They can delete your data but they don't want to so they tell you it's a nearly impossible task. Yet if a fellow corporation asked, the data would disappear. People need to have a backbone and stand up for themselves.
Tabs die too quickly and it poorly handles broken HTML which causes it to use up all it's memory and cause the thing to be unsable are the two biggest. The biggest reason I quit using it is because it's performance was just generally much more poor than Firefox.
Its problem is that it's always used more memory and CPU than pretty much any other browser but they focused on making it feel fast which is fine but that little trick seems to be failing. That or I guess they expect me to have a computer more powerful than something that happily plays TF2 or Portal 2 (on faily high settings and resolution) just to browse the web.
And that's without plugins. I'd hate to see what happens if you take full advantage of it. Not that you can. Google's nazi-like controls won't even let me add buttons to the speed dial page (assuming they haven't recently fixed that after years of people asking for it), the UI in general has a too minimal feel and then when you download a file it has that big butt ugly download bar which I have to then close myself. It was a nice UI compared to all the others when they had small view ports but everyone else seems to be excelling at making the most out of the browser space while give people options. Google still gives you very little flexibility which means they think they either know better than me or they're just not good enough to handle it.
Works for me but I'm not running an old virus ridden windows machine like many people as I know what I'm doing with my computer. That's why I also know Chrome isn't that fast and has many flaws the google fanboys don't want to talk about given that google tracks them and knows all the questionable sites they've been on.
Then it fails. At least some is trying something new and making something that is really open and not just some cheap ploy to lure nerds into letting an advertising company track their every action.
You're a moron who do you think kicked this off in its fight against the brown people for 9/11. It's no wonder republicans keep nominating idiots like Bachmann. Clearly you can't seem to remember what happened yesterday let alone during the last administration. Senility does that to old people, I guess.
Science isn't like the bible. It keeps looking at things and changes when it looks like it was wrong. It questions itself and you should question it too but if your questioning is just more selfish "I don't see it therefore it's wrong and I'm not giving up my SUV" then don't be surprised if people think you're a moron.
How else are they going to appease their shareholders? They've saturated the market and they're not growing in the mobile or gaming markets unless someone else exists.
No one can afford it which is why Nintendo is the only old company to have survived. That's why Microsoft forces you to have gold to do anything above taking a shit and Sony would be in trouble if the PS3 had tanked because the rest of their business isn't exactly doing well.
I'm assuming it's like the Wii which basically had a Gamecube bolted in (more or less) so the games were exactly the same. Though I am hoping for some upscaling.
It depends entirely on the developer. Call of Duty apparenty runs much better than on the other two. http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2012/09/wii-u-coming-to-america-sunday-november-18/ and keeping it mind not only is COD running at 60 FPS on one screen, but it's updating a second screen. The AC series isn't even the pinnacle of good gaming. They knock out a title a year and the performance in the previous games wasn't even that great on the current systems. Probably because it's hard to optimise for something when you're too busy trying to knock out a game in record time.
It will almost certainly be the least capable system of its generation but it's not easy to compare it against the current generation for the mere fact developers are only learning how to use it, it has more screens and it will no doubt make it more obvious which developers are better than others.
I agree, I would rather see companies not bother with new functionality until it's finalised but likewise, putting in the browser specific additions before putting in the finalised version does testing. Should developers really use them? Probably not but it does take forever for the finalised versions to filter through that I'm not surprised that they do and my experience does say that normally (on the desktop at least) they put in all variations of the browser specific code because most people want it to be viewedthe right way.
I'm not surprised developers are lazier on mobile though because even though there are different browsers the top ones are all webkit based. I do sympathise with Microsoft because people should write their code to cover as many systems as possible but Microsoft has annoyed a lot of people in the past in terms of web browsers and the marketshare for IE10 in the mobile space is so small, I'm not surprised people don't care what Microsoft wants.
I'm not sure IE is the most popular in the world. Maybe on the desktop but you are making the assumption everyone on the desktop uses IE and there are more desktop users than mobile / tablet / mac users.
Microsoft knows up to IE8 is supported good enough. Their complaint is more about IE10 and specifically on Windows Phone isn't supported to the same level as webkit. In that case, Windows Phone 8 IE10 probably even has a smaller marketshare than Opera. So the marketshare argument goes out the window.
Old versions of IE on the desktop are supported fine in that it will ignore any tag it doesn't recognise. So instead of rounded corners you get rectangular corners and people do account for that. The problem with mobile is MS doesn't want things to look worse on their phone as it reflects poorly on them but as well they do somethings differently too, like touch events. When IE and firefox were both competitive it was fine that IE had to ajax calls differently because developers had no choice so they work around it even if it sucks. IE10 on Winphone is such a minor player that developers obviously feel they have a choice. Plus it's relatively new. They can't expect people to just jump and change their code the instant they release a new version.
It also doesn't help that IE still tries to hold onto its old ways and if you want to develop locally you have to tell it to work in the good mode and not the old mode. It's a minor detail but again when asking people to cater to your tiny marketshare right now, some people are going to be lazy and not bother.
No, every single browser has it's own prefixed extension for their current implementation of some functionality. Webkit uses webkit-, firefox is moz-, IE is ms- and opera is o-.
The issue is only that developers know full well that webkit, thanks to it being open source, has become the largest rendered around. Mac, iOS, Android and Chrome all use it so if the developer is lazy they will only use the webkit- extension. But many use both moz and webkit. No one really cares about IE because it is stil behind the rest and actually Microsoft pissed off a lot of web designers and developers with IE and MS expects to be forgiven straight away and get people to invest time in supporting their latest and greatest browser and its tiny market share.
I do try to do the right thing but I don't blame people for not caring. Microsoft still don't care about standards. OOXML and webgl prove that. They're just the least relevant company in mobile devices and they don't like being the loser. Fortunately for them webkit is open source so they could use it if they want.
You do realise you can use any USB hard drive you want. If you want 1TB of space then go for it and shop around for the best priced drive you can find unlike xbox which wants you to buy an overpriced hard drive
Slashdot Mirror
You have to choose between having a licence and smoking weed. You be driving high or drunk.
They can delete your data but they don't want to so they tell you it's a nearly impossible task. Yet if a fellow corporation asked, the data would disappear. People need to have a backbone and stand up for themselves.
Tabs die too quickly and it poorly handles broken HTML which causes it to use up all it's memory and cause the thing to be unsable are the two biggest. The biggest reason I quit using it is because it's performance was just generally much more poor than Firefox.
Its problem is that it's always used more memory and CPU than pretty much any other browser but they focused on making it feel fast which is fine but that little trick seems to be failing. That or I guess they expect me to have a computer more powerful than something that happily plays TF2 or Portal 2 (on faily high settings and resolution) just to browse the web.
And that's without plugins. I'd hate to see what happens if you take full advantage of it. Not that you can. Google's nazi-like controls won't even let me add buttons to the speed dial page (assuming they haven't recently fixed that after years of people asking for it), the UI in general has a too minimal feel and then when you download a file it has that big butt ugly download bar which I have to then close myself. It was a nice UI compared to all the others when they had small view ports but everyone else seems to be excelling at making the most out of the browser space while give people options. Google still gives you very little flexibility which means they think they either know better than me or they're just not good enough to handle it.
Works for me but I'm not running an old virus ridden windows machine like many people as I know what I'm doing with my computer. That's why I also know Chrome isn't that fast and has many flaws the google fanboys don't want to talk about given that google tracks them and knows all the questionable sites they've been on.
I'm just on OSX with Firefox. Chrome is for geek posers.
Then it fails. At least some is trying something new and making something that is really open and not just some cheap ploy to lure nerds into letting an advertising company track their every action.
She no doubt still has a big check from Microsoft. So I'm sure she's not crying about it.
You're a moron who do you think kicked this off in its fight against the brown people for 9/11. It's no wonder republicans keep nominating idiots like Bachmann. Clearly you can't seem to remember what happened yesterday let alone during the last administration. Senility does that to old people, I guess.
Science isn't like the bible. It keeps looking at things and changes when it looks like it was wrong. It questions itself and you should question it too but if your questioning is just more selfish "I don't see it therefore it's wrong and I'm not giving up my SUV" then don't be surprised if people think you're a moron.
They want you to developer for Metro. So why would they give developers a metro-free version?
How else are they going to appease their shareholders? They've saturated the market and they're not growing in the mobile or gaming markets unless someone else exists.
That's not too bad but that does give the Wii-U 2.2 times more memory for the anally retentive!
;-)
I'm sure the PS3 uses more but it is a better system so it's putting it to good use.
No one can afford it which is why Nintendo is the only old company to have survived. That's why Microsoft forces you to have gold to do anything above taking a shit and Sony would be in trouble if the PS3 had tanked because the rest of their business isn't exactly doing well.
The Wii U makes use of an AMD 7 series GPU with 32MB of embedded eDRAM
I'm assuming it's like the Wii which basically had a Gamecube bolted in (more or less) so the games were exactly the same. Though I am hoping for some upscaling.
What's the transfer rate on bluetooth? I'd assume that's how it's done like the Wii but I don't know how well it would handle video.
It depends entirely on the developer. Call of Duty apparenty runs much better than on the other two. http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2012/09/wii-u-coming-to-america-sunday-november-18/ and keeping it mind not only is COD running at 60 FPS on one screen, but it's updating a second screen. The AC series isn't even the pinnacle of good gaming. They knock out a title a year and the performance in the previous games wasn't even that great on the current systems. Probably because it's hard to optimise for something when you're too busy trying to knock out a game in record time.
It will almost certainly be the least capable system of its generation but it's not easy to compare it against the current generation for the mere fact developers are only learning how to use it, it has more screens and it will no doubt make it more obvious which developers are better than others.
The xbox 360's OS has to use ram too so even if there isn't a set limit, you can't have 480 MB for a game.
I agree, I would rather see companies not bother with new functionality until it's finalised but likewise, putting in the browser specific additions before putting in the finalised version does testing. Should developers really use them? Probably not but it does take forever for the finalised versions to filter through that I'm not surprised that they do and my experience does say that normally (on the desktop at least) they put in all variations of the browser specific code because most people want it to be viewedthe right way.
I'm not surprised developers are lazier on mobile though because even though there are different browsers the top ones are all webkit based. I do sympathise with Microsoft because people should write their code to cover as many systems as possible but Microsoft has annoyed a lot of people in the past in terms of web browsers and the marketshare for IE10 in the mobile space is so small, I'm not surprised people don't care what Microsoft wants.
I'm not sure IE is the most popular in the world. Maybe on the desktop but you are making the assumption everyone on the desktop uses IE and there are more desktop users than mobile / tablet / mac users.
Microsoft knows up to IE8 is supported good enough. Their complaint is more about IE10 and specifically on Windows Phone isn't supported to the same level as webkit. In that case, Windows Phone 8 IE10 probably even has a smaller marketshare than Opera. So the marketshare argument goes out the window.
Old versions of IE on the desktop are supported fine in that it will ignore any tag it doesn't recognise. So instead of rounded corners you get rectangular corners and people do account for that. The problem with mobile is MS doesn't want things to look worse on their phone as it reflects poorly on them but as well they do somethings differently too, like touch events. When IE and firefox were both competitive it was fine that IE had to ajax calls differently because developers had no choice so they work around it even if it sucks. IE10 on Winphone is such a minor player that developers obviously feel they have a choice. Plus it's relatively new. They can't expect people to just jump and change their code the instant they release a new version.
It also doesn't help that IE still tries to hold onto its old ways and if you want to develop locally you have to tell it to work in the good mode and not the old mode. It's a minor detail but again when asking people to cater to your tiny marketshare right now, some people are going to be lazy and not bother.
No, every single browser has it's own prefixed extension for their current implementation of some functionality. Webkit uses webkit-, firefox is moz-, IE is ms- and opera is o-.
The issue is only that developers know full well that webkit, thanks to it being open source, has become the largest rendered around. Mac, iOS, Android and Chrome all use it so if the developer is lazy they will only use the webkit- extension. But many use both moz and webkit. No one really cares about IE because it is stil behind the rest and actually Microsoft pissed off a lot of web designers and developers with IE and MS expects to be forgiven straight away and get people to invest time in supporting their latest and greatest browser and its tiny market share.
I do try to do the right thing but I don't blame people for not caring. Microsoft still don't care about standards. OOXML and webgl prove that. They're just the least relevant company in mobile devices and they don't like being the loser. Fortunately for them webkit is open source so they could use it if they want.
It's also not going to go anywhere.
Same as me. I want a game system that plays games and that's about it.
Not really. That's in no way remotely similar.
You do realise you can use any USB hard drive you want. If you want 1TB of space then go for it and shop around for the best priced drive you can find unlike xbox which wants you to buy an overpriced hard drive