Apple consistently ranks at or near the top for laptop quality, according to Consumer Reports.
Any little problem with their laptops is magnified because 1) Apple gets an inordinate amount of press, both good and bad 2) iBooks and Powerbooks outsell pretty much any other model of notebook out there.
It's true that Apple has a small percentage of the overall market, but they're pretty much as big as Dell or Gateway. I think they were 3rd last I checked. And they have fewer models than the other guys, so they sell more of the few models they do have.
Dell has like, fifty different laptops. If there's a problem with the Dell Latitude 43094.23B, you don't really hear much about it because it's only one of their many models. Apple only has one 15" MacBookPro. Thus the small problems are magnified.
Also remember that Apple uses the same manufacturers as the other guys. ASUS, Quanta, etc. I think a lot of people don't realize that. What, you think ASUS does a crappy job on their Mac contract but a vastly better job for Dell or Sony or whoever else they build for? That just doesn't make any sense.
I've used a variety of laptops over the years from Dell, Compaq, IBM and ASUS and they've all had little quirks at least as annoying as the ones that that the MacBook Pros apparently have.
The original Xbox is, on paper, much more powerful than the GameCube and yet for my money (and I own many games on both of these systems), nothing on the original Xbox looks nearly as good as Resident Evil 4 on the GameCube.
I agree with the Gamecube having great graphics, and with RE4 being one of the best and prettiest games of the generation.
But did you play Ninja Gaiden on the XBox? That was graphically a few steps up from RE4 in my opinion. Great game, too, although different enough from RE4 that I won't compare apples to oranges there.
The XBOX DOA fighting games were even prettier, although it's a lot easier to make a pretty fighting game (two characters and a small play area) than a pretty pseudo-free-roaming game ala RE4 or Ninja Gaiden...
Who ever wrote that screen play needs to apologize. Not like I'm saying anything new about the Starship Troopers movie.
This is highly subjective, but a lot of people think that movie is a brilliantly campy satire of the book... which was itself quite possibly meant as something of a satire of a fascist military mentality. I'd agree with this, myself.
I saw the movie first and thought it was unnecessarily cheesy and wasn't a big fan. A couple of years later I read the book. I was pretty blown away by a) how good the book was on its own merits and b) how the movie was fairly brilliant when viewed as an intentionally campy satire.
I can see how people would be disappointed if they were expecting the movie to be anything like the book. It sure isn't.
Re:So much for current events...
on
Green Geek Beer
·
· Score: 1
You mean this isn't "News For Greeks..." ?
Re:Dual-Booting Can Go Take A Freaking Hike
on
No EFI Support for Vista
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Wooo!! let me know how fast you can use 3dsmax or f.e.a.r. or any other 3d application or games. And if you don't use them, tell me why you need Windows on your Mac...
While accelerated 3D is absolutely critical for some people that run Windows apps, it's not something that most people need - especially if you remove gaming (I do love F.E.A.R., btw) from the equation. At that point, you're basically just talking about people that use 3D modeling apps.
I develop Windows software for a living, but I think OSX is an amazing OS and I prefer to use it when possible and am slowly getting my feet wet with OSX development.
I'm not at all excited by the idea of shutting down my computer just to use another operating system.
Anybody who's used a virtualization product like VMWare knows what I'm talking about. That is where it's at.
You can run another operating system in a window without leaving your current OS. It's not an emulator in any traditional sense of the word; things run at (or a few percent shy of) native speed. The only downside is that you need enough RAM to run both operating systems simultaneously in a comfortable fashion, but 2GB of RAM is under $200 these days.
I'm going to buy an Intel Mac as soon as VMWare releases an OSX version of VMWare or an open-source implementation reaches that level of quality (there are some strong contenders). I'm willing to put down the cash to run Windows on an Intel Mac, but dual-booting isn't even part of the equation.
Overhyped? Hmmm. The press invitations specifically mentioned that Apple would be introducing some "fun new products". Fun new products. Roll that phrase around in your mind for a little bit. Fun new products.
Does that sound like an earthshaking announcement to you? Like Apple was going to introduce OS XI or make a "fuck Intel; we're using Cell processors now" kind of announcement?
If so, you're nuts. I was expecting some iPod-related announcements, perhaps the fabled "Video iPod" (yawn) at most and some capacity bumps at the least. I'd say their product announcements fell right in the middle of that modest spectrum.
It's true that Apple created some hype by not issuing any hints about the products they'd be introducing. Most of those journalists would have stayed at home if you told them in advance that they'd be introducing a new Mini, a leather slipcover, and a boombox. But hey, I can't really blame a company for wanting to create excitement about their products. That's called capitalism, folks. What Apple really did was capitalize on the press and public's fascination with Apple. They simply allowed the press and public to create the hype for them.
So was Apple cannily trying to promote and sell some product? Sure. Did Apple themselves overhype the event? I would say absolutely not.
That's very interesting. I poked around just enough to see that iTMS was using HTTP, but made the incorrect assumption that it was using HTML over HTTP. Wish I could mod you Informative for that.
Apple does not really have a lot of expertise for building GUIs for Windows so it is not a casual project for them.
Your other points are well-taken, but I'm not sure about this one. They've been building the Quicktime player for Windows for years, and iTunes is a large Windows application. Also, there are a lot of Windows programmers out there. I don't think that a lack of programmers would be an obstacle for Apple.
I agree with the other things you said, but I wasn't really thinking in terms of Apple entering the Windows browser market with Safari in order to compete with IE/Firefox/Opera. I was thinking that perhaps Apple might release some kind of testing tool... like a super bare-bones, for-developers-only browser using Safari's rendering engine. It could be available only with a free registration to the Apple Developer Connection and not be "pimped" on their consumer-oriented pages like iTunes/Win.
That should be achievable with a minimum of resources on Apples' behalf, and I could only see it as being beneficial to Apple in terms of making sure that Safari "just works" with all the websites out there from their consumers' perspective.
Yes. But let Apple bear the cost of that. I already bought a Mini for testing and other purposes.
Really, this isn't a case of me "scratching an itch". This is an attempt by myself and a lot of of other web developers to make sure that sites work with Apple's web browser.
It's in Apple's best interest to make sure that as many web sites as possible work with the flagship browser that is bundled with their operating system. Apple needs web developers as much as web developers need them (perhaps even moreso) and Apple's the one with billions of dollars.
Only a few percent of my customers use Safari, while close to 100% of Apple's OSX customers use Safari. And they have tens of millions more customers than me, I assure you.
Wow, excellent! Thanks for the tip. You're right; they have really evolved. The VNC approach is excellent and just what is needed... it was a screencap-only service when I last checked. Pricing is a bit expensive but pretty reasonable if you can split the cost with a group, as you suggested.
It would still be nice if Apple could release something to help users test WebKit/Safari on Windows directly, as a lot of developers won't be able or willing to subscribe to a service like BrowserCam.
But until then BrowserCam sounds like just what the doctor ordered. (Now I sound like I'm astroturfing for them. I've been on Slashdot since 1997 or so, I swear...)
I don't quite have the skills or time to undertake a task like that. My skills are centered around database and middle-tier component development and web stuff. Porting a fairly complex GUI application to Windows is not an area I'm versed in and I don't have the weeks/months it would take to get to that point.
I see the "code it yourself" mentality you're getting at and I think it's valid in a lot of situations.
In this case, it's pretty valid to ask/hope for a solution from Apple. In general, the overlap between web developers and people that can port a complex GUI app is rather small. And this move would benefit Apple and its customers.
This is slightly off-topic, but while Apple's feeling generous with regards to WebKit- do you think they'd consider releasing some form of Safari for Windows?
With OSX's growing popularity, an increasing number of visitors to my websites are using Safari. Unfortunately, there's no way to test on Safari without actually buying an OSX-capable piece of hardware! Now, in *my* case, I actually went out and bought a Mini.:-) But I can tell you from personal and professional experience, a lot of developers and companies don't bother testing on Safari at all. That leads to a sub-optimal web experience for Safari users.
I realize that maintaining a version of Safari for Windows would represent a significant committment of resources. Perhaps Apple could release some kind of testing tool for Windows that, while not being a full-fledged browser, at least incorporates Safari's WebKit rendering technology. It shouldn't be that hard. I suspect that the Windows version of iTunes uses a port of WebKit to render the iTMS although I can't verify that.
(There are some online services that will show you what your pages look like in Safari - but those aren't particularly helpful for testing dynamic, data-driven sites. Better than nothing but far from an ideal solution...)
I used SR-60s for about two years. Eventually I got sick of them and retired them to a desk drawer. I use Sennheiser PX100s now.
The clarity on the SR60s is fantastic. If you listen to CDs or reaosnably high bitrate compressed audio, you'll be stunned at the details you'll hear in the music. I eventually got sick of the SR60s' drawbacks, though:
* Not much bass to speak of, at least from the sources I use (computer sound card, various iPods) * Uncomfortable. Not something I want to wear for more than a few hours. * Completely open-air design. People near you can hear the music almost as well as you. I know the OP wanted headphones that let some ambient sound in. Well, the SR60s let plenty of sound in (good) but you're probably going to piss off people in adjacent cubicles unless you have your own office.
The Sennheiser PX100s are great. Nice and light, very comfortable for 8-10 hours a day. Clarity is almost as good as the SR60s and bass is excellent.
fairly complex AJAX-type apps (say, OWA) that involve lots of little GETs and POSTs with the server can feel much more snappy and desktop-ish when the latency is reduced by even a few milliseconds here and there.
Whoa, fundamental networking concepts... having a faster pipe doesn't equate to lower latency.
Latency for your net connection with a given provider is pretty much fixed. Whether you have their budget 256/128 service or their "Pro" 5/768 service, your packets are making all the same hops. Upgrading your service level means that they raise or lower your throughput, but latency remains unchanged.
Theoretically, a service provider could actively retard the latency on their "budget" service or have a separate set of routers just for "pro" customers for improved latency, but I've never heard of a company doing that.
For one thing, separate routers for premium customers would destroy one of the main allures (from the ISP's perspective) of premium service: it doesn't cost them any more to operate than the budget service. When you upgrade from their $20/mo service to their $60/mo service that extra $40 is pure profit for them. They're not going to cut into that, especially since most people don't even understand the basic concepts of latency and throughput... as you yourself have demonstrated, and you seem to be a pretty computer-literate type otherwise, since you obviously understand how AJAX works.
I'm not comparing your spoiler to a terrorist attack on a nunnery or anything, but it's extremely lame.
Considering that Serenity had an extremely tiny theatrical run, and that you made your post roughly on the DVD's release day, it's... lame. Lame lame lame lame lame. I'm not saying you're Satan, I'm just saying you fucked up.
(And yes, I personally know lots of Firefly fans that didn't get a chance to see Serenity when it was in theaters. I live in a highly-populated suburb with over 50 screens within a 20-mile radius and it was still difficult to find a screening after its opening weekend...)
I find it odd that you choose to single out my post in this thread, when there are many, many others that include spoilers, including parent posts. Get over it.
No, it would be "odd" if I actually took the time to reply to every single one of them. Reality and you: they could be a beautiful couple. Someday.
It was jarring, and it was a moment that I did not like, but because [redacted] ended up dead, not because it was poorly done. In fact, that was one of the most jolting, complacency-killing moments I have ever seen in a movie. It was executed excellently, IMNSHO.
You loved it so much that you had to spoil it for those who missed the movie during its extremely brief theatrical run? Mods, please mod that down...
I told DarkSin here that I am not about to port LeetKey to Opera because I am not using it at the moment, I may just have to do that if I decide to switch to that browser if I feel that FF is just not what I want to see as a browser.
Okay. Fair enough. Let's see what "LeetKey" is...
LeetKey is similar to Russ Key... this extension allows typing and transliterating English into 1337 and other encoding schemes such as ROT13, Base64, HEX, URL etc. For some encodings this extension will translate the text back into English
Wow. What a blow it will be to Firefox if you drop active development of that. Christ.
"if Oracle holds patents or licenses for the underlying technology such as algorithms or file structures, "then that could get quite interesting,"
I don't understand how these theoretical patents come into play.
If Oracle already had patents on technology contained within InnoDB prior to acquiring InnoDB, they didn't need to acquire InnoDB. They could have challenged InnoDB's GPL licensing.
If InnoDB contains patented technology that Oracle now owns as a result of their acquisition of InnoDB, isn't that a moot point since InnoDB already released that stuff under the GPL?
Obviously I'm not a lawyer of any sort, but it seems like these theoretical patents are a non-issue. Please elucidate if I'm missing something because I probably am.
While that certainly can be helpful, WindowsXP itself turns to sludge over time -- it does not need spyware or HP printer drivers or Quicktime or Skype or AIM or whathaveyou in order to slow down.
I just don't agree with that at all. I've been running this WinXP install since 2002, with no problems. Throughout that time I've swapped a lot of the hardware out and, oh yeah, this has been my daily machine all that time. Running 24/7, with 10+ hours of work/play active use a day.
I've done pretty minimal maintainance on it... PageDefrag by Sysinternals to keep the system files defragged, and occaisionally I'll fire up AutoRuns to disable unnecessary startup items.
Of course, I don't download malware-ridden war3z or run Internet Explorer.
WinXP installs can be hosed, but it's not the inevitability you seem to think it is.
Name one thing you can do on a windows desktop that you can't [for technical reasons] do on a Linux powered one?
That's like asking, "Name one thing you can in C++ that you can't [for technical reasons] do in assembly?"
Yeah, you CAN do everything in assembly, but there's a reason why people don't.
Like the famous quote says, "Linux is only free if your time has no value". It's a great operating system and superior to Windows in a lot of ways. However, ease of use counts for something, you know?
Slashdot Mirror
Apple consistently ranks at or near the top for laptop quality, according to Consumer Reports.
Any little problem with their laptops is magnified because 1) Apple gets an inordinate amount of press, both good and bad 2) iBooks and Powerbooks outsell pretty much any other model of notebook out there.
It's true that Apple has a small percentage of the overall market, but they're pretty much as big as Dell or Gateway. I think they were 3rd last I checked. And they have fewer models than the other guys, so they sell more of the few models they do have.
Dell has like, fifty different laptops. If there's a problem with the Dell Latitude 43094.23B, you don't really hear much about it because it's only one of their many models. Apple only has one 15" MacBookPro. Thus the small problems are magnified.
Also remember that Apple uses the same manufacturers as the other guys. ASUS, Quanta, etc. I think a lot of people don't realize that. What, you think ASUS does a crappy job on their Mac contract but a vastly better job for Dell or Sony or whoever else they build for? That just doesn't make any sense.
I've used a variety of laptops over the years from Dell, Compaq, IBM and ASUS and they've all had little quirks at least as annoying as the ones that that the MacBook Pros apparently have.
The original Xbox is, on paper, much more powerful than the GameCube and yet for my money (and I own many games on both of these systems), nothing on the original Xbox looks nearly as good as Resident Evil 4 on the GameCube.
I agree with the Gamecube having great graphics, and with RE4 being one of the best and prettiest games of the generation.
But did you play Ninja Gaiden on the XBox? That was graphically a few steps up from RE4 in my opinion. Great game, too, although different enough from RE4 that I won't compare apples to oranges there.
The XBOX DOA fighting games were even prettier, although it's a lot easier to make a pretty fighting game (two characters and a small play area) than a pretty pseudo-free-roaming game ala RE4 or Ninja Gaiden...
Who ever wrote that screen play needs to apologize. Not like I'm saying anything new about the Starship Troopers movie.
This is highly subjective, but a lot of people think that movie is a brilliantly campy satire of the book... which was itself quite possibly meant as something of a satire of a fascist military mentality. I'd agree with this, myself.
I saw the movie first and thought it was unnecessarily cheesy and wasn't a big fan. A couple of years later I read the book. I was pretty blown away by a) how good the book was on its own merits and b) how the movie was fairly brilliant when viewed as an intentionally campy satire.
I can see how people would be disappointed if they were expecting the movie to be anything like the book. It sure isn't.
You mean this isn't "News For Greeks..." ?
Wooo!! let me know how fast you can use 3dsmax or f.e.a.r. or any other 3d application or games.
And if you don't use them, tell me why you need Windows on your Mac...
While accelerated 3D is absolutely critical for some people that run Windows apps, it's not something that most people need - especially if you remove gaming (I do love F.E.A.R., btw) from the equation. At that point, you're basically just talking about people that use 3D modeling apps.
I develop Windows software for a living, but I think OSX is an amazing OS and I prefer to use it when possible and am slowly getting my feet wet with OSX development.
I'm not at all excited by the idea of shutting down my computer just to use another operating system.
Anybody who's used a virtualization product like VMWare knows what I'm talking about. That is where it's at.
You can run another operating system in a window without leaving your current OS. It's not an emulator in any traditional sense of the word; things run at (or a few percent shy of) native speed. The only downside is that you need enough RAM to run both operating systems simultaneously in a comfortable fashion, but 2GB of RAM is under $200 these days.
I'm going to buy an Intel Mac as soon as VMWare releases an OSX version of VMWare or an open-source implementation reaches that level of quality (there are some strong contenders). I'm willing to put down the cash to run Windows on an Intel Mac, but dual-booting isn't even part of the equation.
Overhyped? Hmmm. The press invitations specifically mentioned that Apple would be introducing some "fun new products". Fun new products. Roll that phrase around in your mind for a little bit. Fun new products.
Does that sound like an earthshaking announcement to you? Like Apple was going to introduce OS XI or make a "fuck Intel; we're using Cell processors now" kind of announcement?
If so, you're nuts. I was expecting some iPod-related announcements, perhaps the fabled "Video iPod" (yawn) at most and some capacity bumps at the least. I'd say their product announcements fell right in the middle of that modest spectrum.
It's true that Apple created some hype by not issuing any hints about the products they'd be introducing. Most of those journalists would have stayed at home if you told them in advance that they'd be introducing a new Mini, a leather slipcover, and a boombox. But hey, I can't really blame a company for wanting to create excitement about their products. That's called capitalism, folks. What Apple really did was capitalize on the press and public's fascination with Apple. They simply allowed the press and public to create the hype for them.
So was Apple cannily trying to promote and sell some product? Sure. Did Apple themselves overhype the event? I would say absolutely not.
That's very interesting. I poked around just enough to see that iTMS was using HTTP, but made the incorrect assumption that it was using HTML over HTTP. Wish I could mod you Informative for that.
Apple does not really have a lot of expertise for building GUIs for Windows so it is not a casual project for them.
Your other points are well-taken, but I'm not sure about this one. They've been building the Quicktime player for Windows for years, and iTunes is a large Windows application. Also, there are a lot of Windows programmers out there. I don't think that a lack of programmers would be an obstacle for Apple.
I agree with the other things you said, but I wasn't really thinking in terms of Apple entering the Windows browser market with Safari in order to compete with IE/Firefox/Opera. I was thinking that perhaps Apple might release some kind of testing tool... like a super bare-bones, for-developers-only browser using Safari's rendering engine. It could be available only with a free registration to the Apple Developer Connection and not be "pimped" on their consumer-oriented pages like iTunes/Win.
That should be achievable with a minimum of resources on Apples' behalf, and I could only see it as being beneficial to Apple in terms of making sure that Safari "just works" with all the websites out there from their consumers' perspective.
Yes. But let Apple bear the cost of that. I already bought a Mini for testing and other purposes.
Really, this isn't a case of me "scratching an itch". This is an attempt by myself and a lot of of other web developers to make sure that sites work with Apple's web browser.
It's in Apple's best interest to make sure that as many web sites as possible work with the flagship browser that is bundled with their operating system. Apple needs web developers as much as web developers need them (perhaps even moreso) and Apple's the one with billions of dollars.
Only a few percent of my customers use Safari, while close to 100% of Apple's OSX customers use Safari. And they have tens of millions more customers than me, I assure you.
Wow, excellent! Thanks for the tip. You're right; they have really evolved. The VNC approach is excellent and just what is needed... it was a screencap-only service when I last checked. Pricing is a bit expensive but pretty reasonable if you can split the cost with a group, as you suggested.
It would still be nice if Apple could release something to help users test WebKit/Safari on Windows directly, as a lot of developers won't be able or willing to subscribe to a service like BrowserCam.
But until then BrowserCam sounds like just what the doctor ordered. (Now I sound like I'm astroturfing for them. I've been on Slashdot since 1997 or so, I swear...)
I don't quite have the skills or time to undertake a task like that. My skills are centered around database and middle-tier component development and web stuff. Porting a fairly complex GUI application to Windows is not an area I'm versed in and I don't have the weeks/months it would take to get to that point.
I see the "code it yourself" mentality you're getting at and I think it's valid in a lot of situations.
In this case, it's pretty valid to ask/hope for a solution from Apple. In general, the overlap between web developers and people that can port a complex GUI app is rather small. And this move would benefit Apple and its customers.
Kudos to Apple for this generous move.
:-) But I can tell you from personal and professional experience, a lot of developers and companies don't bother testing on Safari at all. That leads to a sub-optimal web experience for Safari users.
This is slightly off-topic, but while Apple's feeling generous with regards to WebKit- do you think they'd consider releasing some form of Safari for Windows?
With OSX's growing popularity, an increasing number of visitors to my websites are using Safari. Unfortunately, there's no way to test on Safari without actually buying an OSX-capable piece of hardware! Now, in *my* case, I actually went out and bought a Mini.
I realize that maintaining a version of Safari for Windows would represent a significant committment of resources. Perhaps Apple could release some kind of testing tool for Windows that, while not being a full-fledged browser, at least incorporates Safari's WebKit rendering technology. It shouldn't be that hard. I suspect that the Windows version of iTunes uses a port of WebKit to render the iTMS although I can't verify that.
(There are some online services that will show you what your pages look like in Safari - but those aren't particularly helpful for testing dynamic, data-driven sites. Better than nothing but far from an ideal solution...)
I used SR-60s for about two years. Eventually I got sick of them and retired them to a desk drawer. I use Sennheiser PX100s now.
The clarity on the SR60s is fantastic. If you listen to CDs or reaosnably high bitrate compressed audio, you'll be stunned at the details you'll hear in the music. I eventually got sick of the SR60s' drawbacks, though:
* Not much bass to speak of, at least from the sources I use (computer sound card, various iPods)
* Uncomfortable. Not something I want to wear for more than a few hours.
* Completely open-air design. People near you can hear the music almost as well as you. I know the OP wanted headphones that let some ambient sound in. Well, the SR60s let plenty of sound in (good) but you're probably going to piss off people in adjacent cubicles unless you have your own office.
The Sennheiser PX100s are great. Nice and light, very comfortable for 8-10 hours a day. Clarity is almost as good as the SR60s and bass is excellent.
Hahaha. You win. (Though I was only kidding in the first place!) :-)
a computer doesn't spill flaming death on everyone nearby if it gets knocked over
Learn to overlock, n00b.
Then the quality of the audio jack and the headphones really matter.
Hey, guess what? That's what this article is about, genius. Read the article. Hell, even read the freaking thread.
fairly complex AJAX-type apps (say, OWA) that involve lots of little GETs and POSTs with the server can feel much more snappy and desktop-ish when the latency is reduced by even a few milliseconds here and there.
Whoa, fundamental networking concepts... having a faster pipe doesn't equate to lower latency.
Latency for your net connection with a given provider is pretty much fixed. Whether you have their budget 256/128 service or their "Pro" 5/768 service, your packets are making all the same hops. Upgrading your service level means that they raise or lower your throughput, but latency remains unchanged.
Theoretically, a service provider could actively retard the latency on their "budget" service or have a separate set of routers just for "pro" customers for improved latency, but I've never heard of a company doing that.
For one thing, separate routers for premium customers would destroy one of the main allures (from the ISP's perspective) of premium service: it doesn't cost them any more to operate than the budget service. When you upgrade from their $20/mo service to their $60/mo service that extra $40 is pure profit for them. They're not going to cut into that, especially since most people don't even understand the basic concepts of latency and throughput... as you yourself have demonstrated, and you seem to be a pretty computer-literate type otherwise, since you obviously understand how AJAX works.
I'm not comparing your spoiler to a terrorist attack on a nunnery or anything, but it's extremely lame.
Considering that Serenity had an extremely tiny theatrical run, and that you made your post roughly on the DVD's release day, it's... lame. Lame lame lame lame lame. I'm not saying you're Satan, I'm just saying you fucked up.
(And yes, I personally know lots of Firefly fans that didn't get a chance to see Serenity when it was in theaters. I live in a highly-populated suburb with over 50 screens within a 20-mile radius and it was still difficult to find a screening after its opening weekend...)
I find it odd that you choose to single out my post in this thread, when there are many, many others that include spoilers, including parent posts. Get over it.
No, it would be "odd" if I actually took the time to reply to every single one of them. Reality and you: they could be a beautiful couple. Someday.
It was jarring, and it was a moment that I did not like, but because [redacted] ended up dead, not because it was poorly done. In fact, that was one of the most jolting, complacency-killing moments I have ever seen in a movie. It was executed excellently, IMNSHO.
You loved it so much that you had to spoil it for those who missed the movie during its extremely brief theatrical run? Mods, please mod that down...
I told DarkSin here that I am not about to port LeetKey to Opera because I am not using it at the moment, I may just have to do that if I decide to switch to that browser if I feel that FF is just not what I want to see as a browser.
Okay. Fair enough. Let's see what "LeetKey" is...
LeetKey is similar to Russ Key... this extension allows typing and transliterating English into 1337 and other encoding schemes such as ROT13, Base64, HEX, URL etc. For some encodings this extension will translate the text back into English
Wow. What a blow it will be to Firefox if you drop active development of that. Christ.
"if Oracle holds patents or licenses for the underlying technology such as algorithms or file structures, "then that could get quite interesting,"
I don't understand how these theoretical patents come into play.
If Oracle already had patents on technology contained within InnoDB prior to acquiring InnoDB, they didn't need to acquire InnoDB. They could have challenged InnoDB's GPL licensing.
If InnoDB contains patented technology that Oracle now owns as a result of their acquisition of InnoDB, isn't that a moot point since InnoDB already released that stuff under the GPL?
Obviously I'm not a lawyer of any sort, but it seems like these theoretical patents are a non-issue. Please elucidate if I'm missing something because I probably am.
While that certainly can be helpful, WindowsXP itself turns to sludge over time -- it does not need spyware or HP printer drivers or Quicktime or Skype or AIM or whathaveyou in order to slow down.
I just don't agree with that at all. I've been running this WinXP install since 2002, with no problems. Throughout that time I've swapped a lot of the hardware out and, oh yeah, this has been my daily machine all that time. Running 24/7, with 10+ hours of work/play active use a day.
I've done pretty minimal maintainance on it... PageDefrag by Sysinternals to keep the system files defragged, and occaisionally I'll fire up AutoRuns to disable unnecessary startup items.
Of course, I don't download malware-ridden war3z or run Internet Explorer.
WinXP installs can be hosed, but it's not the inevitability you seem to think it is.
Name one thing you can do on a windows desktop that you can't [for technical reasons] do on a Linux powered one?
That's like asking, "Name one thing you can in C++ that you can't [for technical reasons] do in assembly?"
Yeah, you CAN do everything in assembly, but there's a reason why people don't.
Like the famous quote says, "Linux is only free if your time has no value". It's a great operating system and superior to Windows in a lot of ways. However, ease of use counts for something, you know?