Ah, seems fairly usable so and better designed (besides F2, it's a bit of a stretch). No Mac users I asked knew about this, cause it drives me crazy.
I'll experiment next time on a Mac (might be very soon, could be developing with Xcode soon).
Ummm... Windows Vista and onwards is more secure out of the box. I mean, Mac OS X hasn't even really implemented ASLR yet. That Mac OS X is more secure is a common misconception.
That was only a simplified example. Not a very good one (as everyone can remember Ctrl+S). But some applications on both platforms can potentially have a lot of shortcuts.
Every single command you use frequently has or can be assigned a command-something combination (or control-something). So things like open, close, print, save are always assigned the same command key sequence across all apps.
Which is a good thing, but not a replacement. There are some applications where the amount of shortcuts are massive. I don't want to remember them all. I don't want to have to configure applications all that much either. This means I have to do it on new machines too. Personalisation is handy, but I want something out of the box.
As was said earlier in the discussion, OS X and Windows come from very different philosophies. You speak of how you want to explore the menu. On OS X that's absolutely wrong.
Which works for most applications, but not all. Word processing (like Word) and graphics (like Photoshop) often have many options. Most will be quickly accessible, but others won't be.
I think the visual cues given from the Alt system is very handy, and allows jumping into applications much easier. The contextual switch is less of a burden. It might be a small thing, but it annoys me and probably other power-users who like relying on the keyboard (although, I could be alone on this).
I was told you could only use the cursor keys. I seem to remember that myself, but could be wrong (don't have a Mac OS X installation near me to find out).
The reasons why I might not want to use the mouse are many, including:
I could be using a program that is keyboard centric (such as word processing) and might want to access a menu option that I don't use regulary.
Using the keyboard is usually (and when designer properly, always) faster than using the mouse. Especially on a dual display, where the distance between my cursor and the option I want to use could be quite large
his is something that most users don't do - they either click on the menu with the mouse or hit shortcuts directly
This is my problem - I do use this manner. It's handy because I don't have to learn the various different short cuts accross different applications. It also allows me to explore the various commands quickly in a new application or get to commands without shortcuts without leaving my keyboard.
control-F2 is something, but it's more keyboard presses to be worth it. As in Control+F2, right, right, right, there is my menu option. So it doesn't allow quick access to actions or exploration without using the mouse.
I know I can configure short cuts to actions I often access, but tbh, I prefer not having too.
When you say contextual menu, you mean the right-click menu?
Cause this isn't what I am talking about.
What I am talking about there is a menu options in Tools -> Options -> Random Area -> Some Option.
In Windows (most anyhow, and most linux apps too), the underlines appear when I hold down alt (I used italics to demonstrate where this will be). I can then go Alt + T + U + R and then use arrow buttons to get too Some Option.
One of the problems OS X has is that it lacks the ability to use these menus through the keyboard easily. In Windows I can hit the Alt key, and quickly see all the menus I can open by using an other key (the letter used for the menu item will have an underscore). Such as Alt + F is the file menu.
Each menu item then can be accessed usually through an access key. So Alt - F - S would be save. I know in both Windows and Mac OS X you have direct save short cuts too, and you can configure short cuts to common items, but that's not I want.
What I want is to be able to access a menu list from the keyboard quickly while exploring, not remember various different short cuts.
In the UK only one provider (O2) has Edge *at all*
I was under the impression Orange did too? (though probably very little coverage)
Either way, a lot of Europe has EDGE too (well, at least reportedly), and they should have 3G with fairly seamless degradation to EDGE, and when necessary, a further degradation to standard run-of-the-mill GPRS.
Valid point. I'm talking from a European stance myself (personally in Ireland). We are lucky enough to have a fairly decent 3G and EDGE networks throughout alot of the continent.
Why should we have to suffer EDGE on the iPhone when we have infrastructure for more? I think it is a bad decision to release the iPhone in the UK without support for both.
The US infrastructure is silly. That's why Nokia has little market dominance over there - their too far ahead.
Don't 3G phones fall back to 2G (GPRS) when they can't get a 3G signal? Would it not be possible offer EDGE (sometimes refered to as EGPRS) and 3G, and let the user decide on a case-by-case basis (if they want to; don't force them to) which one they want to use.
I mean, if I want to view a simple webpage, I could use EDGE. If I want to download a song or a video, then 3G would be the better option.
Software pirates have launched an astonishing smash 'n' grab raid on the music biz, stealing the domain name of one of its foremost anti-piracy bodies.
It latter became apparent that what probably happened was the domain name simply expired and was re-registered.
Of course, saying that in the article/interview would have been boring - everyone loves sensationalism.
But I'm just repeating myself - if you look through the replies before you, and my responses, I've already explained my rationale at the time.
Well, for starters, email is a push technology. That means, you get photos/news/whatever data from me when I feel like sending them to you. When it is social networking sites, you can view stuff about me when you want (if you want to at all).
Other reasons include:
It is a big waste of resources. I'm sending photos to everyone, when it doesn't really need to be distributed.
People change emails, accounts on social network sites are more manageable
Communications with other friends becomes more transparent. I can find people I haven't talked to in ages because they are friends of friends.
There are other useful features, such as videos hosting, blogs, event schedulers, etc. Sure, all these things can be found elsewhere, but it can be handy having it all consolidated into one little wrapped up package.
Sure, I hate all the tagsoup, annoying music, flashing glitter, etc. But I use Bebo, which suffers a little less than Myspace anyway. Despite it's flaws, I still find compelling reasons to use it.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, seems fairly usable so and better designed (besides F2, it's a bit of a stretch). No Mac users I asked knew about this, cause it drives me crazy. I'll experiment next time on a Mac (might be very soon, could be developing with Xcode soon).
Ummm... Windows Vista and onwards is more secure out of the box. I mean, Mac OS X hasn't even really implemented ASLR yet. That Mac OS X is more secure is a common misconception.
Read this: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/hack-windows-security-snow-leopard,8704.html
Charlier Miller covers why he thinks Windows is more secure than Mac OS X.
That was only a simplified example. Not a very good one (as everyone can remember Ctrl+S). But some applications on both platforms can potentially have a lot of shortcuts.
Which is a good thing, but not a replacement. There are some applications where the amount of shortcuts are massive. I don't want to remember them all. I don't want to have to configure applications all that much either. This means I have to do it on new machines too. Personalisation is handy, but I want something out of the box.
Which works for most applications, but not all. Word processing (like Word) and graphics (like Photoshop) often have many options. Most will be quickly accessible, but others won't be. I think the visual cues given from the Alt system is very handy, and allows jumping into applications much easier. The contextual switch is less of a burden. It might be a small thing, but it annoys me and probably other power-users who like relying on the keyboard (although, I could be alone on this).
This was reported by the author in Issue 9. There have been suggestions to rename the language to Issue 9 - I like it.
A couple academic papers too, dating back to 2003. No docs isn't that accurate.
Which is slower, as I mentioned in a reply to another poster who brought this up.
Might not be important to some people, but to me, it's a feature I miss in Mac OS X land.
This is my problem - I do use this manner. It's handy because I don't have to learn the various different short cuts accross different applications. It also allows me to explore the various commands quickly in a new application or get to commands without shortcuts without leaving my keyboard.
control-F2 is something, but it's more keyboard presses to be worth it. As in Control+F2, right, right, right, there is my menu option. So it doesn't allow quick access to actions or exploration without using the mouse.
I know I can configure short cuts to actions I often access, but tbh, I prefer not having too.
When you say contextual menu, you mean the right-click menu?
Cause this isn't what I am talking about.
What I am talking about there is a menu options in Tools -> Options -> Random Area -> Some Option. In Windows (most anyhow, and most linux apps too), the underlines appear when I hold down alt (I used italics to demonstrate where this will be). I can then go Alt + T + U + R and then use arrow buttons to get too Some Option.
How do you do this in Mac OS X?
One of the problems OS X has is that it lacks the ability to use these menus through the keyboard easily. In Windows I can hit the Alt key, and quickly see all the menus I can open by using an other key (the letter used for the menu item will have an underscore). Such as Alt + F is the file menu.
Each menu item then can be accessed usually through an access key. So Alt - F - S would be save. I know in both Windows and Mac OS X you have direct save short cuts too, and you can configure short cuts to common items, but that's not I want.
What I want is to be able to access a menu list from the keyboard quickly while exploring, not remember various different short cuts.
One argument would be the available tool set and support for Java-based technologies is much larger than that of Objective-C.
Additional, the collective knowledge (and hence publications) for Java, is again, larger.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you ruin a great business opportunity.
Obviously this user is used to DDoS and is quite aware of being at the wrong (could say both sides are wrong) end of them.
That player is just being mysterious and playing hard to get... chicks dig that!
Girls do like smart men, just not to the exclusion of other characteristics such as social skills and appearance.
There will be integer overflow after C++0xFF
Fixed that for you.
... they do it to impress girls. And, with a bright yellow transformers car, I think you might struggle. Oh wait, this is slashdot, nevermind!
Most of them results are from sigs, so that search is probably exaggerating how often he does it.
How about making a detachable touch screen. Oh wait, these guys have done it.
I know I'd prefer to use a design more similar to Always Innovating, as:
I've just realised I've made myself look dumb by linking to an Orange page about using EDGE abroad.
Nevertheless, they still seem to have EDGE support.
http://www.3g.co.uk/PR/Feb2006/2548.htm
I was under the impression Orange did too? (though probably very little coverage)
Either way, a lot of Europe has EDGE too (well, at least reportedly), and they should have 3G with fairly seamless degradation to EDGE, and when necessary, a further degradation to standard run-of-the-mill GPRS.
Valid point. I'm talking from a European stance myself (personally in Ireland). We are lucky enough to have a fairly decent 3G and EDGE networks throughout alot of the continent. Why should we have to suffer EDGE on the iPhone when we have infrastructure for more? I think it is a bad decision to release the iPhone in the UK without support for both. The US infrastructure is silly. That's why Nokia has little market dominance over there - their too far ahead.
Don't 3G phones fall back to 2G (GPRS) when they can't get a 3G signal? Would it not be possible offer EDGE (sometimes refered to as EGPRS) and 3G, and let the user decide on a case-by-case basis (if they want to; don't force them to) which one they want to use.
I mean, if I want to view a simple webpage, I could use EDGE. If I want to download a song or a video, then 3G would be the better option.
It latter became apparent that what probably happened was the domain name simply expired and was re-registered.
Of course, saying that in the article/interview would have been boring - everyone loves sensationalism.
But I'm just repeating myself - if you look through the replies before you, and my responses, I've already explained my rationale at the time.
Well, for starters, email is a push technology. That means, you get photos/news/whatever data from me when I feel like sending them to you. When it is social networking sites, you can view stuff about me when you want (if you want to at all).
Other reasons include:
Sure, I hate all the tagsoup, annoying music, flashing glitter, etc. But I use Bebo, which suffers a little less than Myspace anyway. Despite it's flaws, I still find compelling reasons to use it.