Yes, I'd consider myself a 'tech-aware user', and even Google's own apps want such a laundry list of permissions, it turns into "fuck, whatever" and then you press OK.
Using Android was actually an interesting experiment for me, because I'd mulled over the possibilities of a capabilities-based permission system for many years. Then when I finally got one, I found it was realistically about as useful as an IE ActiveX dialog.
I think you're exactly correct, if Apple cared about "infinite targets" they wouldn't ship machines with such low mouse acceleration profiles. The entire paradigm doesn't work on huge screens or multiple monitors. (Tip: the MS mouse driver comes with a Windows-like acceleration option.)
At this point, IMO the Mac menu bar is more of a visual trademark than something that's confirmed by the laws of UI science. That's why it's kinda funny to see it being copied.
Corporate projectors will often have a lot of different inputs, but as a general rule of thumb, the only cable connected will be VGA. For corporate presentations it's still VGA all the way. (Have seen Mac users learn this the hard way.)
Show Codes is the reason WordPerfect sucked. It was easy to accidentally delete an invisible end tag, and then the entire formatting of your document would be fucked. So you were pretty much forced to reveal the codes and tediously edit around them, which is suckwork for nerds.
I'm perfectly capable of marking-up HTML, but who wants to deal with that shit while you're writing.
I think you have to look at the situation during the timeframe this merger was being discussed. At the time, Apple was almost entirely dependent on creative workstations and high-end desktop PCs. The few consumer devices they produced had bombed, and there was almost no indication that Apple could be successful as a consumer electronics brand other than their high name recognition.
In the early MS Windows 3 era MS told developers that Windows was just a temporary GUI for DOS to satisfy existing installations that will eventually be migrated to OS/2 1 + Presentation Manager. They emphasized how source compatible WIndows and Presentation Manager were and that porting would not be a major issue.
That was the plan, but IBM was not interested in making software easy to port, and made a bunch of gratuitous changes to OS/2 PM (the famous one being moving the screen coordinate zero-point to the bottom left.)
The "source compatibility" issue was one of the major reasons Microsoft started on Win32 and eventually broke from IBM.
It is still horribly restrictive by the FSF's own standards.
There is nothing in the GPL which prevents one from sticking GNU/Emacs into a box and selling it with a "Made for Mac" logo. (In fact the FSF has almost encouraged this sort of thing because they supposedly care about the freedom of the product itself, not its marketing.)
The Mac UI was designed for 9-inch screens, and there wasn't much point in having a context menu when the menu bar was always nearby what you were working on.
Afterwards, Apple "avoided" having a right-click mostly because they got lazy and had stopped advancing the UI. They only introduced system support after most major Mac software had already already their own context menus.
The SNL formula has always been to have a couple skits that attempt to be humorous, and then use the rest of the show to create bad memes and one-note recurring characters (which can be converted into movie franchises).
People remember when they strike gold (like the Shatner episode), and completely forget the next episode which starred football players and the "pathological liar".
Never mentioned anything about "Rescue on Fractalus" (boring game btw), just that 2600 was fine in its day for contemporary arcade games.
Of course, if Atari had any brains, they would have realized that a 1970s system couldn't last forever and phased out the 2600 in favor of the 5200, rather than shoving the retail channel full of obsolete and flickery games.
Also you should see someone about that 30 year old stick shoved up your ass:)
A decade ago, Generation X was going through its nostalgia phase and there was a huge demand for Vectrex stuff. Back then you could buy pre-printed overlays, but I have no idea if the service is still offered.
(obconfession: for about $200 I picked up a Vectrex and a "multicart" with almost every game on it.)
Bullshit! The 2600 came out in 1977 and had enough power to translate most 1970s arcade games. For example, 2600 Space Invaders was in many ways superior to the arcade version.
The 2600 didn't fall on its ass at the end of its lifecycle -- blame Atari marketing because they didn't know when to quit. (Pretty much instigating the video game crash of '83 in the process.)
So true. I've caught myself doing the "you see sonny... this old yellow thing is a Mac Quadra. It went for 10,000 dollars and had 128 megabytes of memory, which was amazing... hey! pay attention!"
Then I figured out the thing wouldn't even boot and hauled it off to the junkyard.
Granted, IE6 is broken, but not in the way most developers seem to think, or want to claim. It had bugs, and when it was designed, the W3C had not clarified how the box model was supposed to work, and IE6's assumptions were were wrong.
Agree with your overall point, but IE6 does support the W3C box model (except for a number of bugs) with certain DOCTYPEs. You're confusing it with IE5.
If you can't think of any useful applications of internet identity beyond posting on Slashdot, you probably should stop posting and take a long walk outdoors. Seriously, nobody cares who you are here.
The biggest problem when discussing web standards is that the vendors themselves propose the standards. So Apple is the most compliant with Apple's proposed standards, while Microsoft is the most compliant with Microsoft's proposed standards, etc. From the W3C's POV they are all the same, while the marketplace sorts these things out into common "cross-browser" features versus things which are considered "proprietary".
In other words, nobody cares that CSS3 rounded borders aren't an official "standards compliant" feature, it is a "cross browser" feature and they want rounded fucking corners on their website.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I'd consider myself a 'tech-aware user', and even Google's own apps want such a laundry list of permissions, it turns into "fuck, whatever" and then you press OK.
Using Android was actually an interesting experiment for me, because I'd mulled over the possibilities of a capabilities-based permission system for many years. Then when I finally got one, I found it was realistically about as useful as an IE ActiveX dialog.
I think you're exactly correct, if Apple cared about "infinite targets" they wouldn't ship machines with such low mouse acceleration profiles. The entire paradigm doesn't work on huge screens or multiple monitors. (Tip: the MS mouse driver comes with a Windows-like acceleration option.)
At this point, IMO the Mac menu bar is more of a visual trademark than something that's confirmed by the laws of UI science. That's why it's kinda funny to see it being copied.
Corporate projectors will often have a lot of different inputs, but as a general rule of thumb, the only cable connected will be VGA. For corporate presentations it's still VGA all the way. (Have seen Mac users learn this the hard way.)
Actually Mini-USB was the fragile one and Micro was introduced because it's more robust.
A PC game port? Really? Haven't seen one of those since the ISA card days. (I don't think Windows even supports it anymore.)
I'm guessing it's actually something else, or you must have bought some wackass board designed for legacy DOS use.
Show Codes is the reason WordPerfect sucked. It was easy to accidentally delete an invisible end tag, and then the entire formatting of your document would be fucked. So you were pretty much forced to reveal the codes and tediously edit around them, which is suckwork for nerds.
I'm perfectly capable of marking-up HTML, but who wants to deal with that shit while you're writing.
In both cases you recollection is wrong. Sorry.
No we didn't. MacTCP was a separate package you were supposed to pay for. (Although few actually did.)
I think you have to look at the situation during the timeframe this merger was being discussed. At the time, Apple was almost entirely dependent on creative workstations and high-end desktop PCs. The few consumer devices they produced had bombed, and there was almost no indication that Apple could be successful as a consumer electronics brand other than their high name recognition.
In the early MS Windows 3 era MS told developers that Windows was just a temporary GUI for DOS to satisfy existing installations that will eventually be migrated to OS/2 1 + Presentation Manager. They emphasized how source compatible WIndows and Presentation Manager were and that porting would not be a major issue.
That was the plan, but IBM was not interested in making software easy to port, and made a bunch of gratuitous changes to OS/2 PM (the famous one being moving the screen coordinate zero-point to the bottom left.)
The "source compatibility" issue was one of the major reasons Microsoft started on Win32 and eventually broke from IBM.
It is still horribly restrictive by the FSF's own standards.
There is nothing in the GPL which prevents one from sticking GNU/Emacs into a box and selling it with a "Made for Mac" logo. (In fact the FSF has almost encouraged this sort of thing because they supposedly care about the freedom of the product itself, not its marketing.)
I hope you got about 75% the way through that post, realized that you could google "webkit css extensions" and then wisely clicked the AC button.
The Mac UI was designed for 9-inch screens, and there wasn't much point in having a context menu when the menu bar was always nearby what you were working on.
Afterwards, Apple "avoided" having a right-click mostly because they got lazy and had stopped advancing the UI. They only introduced system support after most major Mac software had already already their own context menus.
Are there any major differences between Google's or Mozilla's HTML5 proposals and Apple's, besides video?
No real major differences, but a load of minor proprietary webkit extensions to CSS.
no webdev, even the very incompetent ones, will write HTML that only works for less than 10% of viewers.
O rly? There's a ton of stuff which target the iPad and nothing but the iPad. It kinda feels like the good old days of IE6.
The SNL formula has always been to have a couple skits that attempt to be humorous, and then use the rest of the show to create bad memes and one-note recurring characters (which can be converted into movie franchises).
People remember when they strike gold (like the Shatner episode), and completely forget the next episode which starred football players and the "pathological liar".
http://snltranscripts.jt.org/86/1986.phtml
Never mentioned anything about "Rescue on Fractalus" (boring game btw), just that 2600 was fine in its day for contemporary arcade games.
Of course, if Atari had any brains, they would have realized that a 1970s system couldn't last forever and phased out the 2600 in favor of the 5200, rather than shoving the retail channel full of obsolete and flickery games.
Also you should see someone about that 30 year old stick shoved up your ass :)
A decade ago, Generation X was going through its nostalgia phase and there was a huge demand for Vectrex stuff. Back then you could buy pre-printed overlays, but I have no idea if the service is still offered.
(obconfession: for about $200 I picked up a Vectrex and a "multicart" with almost every game on it.)
The 2600 sucked ass.
Bullshit! The 2600 came out in 1977 and had enough power to translate most 1970s arcade games. For example, 2600 Space Invaders was in many ways superior to the arcade version.
The 2600 didn't fall on its ass at the end of its lifecycle -- blame Atari marketing because they didn't know when to quit. (Pretty much instigating the video game crash of '83 in the process.)
So true. I've caught myself doing the "you see sonny ... this old yellow thing is a Mac Quadra. It went for 10,000 dollars and had 128 megabytes of memory, which was amazing ... hey! pay attention!"
Then I figured out the thing wouldn't even boot and hauled it off to the junkyard.
There were obviously using some old public domain data, because a bunch of highways appeared that haven't actually existed for decades.
Granted, IE6 is broken, but not in the way most developers seem to think, or want to claim. It had bugs, and when it was designed, the W3C had not clarified how the box model was supposed to work, and IE6's assumptions were were wrong.
Agree with your overall point, but IE6 does support the W3C box model (except for a number of bugs) with certain DOCTYPEs. You're confusing it with IE5.
To explain the joke, Palm got started selling its Graffiti software for Newton to replace Apple's dismal handmall reaquisition.
If you can't think of any useful applications of internet identity beyond posting on Slashdot, you probably should stop posting and take a long walk outdoors. Seriously, nobody cares who you are here.
My goal wasn't to discuss the W3C process, rather to highlight how it's not that important in terms of what developers perceive to be "standards".
And no, I don't think littering the web with "-moz-" and "-webkit-" counts as "standards compliance".
(Apologies for replying to myself.)
The biggest problem when discussing web standards is that the vendors themselves propose the standards. So Apple is the most compliant with Apple's proposed standards, while Microsoft is the most compliant with Microsoft's proposed standards, etc. From the W3C's POV they are all the same, while the marketplace sorts these things out into common "cross-browser" features versus things which are considered "proprietary".
In other words, nobody cares that CSS3 rounded borders aren't an official "standards compliant" feature, it is a "cross browser" feature and they want rounded fucking corners on their website.