If you put a frog in a pot of boiling water, he'll jump out. But if you put him in a pot of cold water and heat it up to boiling, he'll get cooked. Similarly, if you started this with Vista people would simply choose to keep their existing XP, or upgrade to Linux instead.
Are you saying that Windows users are like cold-blooded animals? Because if you are, I might just agree with you.
Not only are they going to force many people buy a legal copy of XP, but they are doing it just months (well, maybe) before it is "obsoleted" by Vista. So that many users will hopefully pay AGAIN to upgrade to Vista when it comes out. And they will see a spike in revenues and hopefully their stock value along with it. Clever.
Although I think this coudl backfire on them. If people just bought XP, I doubt they will be too keen on buying another copy of Windows, thus slowing the overall adoption of Vista.
What better way to separate church and state than to get people to excercise their right to remove the Religion line item from their tax return? Eventually the government will take the hint.
Somehow Java developers seem to be immune to the awefulness that is SWT/Swing. Maybe they spend so much time using the Java developer tools that they just don't notice (or care) anymore. Ever notice how almost all of the examples of "great" Java UIs are developer tools? Anytime I bring my distaste for Java UI's, Java apologists inevitably mention Ecplipse and Netbeans... and maybe Azureus, but then they concede that Azureus is a pretty clunky.
Anyway, I've complained enough. I'll just leave you with a quote that I think sums up my feelings: "Saying Java is good because it works on all platforms is like saying anal sex is good because it works on all genders."
On my Mac applications like Eclipse (Java IDE written in SWT) look pretty good, and applicagtions like CodeGuide (Java IDE written in Swing) look pretty normal.
While I haven't used Eclipse proper on my Mac, I have used RadRails (Ecplise based) and it was unusable as far as I am concerned. And I ditched that bloated, ugly piece of crap Azureus not too long ago.
I think you need to be a Cocoa Fanboy or java hater to find much diffrences in the look and feel.
I think you need to be a Java developer to actually like Java UIs. Besides look and feel, there are also OS integration issues with Java apps. For example, I had a heck of a time getting Azureus to load a torrent file when I double clicked on it (the torrent file). I never did get it to work right.
All applications I write, are either web applications, or Swing applications on my Mac... no mac user complained so far about using Java/Swing;d
But certainly you've heard many other people such as myself complain about Swing? I know I'm not expressing some fringe opinion here. And I am not a "Cocoa fanboy." Java UIs are notorious for being clunky.
I wonder how many simply aren't using your applications because they use Swing. I usually don't waste my time complaining to developers about their choice in tools. (unless it is slashdot where such is the norm) I either just don't use the applications or I suffer through them because it is something I absolutely need. Fortunately the latter is quite rare. OS X has enough native software available that there is usually a native Cocoa alternative. Same with Linux, strangely enough.
You're using them on Windows, right? On a Mac, and to a lesser extent Linux, SWT and Swing both suck ass. I refuse to use any Java app unless it uses Cocoa.
Anyway, I didn't mean to imply that GWT was actually like SWT. I just meant that it was an (clunky, IMO) alternative UI tookit
I disagree with your assertion. I often use lynx (a text-only browser) to access sites, both internal to my company and externally. Sometimes when you are connected via an SSH connection, console is all you have.
Although I have done this, it was more out of convenience (to find/download a patch or piece of software). I could have just as easily have used my load web browser to find the URL and then use fetch/curl/wget to download it. No big deal. I can't imagine why you need lynx as your primary web browser.
It is not that difficult to make a very basic site that allows for at least a minimal level of functionality to a text-based user.
Depends on the site. I can imagine a site with a lot of content that would be terribly difficult to reformat into a text-friendly version. And for what? The.001% of vistors using text based browsers? The only valid argument against Javascript I've heard concerns disabled users with screen readers and such.
I think the policy of graceful degradation has gone way too far when it comes to the web. I think it is just fine to assume a client has Javascript. Javascript is far too valuable when it comes to writing sophisticated web apps to work without it. It multiplies the workload on coders and it dumbs down the applications. And for what? Cell phones with an incomplete web browser? The 1% of users who are too paranoid to allow Javascript? Screw 'em. If they want to cripple their browsing experience, that is their business. Why should everyone else suffer?
Of course, i depends on the application. There are cases (most cases?) when Javascript really does nothing but add "flare" to a site which would otherwise work fine without JS. But then there are some apps which actually leverage JS to work around the significant limitations of HTML/HTTP. The latter is becoming more and more common.
You humans are so damn conceited. First, you think you are the center of the universe. Once that idea gets blown to bits you go and think yourselves some kind of intergalactic delicacy. Face it, you humans are the nutritional equivilent of a Big Mac (you are what you eat). Sure, you're tasty, but we're not goign to travel more than a parsec or two to get one.
I see Blu-Ray failing at least in part because it has an inappropriate name. People love acronyms and half of HD-DVD is already recognizable. I know it sounds kinda dumb, but I just can't imagine people saying something like "Hey Joe, I just got Star Wars, Episode I on Blu-Ray..." Aside from SW-I being an aweful movie, that is.
WTF is wrong with you people? I said "for example" and you respond to me like I made an absolute claim about the one thing that a new format needs to have. I didn't know that BD had anti-scratch coating. Either way, it was just an example of something they could do to make it more attractive to consumers. We'll see if it is enough. I know I'm not running out to buy Blu-Ray or HD-DVD in the forseable future. But I don't even have HDTV...
But DVD is/was a singular format. Its uptake was just a matter of time. HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are competing. Nobody knows which one to invest in. That combined with the small leap in technology and absolutely no added convenience for consumers... well, the whole thing just stalls. Probably until someone comes out with a format that is actually more convenient than DVD. Like something that doesn't scratch, for example.
The author was specifically referring to Blu-Ray and HD-DVD as mediums for delivery... not HD in general. Obviously, if people don't have to do anything or buy anything extra to use HD content there won't be a problem getting them to buy it.
I believe that was covered in reason #3 regarding quantum leaps in technology.
-matthew
Re:And this is indeed a serious problem with EBay.
on
How to Win on Ebay: Snipe
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
It isn't that simple. You assume that everyone else is going to put in their absolute max right from the start. That doesn't happen. Many people are going to try to get an item for less than it is worth to me (or them). So I let them think they are going to get it for a steal and then swoop in and take it for *less* than if I had put in my abs. max bid from teh start. This is especially effective if the item is used and there is no commonly accepted value for an item.
And even if I don't save money, i'd rather have an item for $121 than not have it at $120. I realize that this would be a bad strategy in a real auction, but eBay isn't a real auction.
You don't get it. In your example, count the number n of $1 increments you'd be willing to iteratively make to secure the item. Initially bid $100 + n instead of $100.
Why would I do that when i could sit back and wait for others to get the bids up to a reasonable level, and then snipe at the very last second with a bid of +$1? I used it do it the way you suggest and I would lose auctions all the time. Then i figured out that, on eBay, the only part of an auction that really matters is that last minute. Everything else is just a waste of time and unnecessarily raised the highest bid. If there are only a couple people bidding, you can easily *save* money by sniping. It works.
If you bid any other way at an auction, then you'll just end up overpaying. If you go to $101, then will you go to $103 when the other guy bids again? And then $105? $107? How long will you keep going "just a little bit higher"? Soon you're at $150 instead of $100. IF that's how high you would go, then you should have gone that far in the first place.
But if you are a sniper on eBay, $101 is as much as you will spend because there is no time to bid more even if you wanted to. I've done it several times. If eBay were actually like real auctions, your advice would be spot on. But the reality is that eBay auctions are not like real auctions. You CAN get a $100 item for $101 without risking going from up to $150 by sniping.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll only mod this insightful if you can say you feel the same way about criminalization of drugs. Oh wait, now I can't mod. Damn!
-matthew
Are you saying that Windows users are like cold-blooded animals? Because if you are, I might just agree with you.
-matthew
Not only are they going to force many people buy a legal copy of XP, but they are doing it just months (well, maybe) before it is "obsoleted" by Vista. So that many users will hopefully pay AGAIN to upgrade to Vista when it comes out. And they will see a spike in revenues and hopefully their stock value along with it. Clever.
Although I think this coudl backfire on them. If people just bought XP, I doubt they will be too keen on buying another copy of Windows, thus slowing the overall adoption of Vista.
-matthew
What better way to separate church and state than to get people to excercise their right to remove the Religion line item from their tax return? Eventually the government will take the hint.
-matthew
Somehow Java developers seem to be immune to the awefulness that is SWT/Swing. Maybe they spend so much time using the Java developer tools that they just don't notice (or care) anymore. Ever notice how almost all of the examples of "great" Java UIs are developer tools? Anytime I bring my distaste for Java UI's, Java apologists inevitably mention Ecplipse and Netbeans... and maybe Azureus, but then they concede that Azureus is a pretty clunky.
Anyway, I've complained enough. I'll just leave you with a quote that I think sums up my feelings: "Saying Java is good because it works on all platforms is like saying anal sex is good because it works on all genders."
-matthew
While I haven't used Eclipse proper on my Mac, I have used RadRails (Ecplise based) and it was unusable as far as I am concerned. And I ditched that bloated, ugly piece of crap Azureus not too long ago.
I think you need to be a Java developer to actually like Java UIs. Besides look and feel, there are also OS integration issues with Java apps. For example, I had a heck of a time getting Azureus to load a torrent file when I double clicked on it (the torrent file). I never did get it to work right.
But certainly you've heard many other people such as myself complain about Swing? I know I'm not expressing some fringe opinion here. And I am not a "Cocoa fanboy." Java UIs are notorious for being clunky.
I wonder how many simply aren't using your applications because they use Swing. I usually don't waste my time complaining to developers about their choice in tools. (unless it is slashdot where such is the norm) I either just don't use the applications or I suffer through them because it is something I absolutely need. Fortunately the latter is quite rare. OS X has enough native software available that there is usually a native Cocoa alternative. Same with Linux, strangely enough.
-matthew
You're using them on Windows, right? On a Mac, and to a lesser extent Linux, SWT and Swing both suck ass. I refuse to use any Java app unless it uses Cocoa.
Anyway, I didn't mean to imply that GWT was actually like SWT. I just meant that it was an (clunky, IMO) alternative UI tookit
-matthew
They can't pronounce the "d". They have trouble with "r" as well. They drive cahs. Wicket awesome cahs.
-matthew
In New England, "wicked" isn't just for 14-year olds. ;-)
-matthew
No, if he was from Mass. it would have been written "Wicket"
Although I have done this, it was more out of convenience (to find/download a patch or piece of software). I could have just as easily have used my load web browser to find the URL and then use fetch/curl/wget to download it. No big deal. I can't imagine why you need lynx as your primary web browser.
Depends on the site. I can imagine a site with a lot of content that would be terribly difficult to reformat into a text-friendly version. And for what? The
-matthew
I think the policy of graceful degradation has gone way too far when it comes to the web. I think it is just fine to assume a client has Javascript. Javascript is far too valuable when it comes to writing sophisticated web apps to work without it. It multiplies the workload on coders and it dumbs down the applications. And for what? Cell phones with an incomplete web browser? The 1% of users who are too paranoid to allow Javascript? Screw 'em. If they want to cripple their browsing experience, that is their business. Why should everyone else suffer?
Of course, i depends on the application. There are cases (most cases?) when Javascript really does nothing but add "flare" to a site which would otherwise work fine without JS. But then there are some apps which actually leverage JS to work around the significant limitations of HTML/HTTP. The latter is becoming more and more common.
-matthew
Using GWT is far closer to developing with Swing or SWT than the usual experience of Web application development,
As if GUIs in Swing or SWT weren't slow and clunky enough. Now Java developers have a slower and clunkier alternative. Yay!
-matthew
You humans are so damn conceited. First, you think you are the center of the universe. Once that idea gets blown to bits you go and think yourselves some kind of intergalactic delicacy. Face it, you humans are the nutritional equivilent of a Big Mac (you are what you eat). Sure, you're tasty, but we're not goign to travel more than a parsec or two to get one.
I see Blu-Ray failing at least in part because it has an inappropriate name. People love acronyms and half of HD-DVD is already recognizable. I know it sounds kinda dumb, but I just can't imagine people saying something like "Hey Joe, I just got Star Wars, Episode I on Blu-Ray..." Aside from SW-I being an aweful movie, that is.
-matthew
WTF is wrong with you people? I said "for example" and you respond to me like I made an absolute claim about the one thing that a new format needs to have. I didn't know that BD had anti-scratch coating. Either way, it was just an example of something they could do to make it more attractive to consumers. We'll see if it is enough. I know I'm not running out to buy Blu-Ray or HD-DVD in the forseable future. But I don't even have HDTV...
-matthew
Oh give me a break. I wasn't saying that DVD's uptake was inevitable simply because it was a singular format. Don't be an ass.
-matthew
But DVD is/was a singular format. Its uptake was just a matter of time. HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are competing. Nobody knows which one to invest in. That combined with the small leap in technology and absolutely no added convenience for consumers... well, the whole thing just stalls. Probably until someone comes out with a format that is actually more convenient than DVD. Like something that doesn't scratch, for example.
-matthew
The author was specifically referring to Blu-Ray and HD-DVD as mediums for delivery... not HD in general. Obviously, if people don't have to do anything or buy anything extra to use HD content there won't be a problem getting them to buy it.
-matthew
I believe that was covered in reason #3 regarding quantum leaps in technology.
-matthew
It isn't that simple. You assume that everyone else is going to put in their absolute max right from the start. That doesn't happen. Many people are going to try to get an item for less than it is worth to me (or them). So I let them think they are going to get it for a steal and then swoop in and take it for *less* than if I had put in my abs. max bid from teh start. This is especially effective if the item is used and there is no commonly accepted value for an item.
And even if I don't save money, i'd rather have an item for $121 than not have it at $120. I realize that this would be a bad strategy in a real auction, but eBay isn't a real auction.
-matthew
Great strategy... if you don't actually want to buy anything on ebay.
-matthew
Why would I do that when i could sit back and wait for others to get the bids up to a reasonable level, and then snipe at the very last second with a bid of +$1? I used it do it the way you suggest and I would lose auctions all the time. Then i figured out that, on eBay, the only part of an auction that really matters is that last minute. Everything else is just a waste of time and unnecessarily raised the highest bid. If there are only a couple people bidding, you can easily *save* money by sniping. It works.
-matthew
But if you are a sniper on eBay, $101 is as much as you will spend because there is no time to bid more even if you wanted to. I've done it several times. If eBay were actually like real auctions, your advice would be spot on. But the reality is that eBay auctions are not like real auctions. You CAN get a $100 item for $101 without risking going from up to $150 by sniping.
-matthew
In relation to eBay it means "an approximation of the highest amount you are willing to pay."
-matthew