The other big reason is that a blue screen of death doesn't result in actual death. If you're building homes or highways, you have human life in your hands, and holding you accountable for negligence seems a bit more appropriate. This is quite possibly the most elegant post this month. This also points out to my main problem with software in general -- any joe schmoe can be a "programmer" and the general public just accepts mediocrity (almost expects it, I would venture to say).
AS for the rugbyforpansies tag...nice try. It seems like every English rugby player who tries to make it in the NFL usually ends up in the strong safety position. Too small to play linebacker, too slow to play defensive back, and absolutely no individual skills (other than smashing into other humans). Perhaps American Football is rubygforpansies, but funny how many ex-rugbyers are third on the depth charts and playing on kick coverage.
The best part of my post is that those who apply the rugbyforpansies tag have no idea what any of it means;-)
Sounds like you figured out that you are "the guy" who I was referring to as completely losing the argument with the "other guy". Thanks for noticing my satirical use of teenage diction.
Nothing in the world drives the advancement of computer hardware like porn and video games. Yeah, if you are 18. The porn issue is a urban legend and has been rehashed in too many/. threads to count. Video games drive one thing; the willingness for 18-24 year old males to spend every last penny they earn on $599 video cards that will be out-dated within two years.
Is there term for these kind of flamewars? (Maybe its flame wars?) Yeah, the one guy obviously knows what he's talking about, and states it elegantly enough, and the other guy just keep yelling "YOU TROLL!" at him, without any merit.
Actually, I understand the technical reason why it isn't optimal to put stuff on the desktop, especially in a multi-user environment. But I have to question why Microsoft keeps it that way. As with most things, we have to learn the Microsoft way, and adapt our work habits to fit, when it should be the other way around. It's like Microsoft revels in making things more difficult than they have to, as sort of a nerd badge of honor.
It's a stylistic element of the author's article. Paradox or some other artsy-fartsy, hoidy-toidy technique that we mere computer nerds can't possibly understand.
If you're an idiot who work on the C drive at all time, instead of in C:\User\(YourUserName), its unbearable: it will popup constantly. As a non-developer, I have a problem with your limited point-of-view. In a well-designed paradigm, the user should be in charge, not the file path and naming convention requirements. You are obviously speaking from a developer's point of view, but the vast majority of users in the world are exactly that -- users. I don't think calling people "idiots" for putting stuff on the c: drive/desktop really contributes to the conversation.
I'm not trying to start a fight, but blaming the user is a common mistake and is actually a pretty blatant logical fallacy on the part of developers and users alike. The point of good design is to make something as transparent to the user as possible. Consistent confusion and problems popping up, regardless of how stupid you may think the operator is (or how stupid they actually are), are grounds for reconsidering the design.
For comparison's sake, in Mac OSX, I rarely consider the ramifications of where I'm putting files -- it just happily lets me put stuff wherever I like. I may occasionally get some user privilege weirdness, but only once in a blue moon. In Windows, I'm restricted to putting stuff exactly where it is supposed to go (as opposed to something convenient like the desktop), even if it is a complete mystery where that exact spot is. Poorly designed and inconsistent installer apps don't help the problem either.
Saying "there's nothing wrong with Vista" then spinning it full circle is merely a stylistic writing technique. Do all tech articles have to be straight-forward, or can there be a *litte* room for creative license?
I almost fell for the latin trick, but then I stopped to think about if it were relevant or not (after having to look up the meaning). I'm not convinced that the PC Mag guy was doing this, because I genuinely believe his article is written in good faith, and not as some rhetorical jab.
I just finished a spat of discussions the past week or so here on slashdot about how horrible UAC seems to be. I'm consistently faced with UAC apologists (for lack of a better term) who insist that there is nothing wrong with UAC and that only the strangest of circumstances invoke UAC. That's nice for them to contribute to the discussion and all, but more authoritative sources (like this article) contradict random-slashdot-guy's anecdotal evidence.
For example, FTA:
As I was saying, the UAC. For everything I do, and I mean everything--whether I'm installing an app, a game, or a Microsoft product--the UAC is always jumping in to warn me. It appears with such jarring regularity, and I do mean jarring--what's with that crazy screen shift, Bob?--that I no longer read it. I simply say 'OK' to everything. Is this what Microsoft intended? I ratchet it down in the OS, but then, am I disabling a key portion of Vista's security features? No feature should be so in-your-face that it becomes faceless. So whom am I to believe? If someone could provide some credible evidence to the contrary, I'd appreciate it. No, I'm not trolling here, I'm just trying to figure out the reality of the UAC situation, because it seems everyone is firmly planted on extreme ends about its functionality.
Every 2-bit nerd thinks he knows what's best for Microsoft, why should Microsoft listen to him? Perhaps I misread the article, but isn't this guy the Editor of a prominent PC Magazine? Hardly the 2-bit nerd image you are trying to invoke. Microsoft doesn't have to listen to industry magazines, but it would probably benefit them to do so from time-to-time, just to keep their finger on the pulse of the industry.
My sig should display as, "People don't understand Instructional Design." It sucks being a professional in a soft skill that nobody understands, and having to try and justify one's position all the time:-(
Ok, I realized I was looking for a "yes, it does do that!" answer, but I am skeptical of your response nonetheless. I've heard all kinds of stories about ridiculous UAC problems (none quite as tasty as the one I'm asking about though). Your post makes it sound like UAC is some sort of non-issue, when, from what I've read, it seems to be one of the top three-ish problems with Vista. Plus, we get UAC prompts at work for stupid network printer settings all the time (argued in another thread...seems to be part sysadmin fault, part Vista fault). Could you ellaborate further on how it only affects you if you do something beyond your own profile?
Microsoft Office (and I think maybe Microsoft Windows too) has long had a term in its EULA outlawing its use to write anything that might harm Microsoft's reputation or disparage their products. You don't actually have to buy Microsoft Office or Windows to be able to write a book about how bad they are. If I'm not mistaken, If you don't purchase the product and agree to the EULA you can write whatever you like about Windows. You know, that one time you used your friend's computer to try out Vista. IANAL, but I'm also pretty sure I can find some lawyer that would work pro bono to defend my right to publish a book that outlines the shortfalls of Vista, even if I DID agree to the EULA.
"You have clicked "allow": Allow or Cancel?" Does Vista actually do this? Will someone please send me a screenshot if it is true? I could use that as an example in my daily work of teaching how NOT to design UI.
Documenting everything 'just because' is a sure-fire way to accumulate loads of worthless, outdated cruft that no-one will even bother reading. Agreed! If it is important enough, go beyond documentation by developing a training program and ensure employees are actively trained (not just handing them a bunch of useless docs to read).
Ahh, finally a slashdot discussion that truly applies to my profession! Let's take the guy hit by a bus example. If work stops because the one person who knows how to do that task is gone, then there needs to be documentation. Here is were I can contribute to the conversation. I'm an instructional designer and we operate with the concept of "critical tasks". A critical task is one that is required before a job can be completed. Instructional designers make a critical task list (documentation) then develop training. The resulting training can be reused for all eternity (with updates) and suffices as documentation. This eliminates the piles of useless "read me" binders, because only things that are truly important are developed for training (and thus documented). Well-designed training ensures knowledge transfer, unlike the boring read-me binder.
If this post has confused you, I apologize in advance. This is a soft skill that is hard to explain in one paragraph on/. (see my sig for further explanation).
I don't want sound argumentative, but I don't really understand what you don't understand? I'm not trying to make this anything about an iMac. I'm simply trying to point out that a much less than ideal computer can handle the latest crop of games to a "much better than decent" level. I'd even argue that a cheap 3d card coupled with a strong core2duo chip and lots of ram is better than the best video card with a slower cpu and less ram. From what I can tell, it is cheaper to buy a faster cpu and more ram than it is to buy a bleeding edge video card, and the cpu/ram benefis extend beyond gaming.
Again, not to be argumentative, I just question the value of a few extra frames per second and levels of shaders that a $500 graphic card has over a $150 one. Does it really matter if one card gets 150 fps and the other "only" gets 60? I'd buy your FEAR argument completely, except I know that an average video card (the X1600 on my iMac, for example) can display the essentials required to enjoy the game. Perhaps you can give some additional and tangible examples of how a decent machine with an average 3d card suffers in game play.
Would you like to comment on this? (Thanks in advanced for keeping the topic cordial and on topic)
I dont know why people try to argue that graphics dont matter, if they didnt high end graphics cards wouldnt sell and crysis would look like pong. Crysis doesn't look like Pong, even on a crappy low-ish end X1600 video card. Unfortunately, I have an iMac, so newer cards pushing down prices are of no benefit to me;-) Perhaps FEAR requires the most subtle of graphics capabilities, but not at the expense of a $500 video card. I'll just play FEAR next year when I can build an entire PC with a decent video card (that will be outdated, but cheap) for less than the cost of that same video card now. For the record, I've played the FEAR demo on my iMac and the lack of high-end graphics capacity is lost on me, because the game was fun and spooky regardless.
Perhaps it is because I remember "trying" to game in the early to mid 90s when scaling back graphic options meant things like no longer having other cars on the race rack, or not having a sky or stadium display in your sports game...These trivial video settings now days are so minor in comparison. Smoother lines in the face? Turn on AAx4 (or whatever it is called). Ooh neat, now I have smoother face lines. In the old days, you were lucky to have a face.
Also, you validate my point again, saying high end graphics cards wouldn't sell if graphics didn't matter. Video games pushing high-end graphics cards (which will cost $100 in less than a year, or be flat-out out-dated) is a scam and the industry knows how to suck every last penny from hard-core gamers.
1. Make game with ridiculous graphic requirements
2. Make $500 video card that boasts the ability to increase FPS by a marginal amount
3. ???
4. Profit!
(Man, I've never been able to use the 1.2.3.4. Profit! thing until now, and wow, what a perfect example!)
Thanks for the info. I haven't seen any funny business in my SMS logs, but as soon as I do, I'll take your advice. As of now, it has a few sports updates from a friend of mine, and that's it.
Slashdot Mirror
"20 years of supporting the Constitution"..."he's pro-life". Therein lies my problem with Mr. Paul.
As an Instructional Designer, one of my duties is to measure learning. This hardly an engineer.
Not to mention American football player are bigger, faster, stronger and more skilled.
The best part of my post is that those who apply the rugbyforpansies tag have no idea what any of it means ;-)
Sounds like you figured out that you are "the guy" who I was referring to as completely losing the argument with the "other guy". Thanks for noticing my satirical use of teenage diction.
Is there term for these kind of flamewars? (Maybe its flame wars?) Yeah, the one guy obviously knows what he's talking about, and states it elegantly enough, and the other guy just keep yelling "YOU TROLL!" at him, without any merit.
Actually, I understand the technical reason why it isn't optimal to put stuff on the desktop, especially in a multi-user environment. But I have to question why Microsoft keeps it that way. As with most things, we have to learn the Microsoft way, and adapt our work habits to fit, when it should be the other way around. It's like Microsoft revels in making things more difficult than they have to, as sort of a nerd badge of honor.
It's a stylistic element of the author's article. Paradox or some other artsy-fartsy, hoidy-toidy technique that we mere computer nerds can't possibly understand.
I'm not trying to start a fight, but blaming the user is a common mistake and is actually a pretty blatant logical fallacy on the part of developers and users alike. The point of good design is to make something as transparent to the user as possible. Consistent confusion and problems popping up, regardless of how stupid you may think the operator is (or how stupid they actually are), are grounds for reconsidering the design.
For comparison's sake, in Mac OSX, I rarely consider the ramifications of where I'm putting files -- it just happily lets me put stuff wherever I like. I may occasionally get some user privilege weirdness, but only once in a blue moon. In Windows, I'm restricted to putting stuff exactly where it is supposed to go (as opposed to something convenient like the desktop), even if it is a complete mystery where that exact spot is. Poorly designed and inconsistent installer apps don't help the problem either.
Saying "there's nothing wrong with Vista" then spinning it full circle is merely a stylistic writing technique. Do all tech articles have to be straight-forward, or can there be a *litte* room for creative license?
I almost fell for the latin trick, but then I stopped to think about if it were relevant or not (after having to look up the meaning). I'm not convinced that the PC Mag guy was doing this, because I genuinely believe his article is written in good faith, and not as some rhetorical jab.
For example, FTA:
As I was saying, the UAC. For everything I do, and I mean everything--whether I'm installing an app, a game, or a Microsoft product--the UAC is always jumping in to warn me. It appears with such jarring regularity, and I do mean jarring--what's with that crazy screen shift, Bob?--that I no longer read it. I simply say 'OK' to everything. Is this what Microsoft intended? I ratchet it down in the OS, but then, am I disabling a key portion of Vista's security features? No feature should be so in-your-face that it becomes faceless. So whom am I to believe? If someone could provide some credible evidence to the contrary, I'd appreciate it. No, I'm not trolling here, I'm just trying to figure out the reality of the UAC situation, because it seems everyone is firmly planted on extreme ends about its functionality.My sig should display as, "People don't understand Instructional Design." It sucks being a professional in a soft skill that nobody understands, and having to try and justify one's position all the time :-(
Ok, I realized I was looking for a "yes, it does do that!" answer, but I am skeptical of your response nonetheless. I've heard all kinds of stories about ridiculous UAC problems (none quite as tasty as the one I'm asking about though). Your post makes it sound like UAC is some sort of non-issue, when, from what I've read, it seems to be one of the top three-ish problems with Vista. Plus, we get UAC prompts at work for stupid network printer settings all the time (argued in another thread...seems to be part sysadmin fault, part Vista fault). Could you ellaborate further on how it only affects you if you do something beyond your own profile?
If this post has confused you, I apologize in advance. This is a soft skill that is hard to explain in one paragraph on /. (see my sig for further explanation).
Again, not to be argumentative, I just question the value of a few extra frames per second and levels of shaders that a $500 graphic card has over a $150 one. Does it really matter if one card gets 150 fps and the other "only" gets 60? I'd buy your FEAR argument completely, except I know that an average video card (the X1600 on my iMac, for example) can display the essentials required to enjoy the game. Perhaps you can give some additional and tangible examples of how a decent machine with an average 3d card suffers in game play.
Would you like to comment on this? (Thanks in advanced for keeping the topic cordial and on topic)
Perhaps it is because I remember "trying" to game in the early to mid 90s when scaling back graphic options meant things like no longer having other cars on the race rack, or not having a sky or stadium display in your sports game...These trivial video settings now days are so minor in comparison. Smoother lines in the face? Turn on AAx4 (or whatever it is called). Ooh neat, now I have smoother face lines. In the old days, you were lucky to have a face.
Also, you validate my point again, saying high end graphics cards wouldn't sell if graphics didn't matter. Video games pushing high-end graphics cards (which will cost $100 in less than a year, or be flat-out out-dated) is a scam and the industry knows how to suck every last penny from hard-core gamers.
1. Make game with ridiculous graphic requirements
2. Make $500 video card that boasts the ability to increase FPS by a marginal amount
3. ???
4. Profit!
(Man, I've never been able to use the 1.2.3.4. Profit! thing until now, and wow, what a perfect example!)
Thanks for the info. I haven't seen any funny business in my SMS logs, but as soon as I do, I'll take your advice. As of now, it has a few sports updates from a friend of mine, and that's it.
The no-data plan wouldn't be an option for me (iPhone with great web browser and email), but I certainly could do without the SMS.