And forget about another glaring weakness of the GIMP... lack of support for Pantone colors, which will never be remedied, since that'd require paying patent licensing fees. Still, incredibly useful
If they would drop support for non-scalable fonts, it would be a lot easier to do what PS does.
Photoshop allows for editable type using both Type 1 and TrueType ("scalable") fonts.
As for your beef about photoshop... The conspiratory theorist in me would say that they remain separate to generate extra revenues... But in the end, i think that they're two separate tools with two separate markets that overlap a lot. Simply integrating type layers into photoshop though kills off a lot of the need to go to illustrator (in my world). I also think that Photoshop would turn into a huge mess if they merged illustrators functionality into it. You'd have a huge selection of tools that only worked in one mode or another , or on one layer or another. Ditto for plug-ins and filters.
Don't blame Intel on that... blame the vendor of whatever OS you happen to be using... Though, from what i've heard, BeOS boots within 10 or 15 seconds and Mac OS X is supposedly going to power right on up as well, so it's doable.
Couldn't an OS take a hardware inventory and mirror its ram to disk on shutdown, then at startup, if the BIOS didn't report any changes to the hardware configuration, simply load the last memory image and forget about have to go through the entire boot process?
And what about the ones that find a vulnerability, and then post a script to exploit it while giving the vendor just a few days or a week of notice? Let alone posting the script prior to notifying the vendor at all...
To me, tampering with a webserver is just as bad as tampering with a mail relay, but around here, (to paraphrase)it's: "the admin's fault if his web server's cracked, the script kiddie was just pointing out a weakness in the security of the site, oh but it's the spammers fault so we should lock them up and fine them and feed them to the alligators".
It's all one and the same. There shouldn't be different standards set depending on which port a hacker or cracker happens to connect to.
Last i knew, they had somewhere in the whereabouts of 35-50% of the consumer PC market... But they're not much of a blip on the radar so far as the corporate desktop goes, workstation market, or server market... They've made an impressive showing so far, but it remains to be seen if they'll actually topple Intel, or co-exist with them.
That'd probably result in the users who installed those pluggin's getting their accounts suspended. Spammers use email to advertise their products. A plug in as you described would simply create annoyance.
How come, according to slashdot, spammers are evil and need to be made an example of, yet website hackers, "security consultants" and the like actually deserve protect, under the guise that all they're doing is pointing out vulnerabilities and providing tools to expedite process of the vendor releasing a patch?
Ermmmmm... that's all fine and dandy, but do you think that that's his real name? Do you think that all those pitchmen you see on late night informercials are actually legally named as who they appear as? So, in essense, if it makes you feel like you're doing something constructive, fine. But you're not making one iota of difference for your cause.
The point is that they don't need to pay a cent to co-opt the entire linux communities work... They just need to go to ftp.redhat.com for starters... It's not like they need to fork over a check in order to license or buy the source code... it's all their, ready for the taking....
They couldn't do much to make binaries that run on MS Linux incompatible with ELF binaries without rewriting portions of the kernel. Any kernel changes are covered by the GPL and would be patched (and not accepted into the official tree, making it expensive for MS to keep their changes up to date).
Just thought i'd point out that:
A - cost isn't an object. They've got billions stashed aside.
B - Manhours aren't either. IF they switched to linux kernel based operating system, they could lay off half their Windows developement staff and dispatch a quarter of those remaining to keep track of kernel changes and merge their changes back into their copy of the source tree... They wouldn't need to be completely synced with each minor revision (2.2.8, 2.2.9, et al), just once in a while, when a new major kernel arrives (2.2, 2.4) they could merge their changes back into it...
They've got the least to lose from devoting major man power to the project, because in the end, if they wanted, they could have their distro preinstalled on all PC's and be guarenteed a nice sized return on investment, contrary to just about any other company out there....
As far as i knew, Microsoft doesn't need saving... Even with the stock market hoopla of the past few months, they've been hit much less hard than many other companies out there (AOL, Apple, Dell, Gateway, Intel, Redhat, VA Linux). Well, not really, but they took their drubbing right after the anti-trust case and since then have lost very little ground in comparisson to the rest of the industry that began their plummet around the time of the anti-trust case and have continued to fall through the floor ever since then.
Plus, they're still sitting on piles upon piles of cash and investments...
Basically, this means that radio stations have
to be pay an additional fee to broadcast over the Internet, as well as their current payment for "on-air" broadcasting.
That may be the case, but most of them will probably be able to work out a deal of sorts... What it really means, and how it'll effect a lot more people, is that internet only webcasters will now need to pay once rather than not pay at all. Guess there won't be any pirate radio stations on the internet, then...
These chips aren't destined to compete with low end servers (such as dual P3's) for quite some time. And once you move past the Pentium architecture, you'll start seeing more RAM sockets. The reason that manufacturers don't include as many DIMM sockets as you'd like is because of the 32 bitness of x86. There's just not any point, since you can't address more than a very finite limit in the first place.
Try looking over the specs of some of the larger machines manufactured by IBM, Compaq, Sun, and SGI, because the markets that those computers live in is where Itanium based machines are headed, not your desktop. Still think that a 4 GB ceiling potentially lacks practicallity?
Anytime you need to have random access to a file larger than 4 GB, you'll speed up your seek time incredibly if it's in memory, rather than having to watch all of your disk lights flicker while the drives go hunting for your data.
64 bit address space is probably overkill for most non-back office applications, but even some light duty appliances could benefit from it. Webservers could run that many more processes and individiual caches. File servers can buffer more of a file to memory while performing copies. And lastly, where they're already used mostly today is in running large databases... The more of your data you can keep in RAM, the faster the performance will be for the end user.
I don't believe that people here are riled up about the FBI using their legal powers in the course of a criminal investigation. Oh no... They're circumventing the (growing) use of PGP. Sorry, but if they just sat back and ignored encrypted messages, soon that's all anyone would ever transmit, making it a real pain if not impossible to track down culprits.
Isn't this what everyone wanted? Rather than using Carnivore which could possible read every email and report on every web page coming down the wire, the FBI snuck into the suspects home, and bugged just his computer. That's a good thing, right? Because if it's shown that they can do that, it can be more clearly shown why they do not need a system like Carnivore. Carnivore's useless (as far as i know) as far as encrypted network traffic goes.
in the end, they "violated" one persons privacy rather than potentially violated everyone's privacy that happened to use the same ISP as him. Privacy laws can only go so far. And i think they should stop short of impeding criminal investigations...
OKay, since that's cleared up... I guess it was just in the beginning of multimonitor support that Windows needed two of the same type card, both PCI versions, even though AGP was out, correct? They've fixed that then...
Now, my next question, which is based on something i witnessed once in my life. When you maximize a window on a Windows machine with two displays, does it still spread itself across both of the displays? Or does it behave more mac like and just maximize it across the diplay where it's currently located?
I can see how those would be *really* hard to figure out if you need them or not. Not like Windows even lets you have that hope... Move a DLL out of the Windows folder? The registry isn't aware of that and your programs crash when they look for it. ANd how would you even know which DLL's to take out, for trouble shooting purposes? They're all named in 8.3 conventions, even in NT, when fat32 and ntfs support longer, more detailed file names.
Even from the Linux perspective, navigating the Extensions folder on a Mac is generally much more insightful than building a kernel with make xmenuconfig... I swear, i don't know what 40 or 50% of the options there mean, and a lot of the help screens don't yeild much more valuable information.
I remember on my first mac, i found some program that would imbue upon the finder the ability to draw windows 3 dimensionally... Alas, it did it in the harshest possible way, by overwriting the (i believe it was, it's been a while) WDEF resource with one of it's own, and without saving a backup.
I made a copy of the finder, opened it in resedit, deleted the new resource, moved the old one out of my system folder, renamed the finder copy back to finder, restarted, only to be greeted by a sad mac set against a black screen... Thank good for boot disks, but the finder on those only had black and white window borders, no system 7 greys....
Or Apple-made Nubus machines. Who knows what the perfomance of the machines will be, given the overhead that Aqua must take up... And only the 7100 and 8100 have enough actually memory capacity to run OS X in Apple's "recommended" minimum configuration.
Still, though, I've got a 7100 sitting on the shelf here, unused in years. It still has it's VideoVision Studio capture card, so occassionally i start it up if i need that. But it'd be rather amusing to run OS X on that defunct old machine... And thanks to Darwin, it could happen.
Mac's do it fine with any video card you lay your hands on. Since most between the II, IIx, IIfx and the G3's, G4's and 9500 all had built in video, adding a video card meant you could either add a monitor or use the video card instead. And for mac's that didn't have expansion slots, you could run a display off the SCSI port thanks to a little adapter.
The point being you don't need to worry about the cards or anything. Just plug it in, it goes. (Most) Windows display cards that can do multiple monitor support cost MUCH more than just buying two run of the mill cards.
Okay, i admit, i've not used KDE. My only knowledge about it is based on screen shots i've seen. I do use Gnome, and i haven't yet had much incentive to try KDE.... This may actually be enough for me to give it a whirl, though.:)
I wish i could figure out enough C or whatever it'd take to make GNOME put a windows menu's across the top of the screen, replacing the menus available according to which window was actually in focus.
There really is no need to have all of your windows have their own menu's, so far as i can tell... You can only access one windows menu at a time. And maybe, just maybe, if Microsoft, Helix, or KDE would start putting their menu's in the same locations, developers would start making their menus more consistant with one another...
One can dream, but it's never going to happen unless someone enforces upon developers a little rigidity. Microsoft won't. KDE and GNOME can't.
Kind of shows that you've never actually touched a Mac... The mac's been customizable forever... Apple's even included hooks, a la, the appearance manager, to make it easier for developers to do. But programs like Kaleidescope, which gave Mac's the ability to change their Windows looks and behaviors to match that of NextStep, Win3.1, Win95, BeOS, Motif, et al, have existed for a while. Programs like GoMac let you put a start button on your desktop, just like in Windows. You could even (i forgot the name of the extension) have it display it's start up sequence DOS stile, if you wanted...
Running all 3 of those would completely piss off the network admins at one of my last jobs... They'ed make it a point to stop by my desk once a week just to see "what Lucas had done to his computer this week".
All that's happening now is apples releasing a new OS which lacks some features which users really enjoyed. So, said users are readding those features like they always have. Darwin isn't making this possible. Open source isn't making this possible. It's always been possible. And it's always been done.
I don't see how a system set up where each vote has equal say, regardless of which state it's in, could possibly not make each vote worth more. Like i said, i live in massachusetts. 66% of my state voted Gore. Disregarding everything else, the 1/6th that voted Bush and the 1/6th who voted Nader's voices weren't heard at all, because all of Massachusetts' votes go to Gore, rather than being cast in proportion to how the populace voted.
Likewise, i'm sure there were some Gore supporters in Texas, who's voices were blocked out by the overwhelming majority who voted for Dubya.
The whole phenomena of people trading their votes on the internet arose only because of the electoral college. If peoples votes mattered just as much no matter where they lived, there wouldn't need to be any form of vote trading even being thought of.
Let's set up a hypothetical. In my state, with X electoral votes, you can vote for a Democrat, a Republican, or third party. My state is largely Democratic, so it is practically guaranteed that the Democrat will take the state. If I vote Democratic, my vote is worth something, in that it is part of the X electoral votes that are cast in favor of the Democratic canditate (usually, there generally isn't (and shouldn't be) anything binding the electors to vote as the popular vote goes). If it were a direct election, my vote would be worth much less, because it is now only 1 voice out of however many voted, rather than part of a collective that speaks for me, but also for everyone else in my state who either voted differently than I did or didn't vote at all.
I don't see how your example makes your vote count less... The only votes which would end up being "counted less" according to your theory, are the votes which weren't cast. And yes, prior to this election i refused to register for many a year, and i accepted that. We shouldn't rig a system to protect people who can't be bothered with voting.
And i don't think that ridding the country of the EC would decrease campaigning in the "swing states". In my opinion, as i alaready stated, I think it'd make for much more campaigning all across the coutry, because candidates would literally be going after each and every vote which they could. Yes, more people are concentrated in states like New York and California, but it's also much more expensive to reach those audiences compared to the same sized populations spread across the midwest.
Right now, presidential hopefuls spend MUCH more time campaigning in the big states iwth the most electoral votes, because the states are winner take all. And they completely neglect the states wihch they know they won't win for the same reason. get rid of the electoral college and you'll have hopefuls campaigning across the country, rather than trying to appeal to the greatest possible audience. In my opinion. Which is opposite of yours.
Slashdot Mirror
And forget about another glaring weakness of the GIMP... lack of support for Pantone colors, which will never be remedied, since that'd require paying patent licensing fees. Still, incredibly useful
If they would drop support for non-scalable fonts, it would be a lot easier to do what PS does.
Photoshop allows for editable type using both Type 1 and TrueType ("scalable") fonts.
As for your beef about photoshop... The conspiratory theorist in me would say that they remain separate to generate extra revenues... But in the end, i think that they're two separate tools with two separate markets that overlap a lot. Simply integrating type layers into photoshop though kills off a lot of the need to go to illustrator (in my world). I also think that Photoshop would turn into a huge mess if they merged illustrators functionality into it. You'd have a huge selection of tools that only worked in one mode or another , or on one layer or another. Ditto for plug-ins and filters.
Don't blame Intel on that... blame the vendor of whatever OS you happen to be using... Though, from what i've heard, BeOS boots within 10 or 15 seconds and Mac OS X is supposedly going to power right on up as well, so it's doable.
Couldn't an OS take a hardware inventory and mirror its ram to disk on shutdown, then at startup, if the BIOS didn't report any changes to the hardware configuration, simply load the last memory image and forget about have to go through the entire boot process?
And what about the ones that find a vulnerability, and then post a script to exploit it while giving the vendor just a few days or a week of notice? Let alone posting the script prior to notifying the vendor at all...
To me, tampering with a webserver is just as bad as tampering with a mail relay, but around here, (to paraphrase)it's: "the admin's fault if his web server's cracked, the script kiddie was just pointing out a weakness in the security of the site, oh but it's the spammers fault so we should lock them up and fine them and feed them to the alligators".
It's all one and the same. There shouldn't be different standards set depending on which port a hacker or cracker happens to connect to.
Last i knew, they had somewhere in the whereabouts of 35-50% of the consumer PC market... But they're not much of a blip on the radar so far as the corporate desktop goes, workstation market, or server market... They've made an impressive showing so far, but it remains to be seen if they'll actually topple Intel, or co-exist with them.
That'd probably result in the users who installed those pluggin's getting their accounts suspended. Spammers use email to advertise their products. A plug in as you described would simply create annoyance.
How come, according to slashdot, spammers are evil and need to be made an example of, yet website hackers, "security consultants" and the like actually deserve protect, under the guise that all they're doing is pointing out vulnerabilities and providing tools to expedite process of the vendor releasing a patch?
Ermmmmm... that's all fine and dandy, but do you think that that's his real name? Do you think that all those pitchmen you see on late night informercials are actually legally named as who they appear as? So, in essense, if it makes you feel like you're doing something constructive, fine. But you're not making one iota of difference for your cause.
So basically, you're saying that there's no hope for home/casual users?
The point is that they don't need to pay a cent to co-opt the entire linux communities work... They just need to go to ftp.redhat.com for starters... It's not like they need to fork over a check in order to license or buy the source code... it's all their, ready for the taking....
They couldn't do much to make binaries that run on MS Linux incompatible with ELF binaries without rewriting portions of the kernel. Any kernel changes are covered by the GPL and would be patched (and not accepted into the official tree, making it expensive for MS to keep their changes up to date).
Just thought i'd point out that:
A - cost isn't an object. They've got billions stashed aside.
B - Manhours aren't either. IF they switched to linux kernel based operating system, they could lay off half their Windows developement staff and dispatch a quarter of those remaining to keep track of kernel changes and merge their changes back into their copy of the source tree... They wouldn't need to be completely synced with each minor revision (2.2.8, 2.2.9, et al), just once in a while, when a new major kernel arrives (2.2, 2.4) they could merge their changes back into it...
They've got the least to lose from devoting major man power to the project, because in the end, if they wanted, they could have their distro preinstalled on all PC's and be guarenteed a nice sized return on investment, contrary to just about any other company out there....
As far as i knew, Microsoft doesn't need saving... Even with the stock market hoopla of the past few months, they've been hit much less hard than many other companies out there (AOL, Apple, Dell, Gateway, Intel, Redhat, VA Linux). Well, not really, but they took their drubbing right after the anti-trust case and since then have lost very little ground in comparisson to the rest of the industry that began their plummet around the time of the anti-trust case and have continued to fall through the floor ever since then.
Plus, they're still sitting on piles upon piles of cash and investments...
They're sure to be here for a while...
Basically, this means that radio stations have
to be pay an additional fee to broadcast over the Internet, as well as their current payment for "on-air" broadcasting.
That may be the case, but most of them will probably be able to work out a deal of sorts... What it really means, and how it'll effect a lot more people, is that internet only webcasters will now need to pay once rather than not pay at all. Guess there won't be any pirate radio stations on the internet, then...
I'd be far more interested in what's actually powering those satelites... anyone know?
These chips aren't destined to compete with low end servers (such as dual P3's) for quite some time. And once you move past the Pentium architecture, you'll start seeing more RAM sockets. The reason that manufacturers don't include as many DIMM sockets as you'd like is because of the 32 bitness of x86. There's just not any point, since you can't address more than a very finite limit in the first place.
Try looking over the specs of some of the larger machines manufactured by IBM, Compaq, Sun, and SGI, because the markets that those computers live in is where Itanium based machines are headed, not your desktop. Still think that a 4 GB ceiling potentially lacks practicallity?
Anytime you need to have random access to a file larger than 4 GB, you'll speed up your seek time incredibly if it's in memory, rather than having to watch all of your disk lights flicker while the drives go hunting for your data.
64 bit address space is probably overkill for most non-back office applications, but even some light duty appliances could benefit from it. Webservers could run that many more processes and individiual caches. File servers can buffer more of a file to memory while performing copies. And lastly, where they're already used mostly today is in running large databases... The more of your data you can keep in RAM, the faster the performance will be for the end user.
I don't believe that people here are riled up about the FBI using their legal powers in the course of a criminal investigation. Oh no... They're circumventing the (growing) use of PGP. Sorry, but if they just sat back and ignored encrypted messages, soon that's all anyone would ever transmit, making it a real pain if not impossible to track down culprits.
Isn't this what everyone wanted? Rather than using Carnivore which could possible read every email and report on every web page coming down the wire, the FBI snuck into the suspects home, and bugged just his computer. That's a good thing, right? Because if it's shown that they can do that, it can be more clearly shown why they do not need a system like Carnivore. Carnivore's useless (as far as i know) as far as encrypted network traffic goes.
in the end, they "violated" one persons privacy rather than potentially violated everyone's privacy that happened to use the same ISP as him. Privacy laws can only go so far. And i think they should stop short of impeding criminal investigations...
OKay, since that's cleared up... I guess it was just in the beginning of multimonitor support that Windows needed two of the same type card, both PCI versions, even though AGP was out, correct? They've fixed that then...
Now, my next question, which is based on something i witnessed once in my life. When you maximize a window on a Windows machine with two displays, does it still spread itself across both of the displays? Or does it behave more mac like and just maximize it across the diplay where it's currently located?
Why, because they name their extensions with english sounding names?
Hmmmmmmm?
TCP/IP
Sound Manager
Speech Manager
QuickTime
QuickDraw 3D
LaserWriter 8
File Sharing Extension
AppleShare
Appearance Manager
I can see how those would be *really* hard to figure out if you need them or not. Not like Windows even lets you have that hope... Move a DLL out of the Windows folder? The registry isn't aware of that and your programs crash when they look for it. ANd how would you even know which DLL's to take out, for trouble shooting purposes? They're all named in 8.3 conventions, even in NT, when fat32 and ntfs support longer, more detailed file names.
Even from the Linux perspective, navigating the Extensions folder on a Mac is generally much more insightful than building a kernel with make xmenuconfig... I swear, i don't know what 40 or 50% of the options there mean, and a lot of the help screens don't yeild much more valuable information.
I remember on my first mac, i found some program that would imbue upon the finder the ability to draw windows 3 dimensionally... Alas, it did it in the harshest possible way, by overwriting the (i believe it was, it's been a while) WDEF resource with one of it's own, and without saving a backup.
I made a copy of the finder, opened it in resedit, deleted the new resource, moved the old one out of my system folder, renamed the finder copy back to finder, restarted, only to be greeted by a sad mac set against a black screen... Thank good for boot disks, but the finder on those only had black and white window borders, no system 7 greys....
Or Apple-made Nubus machines. Who knows what the perfomance of the machines will be, given the overhead that Aqua must take up... And only the 7100 and 8100 have enough actually memory capacity to run OS X in Apple's "recommended" minimum configuration.
Still, though, I've got a 7100 sitting on the shelf here, unused in years. It still has it's VideoVision Studio capture card, so occassionally i start it up if i need that. But it'd be rather amusing to run OS X on that defunct old machine... And thanks to Darwin, it could happen.
Mac's do it fine with any video card you lay your hands on. Since most between the II, IIx, IIfx and the G3's, G4's and 9500 all had built in video, adding a video card meant you could either add a monitor or use the video card instead. And for mac's that didn't have expansion slots, you could run a display off the SCSI port thanks to a little adapter.
The point being you don't need to worry about the cards or anything. Just plug it in, it goes. (Most) Windows display cards that can do multiple monitor support cost MUCH more than just buying two run of the mill cards.
Okay, i admit, i've not used KDE. My only knowledge about it is based on screen shots i've seen. I do use Gnome, and i haven't yet had much incentive to try KDE.... This may actually be enough for me to give it a whirl, though. :)
Thanks!
Why?
I wish i could figure out enough C or whatever it'd take to make GNOME put a windows menu's across the top of the screen, replacing the menus available according to which window was actually in focus.
There really is no need to have all of your windows have their own menu's, so far as i can tell... You can only access one windows menu at a time. And maybe, just maybe, if Microsoft, Helix, or KDE would start putting their menu's in the same locations, developers would start making their menus more consistant with one another...
One can dream, but it's never going to happen unless someone enforces upon developers a little rigidity. Microsoft won't. KDE and GNOME can't.
Kind of shows that you've never actually touched a Mac... The mac's been customizable forever... Apple's even included hooks, a la, the appearance manager, to make it easier for developers to do. But programs like Kaleidescope, which gave Mac's the ability to change their Windows looks and behaviors to match that of NextStep, Win3.1, Win95, BeOS, Motif, et al, have existed for a while. Programs like GoMac let you put a start button on your desktop, just like in Windows. You could even (i forgot the name of the extension) have it display it's start up sequence DOS stile, if you wanted...
Running all 3 of those would completely piss off the network admins at one of my last jobs... They'ed make it a point to stop by my desk once a week just to see "what Lucas had done to his computer this week".
All that's happening now is apples releasing a new OS which lacks some features which users really enjoyed. So, said users are readding those features like they always have. Darwin isn't making this possible. Open source isn't making this possible. It's always been possible. And it's always been done.
I don't see how a system set up where each vote has equal say, regardless of which state it's in, could possibly not make each vote worth more. Like i said, i live in massachusetts. 66% of my state voted Gore. Disregarding everything else, the 1/6th that voted Bush and the 1/6th who voted Nader's voices weren't heard at all, because all of Massachusetts' votes go to Gore, rather than being cast in proportion to how the populace voted.
Likewise, i'm sure there were some Gore supporters in Texas, who's voices were blocked out by the overwhelming majority who voted for Dubya.
The whole phenomena of people trading their votes on the internet arose only because of the electoral college. If peoples votes mattered just as much no matter where they lived, there wouldn't need to be any form of vote trading even being thought of.
Let's set up a hypothetical. In my state, with X electoral votes, you can vote for a Democrat, a Republican, or third party. My state is largely Democratic, so it is practically guaranteed that the Democrat will take the state. If I vote Democratic, my vote is worth something, in that it is part of the X electoral votes that are cast in favor of the Democratic canditate (usually, there generally isn't (and shouldn't be) anything binding the electors to vote as the popular vote goes). If it were a direct election, my vote would be worth much less, because it is now only 1 voice out of however many voted, rather than part of a collective that speaks for me, but also for everyone else in my state who either voted differently than I did or didn't vote at all.
I don't see how your example makes your vote count less... The only votes which would end up being "counted less" according to your theory, are the votes which weren't cast. And yes, prior to this election i refused to register for many a year, and i accepted that. We shouldn't rig a system to protect people who can't be bothered with voting.
And i don't think that ridding the country of the EC would decrease campaigning in the "swing states". In my opinion, as i alaready stated, I think it'd make for much more campaigning all across the coutry, because candidates would literally be going after each and every vote which they could. Yes, more people are concentrated in states like New York and California, but it's also much more expensive to reach those audiences compared to the same sized populations spread across the midwest.
Right now, presidential hopefuls spend MUCH more time campaigning in the big states iwth the most electoral votes, because the states are winner take all. And they completely neglect the states wihch they know they won't win for the same reason. get rid of the electoral college and you'll have hopefuls campaigning across the country, rather than trying to appeal to the greatest possible audience. In my opinion. Which is opposite of yours.
:)