office. Other than that, every hardware feature is completely justified. Overall, $900 for an all-in-one system is pretty good. And you can't ignore the fact that it takes up so little space and is so quiet compared to cheap tower and desktop machines.
Those very machines are selling quite well, and I have seen them cropping up in many offices.
In the case of the for loop, that is really a symptom of the fact that c-style languages don't have syntax for saying "do this to each of these". So one must manually iterate over the elements. Java does have the for-each syntax, but it is just an abbreviation of the "for i from 0 to x" loop.
Practically all for loops written are independent of order, so they could be trivially implemented using MapReduce. That one change would parallelize a lot of code, with no tricky compiler optimizations.
But the reason that bison includes the exception is that its output contains an non-trivial portion of bison's own code (which is what is covered by the gpl). If bison's output did not include part of bison's code, the exception would not be necessary.
The exception is lacking from gcc because the compiler's output does not contain part of the compiler. Any other program that simply processes data is also safe from this issue. It is only when the output contains gpl'd code/data that such a stipulation is necessary.
Apache is not an operating system. And you are about the last person to be calling somebody else a troll.
The simple fact is that for most of the time it has been on sale, Windows XP has been too insecure to install out of the box. How long did it take before SP2 was included by default in the retail copies? If the average time to rootkit installation is less than the time it takes to download the necessary updates, then the OS is insecure.
Apple have (being generous) 3% of the world desktop PC market, and 1% of servers. What "harm" could they do to a company with 95% of desktops, and 40% of servers? Apple is years away from encroaching on the volume license agreements that MS has with big businesses. But if you look at the consumer market, where everybody buys their own office suite (through retail or bundled with the machine), Apple is doing very well. In 3Q 2006, Apple was the number 4 computer maker, with 6% market share. And in the more profitable laptop market, Apple has close to 15% market share.
Microsoft's install base is not growing. Apple's is exploding. Pretty much nobody switches from Apple to Wintel.
You also claim that BootCamp is responsible for the growth in sales of Macs. This is a half-truth at best. Anybody who will buy a Mac and then run windows can be counted on to purchase the Mac version of whichever piece of software forced them to install Windows. People who buy Macs want to switch and will complete the switch as soon as they can. Already, pretty much the only apps that people use bootcamp for are games. 2d apps run just fine with crossover or parallels. Right now, the vast majority of intel Mac owners are never not running OS X.
In the consumer market, MS Word and Powerpoint have exactly 0 advantages over iWork. iWork, on the other hand, has many advantages; the number one being that it is totally Mac-like. Mac users will pay more for an app that behaves well on their system. Witness the continued existence and profitability of the Omni group.
Even as the sales of Macs grow, the sales of MS Office for Mac will decline, because iWork is getting better. It won't be long before corporations are finding that too many employees have only Macs at home.
The day that Office for Mac gets killed will be the day that iWork gets released as a complete, full-featured, Office-killer suite. We know that Apple has a spreadsheet app waiting to be released. It is inconceivable that they would not have the rest of the suite at least in closed beta. I, for one, would love it if Apple would go ahead and release that suite soon.
That said, killing Office for Mac would cause microsoft to lose those profits, and probably lead to more people switching to Apple. Microsoft knows that Apple can make a slick GUI for almost anything, and they know that their Office GUI is anything but slick. That's why there was all the crap about the ribbon. They don't want to incite Apple to do anything smart, like releasing a better product than MS Office.
They already include these tools on windows. Why aren't they scandalized now? Different user base? Dell's sales of Linux machines would dry up overnight if spyware were found, because Linux users would hear about it and act on it.
Having not bought a Dell recently, I don't know just how close the crapware comes to spyware. Apparently, it is not egregious enough to bother most users.
And such code would then be under GPLv2. Then Dell would be obligated to include the source for that module in the source code isos for the distribution. That strange code would be noticed, and Dell would be scandalized.
I'm more optimistic. I think it is much easier to configure Linux to display your logo all over the place. Dell won't have to install so much extra insidious software because they will be able to just create a theme out of pngs and text files, and collect the advertising fees. And if they can manage to set up a system such that all pdfs will automatically use Adobe, all music files will automatically use RealPlayer, etc., more power to them. It will mean that it will be easier to change everything to use a free app. And if they provide any propietary drivers, they won't go to the trouble to render them unusable on the vanilla distro they based theirs off of.
Slashdot Mirror
Macs have shipped with wide screens for years. The zoom behavior exists for the same reason that LaTeX defaults to using large margins. Most web sites will expand to fill the width of of the window. On a screen that is 16" wide, a page full of prose will have lines that are way too long to read smoothly. The designers of the software are fully willing to set the defaults to sensible values, even if the users are not sensible.
For pretty much every other app, the zoom button will only expand the window as much as is useful. However, with web browsers (especially with tabbed browsing) this behavior can be annying. Still, it works for most pages. If it weren't for tabbed browsing, the OS X zoom button would exhibit pretty much optimal behavior.
You know that in some places, recording someone in a dubious state of undress without their permission and then publishing the results would be illegal, right?
The Internet is obviously not one of those places.She measured the spectra of known household substances and got numbers that fit with published data. That is a decent basis for calling it accurate, especially when you consider that her design can probably be improved quite a bit without making it much more expensive. A mass-produced, quality-controlled spectrograph based off her design could revolutionize the way such devices are used, because they are so cheap.
It would if this were only, say, January of 1996. But in reality, you now have quite a bit of evidence that there is not a regular periodicity to collecting traffic citations.
However, in the case of the volcano, we are only 1/15th of a cycle late. It is too early to say that we have totally bucked the trend.
I can se it now - shattered legos scattered across several blocks because somebody used a shotgun.
It sounds patentable. They are just a few decades late to the game. But at least this is not a totally obvious "invention" like the doubly-linked list.
It sounds very patentable. It's just that you seem to have quite a bit of prior art in your background.
Yep. I'm in the same boat. BMI of 16.5. Shopping for clothing is very depressing, since I'm not fond of suspenders. I do, however, buy a lot of long socks.
Not too many years ago, the skinniest sizes were for people in the bottom half of the range considered healthy. How I long for the good old days...
(And don't tell me to go see a doctor. I live with one.)
Hmm... It appears that both Linux and OS X have a graphical utility to do something, but your os, Windows XP, requires you to do that with a command line. If you really don't like the idea of using a command line, I guess Windows just doesn't cut it.
Apple is attempting to make a sexy all in one taht doesn't rely on windoze mobile and market the hell out of it. Palm has done nothing. Palm saw it coming, and they created the Treo. Then they sat around rotting, selling off their software business, and experimenting with Windows Mobile. Palm really has been doomed since they screwed up the 68k-ARM transition. (And the other issues of the time, like Xerox)
http://wiki.winehq.org/CygwinSupport
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=443
How about this?
It doesn't seem that you know that ReactOS and WINE share a lot of work. For example, the wine Task Manager was created for ReactOS and then integrated into wine. So far, ReactOS has benefitted more from the sharing, but as ReactOS gets more complete, the extent of the sharing increases.
Yes, the STL does have for_each and transform. But they use several iterators and a functor. This means that they are a) ugly and b) not parallel.
Why would you manually write code to copy a list? Also, this would be the same as calling Map with an identity function.
It's well known that Apple does not charge any significant premium over vendors. They just don't sell crap.
They do, however, sell basic, simple computers. The low-end iMac is $900 and does not come with bluetooth, the remote, a 3d graphics chip, or a DVD burner. It does have the built-in webcam, but that is obviously not contributing much to the price. The standard speakers/sound chips are also above the baseline for corporate computers, but such things can come in handy, and are nice for those with their own office. Other than that, every hardware feature is completely justified. Overall, $900 for an all-in-one system is pretty good. And you can't ignore the fact that it takes up so little space and is so quiet compared to cheap tower and desktop machines.
Those very machines are selling quite well, and I have seen them cropping up in many offices.
In the case of the for loop, that is really a symptom of the fact that c-style languages don't have syntax for saying "do this to each of these". So one must manually iterate over the elements. Java does have the for-each syntax, but it is just an abbreviation of the "for i from 0 to x" loop.
Practically all for loops written are independent of order, so they could be trivially implemented using MapReduce. That one change would parallelize a lot of code, with no tricky compiler optimizations.
But the reason that bison includes the exception is that its output contains an non-trivial portion of bison's own code (which is what is covered by the gpl). If bison's output did not include part of bison's code, the exception would not be necessary.
The exception is lacking from gcc because the compiler's output does not contain part of the compiler. Any other program that simply processes data is also safe from this issue. It is only when the output contains gpl'd code/data that such a stipulation is necessary.
Apache is not an operating system. And you are about the last person to be calling somebody else a troll.
The simple fact is that for most of the time it has been on sale, Windows XP has been too insecure to install out of the box. How long did it take before SP2 was included by default in the retail copies? If the average time to rootkit installation is less than the time it takes to download the necessary updates, then the OS is insecure.
Certain portions of the EULAs are supposedly required to be emphasized. Most software makers choose to use all caps rather than a rich text license.
Microsoft's install base is not growing. Apple's is exploding. Pretty much nobody switches from Apple to Wintel.
You also claim that BootCamp is responsible for the growth in sales of Macs. This is a half-truth at best. Anybody who will buy a Mac and then run windows can be counted on to purchase the Mac version of whichever piece of software forced them to install Windows. People who buy Macs want to switch and will complete the switch as soon as they can. Already, pretty much the only apps that people use bootcamp for are games. 2d apps run just fine with crossover or parallels. Right now, the vast majority of intel Mac owners are never not running OS X.
In the consumer market, MS Word and Powerpoint have exactly 0 advantages over iWork. iWork, on the other hand, has many advantages; the number one being that it is totally Mac-like. Mac users will pay more for an app that behaves well on their system. Witness the continued existence and profitability of the Omni group.
Even as the sales of Macs grow, the sales of MS Office for Mac will decline, because iWork is getting better. It won't be long before corporations are finding that too many employees have only Macs at home.
The day that Office for Mac gets killed will be the day that iWork gets released as a complete, full-featured, Office-killer suite. We know that Apple has a spreadsheet app waiting to be released. It is inconceivable that they would not have the rest of the suite at least in closed beta. I, for one, would love it if Apple would go ahead and release that suite soon.
That said, killing Office for Mac would cause microsoft to lose those profits, and probably lead to more people switching to Apple. Microsoft knows that Apple can make a slick GUI for almost anything, and they know that their Office GUI is anything but slick. That's why there was all the crap about the ribbon. They don't want to incite Apple to do anything smart, like releasing a better product than MS Office.
On the Mac Microsoft Office is no faster than NeoOffice. Both sets of software are big and slow. But only one is a Universal app...
Having not bought a Dell recently, I don't know just how close the crapware comes to spyware. Apparently, it is not egregious enough to bother most users.
And such code would then be under GPLv2. Then Dell would be obligated to include the source for that module in the source code isos for the distribution. That strange code would be noticed, and Dell would be scandalized.
I'm more optimistic. I think it is much easier to configure Linux to display your logo all over the place. Dell won't have to install so much extra insidious software because they will be able to just create a theme out of pngs and text files, and collect the advertising fees. And if they can manage to set up a system such that all pdfs will automatically use Adobe, all music files will automatically use RealPlayer, etc., more power to them. It will mean that it will be easier to change everything to use a free app. And if they provide any propietary drivers, they won't go to the trouble to render them unusable on the vanilla distro they based theirs off of.