I'd wager that a quad processor system, each chip running at 200 MHz, would be much better for Joe PC User, than a single 1 GHz box. Since no single task that the mainstream user performs requires massive processing power (AOL, Word, Netscape), you'd have a system where you could surf, burn CDs, play MP3s, and print to your Winprinter, all without slowing any of the other tasks down.
For the most of your text I agree, but I think you forget one mainstream user activity; gaming. While hardware accelerated gfx cards definitely help, many 3D games need definitely more CPU power than 200 MHz. Surely, using threads could probably help but for now, there are very few games that can make use of more than one CPU, and this would lead to a jerky gaming experience. Other applications would keep running nicely (and the user interface too), but I don't think that the player would appreciate that... (However, I believe that in future games make more use of multiple CPUs and your point approaches validity even when gaming is concerned. )
Last time I checked some statistics, the various variants of Windows ran 95% of the browsers, Mac 4% and "Others" one single percent. Thats Linux, Solaris, BSD etc combined!
More current data, using TheCounter.com statistics give roughly the following percentages:
Win 98: 66.9%
Win 95: 15.0%
Win NT: 7.2%
Win 2000: 3.9%
Unknown: 3.7%
Mac: 2.1%
WebTV: 0.6%
Linux: 0.3%
Unix: 0.2%
Win3.11: 0.2%
OS/2: less than 0.1%
Amiga: less than 0.1%
So your comments are still quite valid; Windows-based machines have about 93% of Web and the about 7% goes to others. Of course statistics like this can't be 100% accurate(Where's Windows ME for example?), but I guess this is resonably close anyway.
Just for a test, I calculated the same stuff from last years data:
Windows 98: 55.5%
Windows 95: 30.7%
Windows NT: 8.5%
Macintosh: 2.1%
Unknown: 1.3%
WebTV: 0.7%
Windows 3.x: 0.6%
Misc. Unix: 0.5%
OS/2: less than 0.1%
Amiga: less than 0.1%
Here the total for Windows comes to about 95%, so it seems that other operating systems have gained a bit during the last year.
(I'm trying to avoid facing the less than interesting studying project that I should start, that's why I bothered to calculate all those fancy numbers;)
For the love of christ all we want is a browser that is fast stable and plays nice with HTML 4 and javascript and SSL. No one gives a fricking hoot about CSS and DOM and supporting them is a complete waste of time. I don't know know if you've been cruising the same internet as me, but NO ONE IS USING CSS.
Well well, how about these little and unimportant sites:
Don't believe the hype that IE is at 80% - recent stats show it has edged up over 85%. The fight is definitely over folks - once Steve Jobs
made IE the default browser on the Mac, the gig was up, there were no popular alternative platforms to exploit (and no, linux doesn't count...yet
IE is current leader and continues to be in the near future, but in the long term, something will replace it, just like it did to Netscape. Whether it's Mozilla, Netscape 6.x or something entirely different that doesn't exist yet is another matter. Very few things settle permanently to some state...
...how many people have actually read the actual articles and base their replies on actual information, not just to "Amiga? That was a nice piece of gaming hardware in 80's and died in early 90's." - level of knowledge.
Somehow most of the replies to the original give me the mental image of a quite small percentage. Whether negative or positive, the feedback should be in my opinion based on relatively up-to-date information. Bashing or blind zealous worship without facts are rather useless when only a few minutes worth of work would be needed to get relatively up-to-date. If someone doesn't bother doing that, she or he probably shouldn't bother to participate in discussion either.
I usually aren't sentimental about non-sentient and man-made things, but somehow the image of being so unbelieveably far from the place of origin and from anything else is quite moving. In addition, it managed to survive far longer than anyone initially expected and gathered far more information than planned. All in all, it deserves respect and a place in the history of space exploration.
But there are still other probes out there, maybe they will even manage to survive as long or longer. I certainly wish so; we won't get anything new so far in near future and there are mysteries like where the influence of sun ends and interstellar space really beings to solve...
Re:On Linux, Java is not yet implemented.
on
Send Some Mo' Zilla
·
· Score: 1
That's from the release notes. Why can't linux users have the fun of crashing with java? We're always left out... pout.
Too bad. Java installation worked nicely in yesterdays nightly build and I don't care much about the milestones myself.;)
It also doesn't understands well Javascripts on some pages I tried.
Note that some of those Javascript problems come from broken scripts that just happens to work with the implementation in NS4.x, IE or both, but not in Mozilla. As far as I know, the implementation in Mozilla/NS6 should be more like the standards than in NS4.x:s. But of course there are still real bugs in Javascript implementation itself, so this doesn't explain everything. I just wanted to note that some troubles aren't really faults of browser, but the scripts itself.
Mozilla isn't ready for primetime. It was painfully slow compared to Konqueror, and it didn't render a page w/ CSS anything like IE or NS4.x does.
Mozilla still has plenty of problems, but one thing it surely does is to beat NS4.x hands down in handling of CSS. I have used both daily for quite a long time and Mozilla displays CSS far better than NS 4.x.
My Linux box crashed today after 56 days of uptime. (Quite mysteriously indeed, I just pressed Shift and boom, the boot texts came immediately but that's not important) I then waited the machine to check quite uncleanly unmounted partitions and when I started irc, my friend MSG'ed me and told that 2.2.17 is out. I had planned to wait until next hardware upgrade to compile the whatever-to-be version of that time, but now I have no uptime to lose!;)
Somehow I almost could think that my machine subtly noticed that 2.2.17 is out and it's really time to upgrade old and buggier 2.2.13, and decided to make the point clear to me.;)
Hear me now, believe me later, Mozilla is a failed project. It's not a useful browser, that is if you do more then read slashdot. Yow want to click on a link on shoutcast and have xmms load? You want Java? You want a browser that doesn't take up more memory then Homer does food at the all you can eat buffet? Then don't use Mozilla. Not now, not ever.
Rather strong claims. I wonder how you are going to know how the Mozilla will develop (or not to develop) in the future. (Aren't the helper applications already working?) As far as Java support goes, please find the relevant entry in Bugzilla for the current situation.
This isn't flamebait. It really isn't. But to say that Mozilla is useful for anything besides light browsing for more then 15 minutes at a time(before it segfaults) is just wishful thinking and sour grapes at IE5.
This is rather strong claim too. Lately I've used mozilla almost exclusively in the work. It crashes about two or three times during the day. If you think that I'm just a rambling Mozilla advocate, please search for the older Mozilla-related articles; I complained myself about the poor stability. However, this area has improved very nicely in the last few months.
Seriously, who used (un)Use(d)Net these days? And a mail client is a useless addition too -- everyone just uses web-based e-mail like HoTMaiL or Yahoo! Mail these days. Strip out all of the crap and just release the important parts -- the browser, the Java Virtual Machine, the plug-in APIs. Enough is enough, AOL./>P>
While I agree with you as far as thinking that those things aren't very important in a browser, you're seriously underestimating the usage of Usenet and non-web - based mails. Quite a few of my friends use web-based mails for non-important stuff, but most of serious mails are send and received via more traditional e-mail accounts.
But right, I think that those programs should be having less priority than the browser.
What a great idea! This could be a whole genre in itself, like classic gaming! Think of the possibilities: Software that slows your computer down so you can see what it would have been like to run Unreal on a 286
Such software already exists; I don't remember URLs now, but many of the old games are rather unplayable without software that slows things down a bit...
If you want full windows functionality, it seems that dual-booting is a smarter option. WINE will prolly never match windows, so what's the point?
Because I don't want to quit everything that I'm running at the moment just to run some application of other operating system? Dual boot would require me to do that, WINE doesn't. True, WINE doesn't run 100% of Windows programs, but then again, there's the comfortability I mentioned earlier...
No. There's no point trying to expand into the rest of solar system until we have proper orbital facilities for science, manufacturing and other operations. We need a permanent large scale presence outside the gravity well. Once that's done, we can get elsewhere with much less effort than launching everything out of atmosphere.
I'm sure that sooner or later in this post the usual argument raises its head: "What real use this has? Astronomy is not an useful science, and the funds should be instead transferred to something sensible and useful!"
I've usually just defended astronomy, but for once I want to be faster than the bashers;)
I'm afraid it's still quite a bit unstable and resource hog. I don't recommend using it as your only browser, but by all means try it out; it's worth it. Occasional annoying bugs and crashes are inevitable, but for most of pages it works well enough and shows great promise. Considering the way it has improved during the spring I'd guess that it's good enough to become my primary browser in early autumn if same trend goes on.
Like the subject: says: I'm interested about tutorials in OpenGL. I know the extreme basics of it, but would be interested in a set of tutorials that would elevate my knowledge a bit.
how is a totally not overclockable chip 'the next 300a'???? do you even read the fucking article? getting a 700mhz chip up to 750mhz is not worth it, not with that bus speed. maybe my p3-600e at 800eb is this next 300a. maybe slashdotters shouldn't be talking about hardware.
Obviously you only read the other article, where the gain wasn't indeed much. But you missed the other one where four 700 MHz and one 650MHz Durons were all successfully overclocked to 950 MHz. That is IMO quite a difference.;)
I feel really angry about this. Bandwidth is an already scarce resource, and for them to waste a full 200GHz for this sort of research seems criminal. As the demand for wireless telecommunications for consumer use continues to boom, it seems crazy that they are devoting such a large slice of the spectrum to what will probably be fruitless research. A small number of astronomers will benefit from this move, at the expense of the rest of the world's population. Does this seem fair or reasonable?
The BBC article says "It is a win for science". This is a very naive attitude. It is a win for astronomy, nothing more. Surely science would benefit more if governments were to fund their scientists properly - astronomy is just a very small branch of science, and is a branch of science which does little to address the world's problems. This is just a token attempt by the governments of the world to try to show their commitment to science.
I beg to differ. First, you can't know beforehand whether there is something useful or interesting to be found or not, because you can't know about things that are yet far off in science. Who would have known about semiconductors 150 years ago? Probably quite a few researches that eventually led to them were doomed as useless, simply because the results couldn't be anticipated until much, much later.
Second, I think that this forces the wireless telecommunications industy to seek new methods, therefore opening some new inventions that wouldn't have probably discovered as soon if everything had gone easily for them.
Re:Red Star Is To Commies As Swastika Is To Nazis
on
Mozilla M16 Released
·
· Score: 1
Don't be too oversensitive to symbolism. The context is important, not the symbols itself. I find it rather hard to find anything common with a browser and a form of goverment system...
Re:Why don't we give this a chance to mirror...
on
Mozilla M16 Released
·
· Score: 1
Every daily for the past 3 weeks, including last night's, has crashed consistently within 10 minutes of running it for me.
Pretty much the same for me with 2.2.13 kernel. I guess the new features included a lot of bugs, which are noew going to be ironed out, or at least tried to. It's been getting a bit better during the last week or so, though.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd wager that a quad processor system, each chip running at 200 MHz, would be much better for Joe PC User, than a single 1 GHz box. Since no single task that the mainstream user performs requires massive processing power (AOL, Word, Netscape), you'd have a system where you could surf, burn CDs, play MP3s, and print to your Winprinter, all without slowing any of the other tasks down.
For the most of your text I agree, but I think you forget one mainstream user activity; gaming. While hardware accelerated gfx cards definitely help, many 3D games need definitely more CPU power than 200 MHz. Surely, using threads could probably help but for now, there are very few games that can make use of more than one CPU, and this would lead to a jerky gaming experience. Other applications would keep running nicely (and the user interface too), but I don't think that the player would appreciate that... (However, I believe that in future games make more use of multiple CPUs and your point approaches validity even when gaming is concerned. )
Last time I checked some statistics, the various variants of Windows ran 95% of the browsers, Mac 4% and "Others" one single percent. Thats Linux, Solaris, BSD etc combined!
More current data, using TheCounter.com statistics give roughly the following percentages:
- Win 98: 66.9%
- Win 95: 15.0%
- Win NT: 7.2%
- Win 2000: 3.9%
- Unknown: 3.7%
- Mac: 2.1%
- WebTV: 0.6%
- Linux: 0.3%
- Unix: 0.2%
- Win3.11: 0.2%
- OS/2: less than 0.1%
- Amiga: less than 0.1%
So your comments are still quite valid; Windows-based machines have about 93% of Web and the about 7% goes to others. Of course statistics like this can't be 100% accurate(Where's Windows ME for example?), but I guess this is resonably close anyway.Just for a test, I calculated the same stuff from last years data:
- Windows 98: 55.5%
- Windows 95: 30.7%
- Windows NT: 8.5%
- Macintosh: 2.1%
- Unknown: 1.3%
- WebTV: 0.7%
- Windows 3.x: 0.6%
- Misc. Unix: 0.5%
- OS/2: less than 0.1%
- Amiga: less than 0.1%
Here the total for Windows comes to about 95%, so it seems that other operating systems have gained a bit during the last year.(I'm trying to avoid facing the less than interesting studying project that I should start, that's why I bothered to calculate all those fancy numbers ;)
For the love of christ all we want is a browser that is fast stable and plays nice with HTML 4 and javascript and SSL. No one gives a fricking hoot about CSS and DOM and supporting them is a complete waste of time. I don't know know if you've been cruising the same internet as me, but NO ONE IS USING CSS.
Well well, how about these little and unimportant sites:
True, CSS isn't utilized everywhere, but it's no longer rare either.
Don't believe the hype that IE is at 80% - recent stats show it has edged up over 85%. The fight is definitely over folks - once Steve Jobs made IE the default browser on the Mac, the gig was up, there were no popular alternative platforms to exploit (and no, linux doesn't count...yet
IE is current leader and continues to be in the near future, but in the long term, something will replace it, just like it did to Netscape. Whether it's Mozilla, Netscape 6.x or something entirely different that doesn't exist yet is another matter. Very few things settle permanently to some state...
...how many people have actually read the actual articles and base their replies on actual information, not just to "Amiga? That was a nice piece of gaming hardware in 80's and died in early 90's." - level of knowledge.
Somehow most of the replies to the original give me the mental image of a quite small percentage. Whether negative or positive, the feedback should be in my opinion based on relatively up-to-date information. Bashing or blind zealous worship without facts are rather useless when only a few minutes worth of work would be needed to get relatively up-to-date. If someone doesn't bother doing that, she or he probably shouldn't bother to participate in discussion either.
I usually aren't sentimental about non-sentient and man-made things, but somehow the image of being so unbelieveably far from the place of origin and from anything else is quite moving. In addition, it managed to survive far longer than anyone initially expected and gathered far more information than planned. All in all, it deserves respect and a place in the history of space exploration.
But there are still other probes out there, maybe they will even manage to survive as long or longer. I certainly wish so; we won't get anything new so far in near future and there are mysteries like where the influence of sun ends and interstellar space really beings to solve...
That's from the release notes. Why can't linux users have the fun of crashing with java? We're always left out... pout.
Too bad. Java installation worked nicely in yesterdays nightly build and I don't care much about the milestones myself. ;)
It also doesn't understands well Javascripts on some pages I tried.
Note that some of those Javascript problems come from broken scripts that just happens to work with the implementation in NS4.x, IE or both, but not in Mozilla. As far as I know, the implementation in Mozilla/NS6 should be more like the standards than in NS4.x:s. But of course there are still real bugs in Javascript implementation itself, so this doesn't explain everything. I just wanted to note that some troubles aren't really faults of browser, but the scripts itself.
Mozilla isn't ready for primetime. It was painfully slow compared to Konqueror, and it didn't render a page w/ CSS anything like IE or NS4.x does.
Mozilla still has plenty of problems, but one thing it surely does is to beat NS4.x hands down in handling of CSS. I have used both daily for quite a long time and Mozilla displays CSS far better than NS 4.x.
My Linux box crashed today after 56 days of uptime. (Quite mysteriously indeed, I just pressed Shift and boom, the boot texts came immediately but that's not important) I then waited the machine to check quite uncleanly unmounted partitions and when I started irc, my friend MSG'ed me and told that 2.2.17 is out. I had planned to wait until next hardware upgrade to compile the whatever-to-be version of that time, but now I have no uptime to lose! ;)
Somehow I almost could think that my machine subtly noticed that 2.2.17 is out and it's really time to upgrade old and buggier 2.2.13, and decided to make the point clear to me. ;)
Hear me now, believe me later, Mozilla is a failed project. It's not a useful browser, that is if you do more then read slashdot. Yow want to click on a link on shoutcast and have xmms load? You want Java? You want a browser that doesn't take up more memory then Homer does food at the all you can eat buffet? Then don't use Mozilla. Not now, not ever.
Rather strong claims. I wonder how you are going to know how the Mozilla will develop (or not to develop) in the future. (Aren't the helper applications already working?) As far as Java support goes, please find the relevant entry in Bugzilla for the current situation.
This isn't flamebait. It really isn't. But to say that Mozilla is useful for anything besides light browsing for more then 15 minutes at a time(before it segfaults) is just wishful thinking and sour grapes at IE5.
This is rather strong claim too. Lately I've used mozilla almost exclusively in the work. It crashes about two or three times during the day. If you think that I'm just a rambling Mozilla advocate, please search for the older Mozilla-related articles; I complained myself about the poor stability. However, this area has improved very nicely in the last few months.
Seriously, who used (un)Use(d)Net these days? And a mail client is a useless addition too -- everyone just uses web-based e-mail like HoTMaiL or Yahoo! Mail these days. Strip out all of the crap and just release the important parts -- the browser, the Java Virtual Machine, the plug-in APIs. Enough is enough, AOL. />P>
While I agree with you as far as thinking that those things aren't very important in a browser, you're seriously underestimating the usage of Usenet and non-web - based mails. Quite a few of my friends use web-based mails for non-important stuff, but most of serious mails are send and received via more traditional e-mail accounts.
But right, I think that those programs should be having less priority than the browser.
What a great idea! This could be a whole genre in itself, like classic gaming! Think of the possibilities: Software that slows your computer down so you can see what it would have been like to run Unreal on a 286
Such software already exists; I don't remember URLs now, but many of the old games are rather unplayable without software that slows things down a bit...
Want the Truth? Then quit searching the skies for it and start searching the Bible. Thank you and God bless.
All right, who's building the Bible@Home - client that analyzes Bible and finds the hidden messages that every mystician seems to find there?
Are you sure you didn't accidentally swap the items? IMO the adjective fits better with the latter one... ;)
If you want full windows functionality, it seems that dual-booting is a smarter option. WINE will prolly never match windows, so what's the point?
Because I don't want to quit everything that I'm running at the moment just to run some application of other operating system? Dual boot would require me to do that, WINE doesn't. True, WINE doesn't run 100% of Windows programs, but then again, there's the comfortability I mentioned earlier...
No. There's no point trying to expand into the rest of solar system until we have proper orbital facilities for science, manufacturing and other operations. We need a permanent large scale presence outside the gravity well. Once that's done, we can get elsewhere with much less effort than launching everything out of atmosphere.
I'm sure that sooner or later in this post the usual argument raises its head: "What real use this has? Astronomy is not an useful science, and the funds should be instead transferred to something sensible and useful!"
I've usually just defended astronomy, but for once I want to be faster than the bashers ;)
I'm afraid it's still quite a bit unstable and resource hog. I don't recommend using it as your only browser, but by all means try it out; it's worth it. Occasional annoying bugs and crashes are inevitable, but for most of pages it works well enough and shows great promise. Considering the way it has improved during the spring I'd guess that it's good enough to become my primary browser in early autumn if same trend goes on.
Thanks. This sounds rather promising material, and I'll look for it next time I'll visit my favourite computing bookstore.
Like the subject: says: I'm interested about tutorials in OpenGL. I know the extreme basics of it, but would be interested in a set of tutorials that would elevate my knowledge a bit.
how is a totally not overclockable chip 'the next 300a'???? do you even read the fucking article? getting a 700mhz chip up to 750mhz is not worth it, not with that bus speed. maybe my p3-600e at 800eb is this next 300a. maybe slashdotters shouldn't be talking about hardware.
Obviously you only read the other article, where the gain wasn't indeed much. But you missed the other one where four 700 MHz and one 650MHz Durons were all successfully overclocked to 950 MHz. That is IMO quite a difference. ;)
I feel really angry about this. Bandwidth is an already scarce resource, and for them to waste a full 200GHz for this sort of research seems criminal. As the demand for wireless telecommunications for consumer use continues to boom, it seems crazy that they are devoting such a large slice of the spectrum to what will probably be fruitless research. A small number of astronomers will benefit from this move, at the expense of the rest of the world's population. Does this seem fair or reasonable?
The BBC article says "It is a win for science". This is a very naive attitude. It is a win for astronomy, nothing more. Surely science would benefit more if governments were to fund their scientists properly - astronomy is just a very small branch of science, and is a branch of science which does little to address the world's problems. This is just a token attempt by the governments of the world to try to show their commitment to science.
I beg to differ. First, you can't know beforehand whether there is something useful or interesting to be found or not, because you can't know about things that are yet far off in science. Who would have known about semiconductors 150 years ago? Probably quite a few researches that eventually led to them were doomed as useless, simply because the results couldn't be anticipated until much, much later.
Second, I think that this forces the wireless telecommunications industy to seek new methods, therefore opening some new inventions that wouldn't have probably discovered as soon if everything had gone easily for them.
Pretty much the same for me with 2.2.13 kernel. I guess the new features included a lot of bugs, which are noew going to be ironed out, or at least tried to. It's been getting a bit better during the last week or so, though.