Although this may be true, if Mozilla is harder to use at first, why would they start using Mozilla on Windows? In a tightly-controlled office environment where the IT staff forced people to use Mozilla, OpenOffice, etc. on Windows for 6 months because of a planned switch to UNIX/Linux, this would work. Why would my mom switch? I've offered to install it, and she doesn't see the point. She's perfectly happy with IE. Mozilla is intimidating to her. She uses IE, MS Office, etc. at work. Why should she waste her time learning something new?
I'm an avid Linux user who feel far more comfortable on the command line than a GUI. I use Emacs and GCC on the command line, because I don't trust pretty visual environments with my source code. I'm not the majority, neither are you. I am an HCI designer, however, and I think I'm a pretty good one. Consistency of interface is not the most important design element, but it is important because it decreases the learning curve.
Most users don't want to be flexible... they want the computer software to work the way they expect it to. They're not interested in digging deep into user preferences to tweak the interface to look/feel/act in a way that will save them keystrokes. Most of them simply want to perform a few tasks, then stop using the software that they are intimidated by.
I'm not saying Windows is inherently more friendly because it's popular. It is more user friendly than a lot of Linux distros out there, such as Debian (which is my personal favorite). I could take 10 computer users that have never used IE before, but have used Windows 9X/2K/XP extensively, test half of them on IE, and half on Mozilla. I can guarentee that the ones using IE will perform thier tasks faster and with fewer errors than those using Mozilla, simply because it looks familiar.
You are a bit of a different class of user than the average computer user. Mozilla's default interface is confusing at first. The toolbar buttons are non-standard, the look is unfamiliar, and the widgets behave differently. They do not perform properly with some of the Windows accessibility features, which means Mozilla is not usable by a small number of disabled people. The widgets don't change colors along with the global settings of the OS. It stands out --- that's bad. If it looks like just another Win32 app, people are less intimidated by it.
Now, I really like Mozilla, and Emacs, and XMMS and countless other apps that have non-standard interfaces. The increased learning curve is made up for by the incredible power the applications have. I am not a novice, however. I've done countless usability tests on more subjects than you will believe, and I can tell you that non-standard interfaces == higher learning curve. Sometimes there is a compelling reason to break away from the standard interface design, as the user may be given more power, speed, or flexibility in the long run.
Mozilla, however, is a browser. It's a standard desktop app that doesn't really gain anything extra from the non-standard way in which the widgets are rendered. It should look and feel like one. On Windows, it should use Win32. On MacOS X it should use Cocoa. On Linux it should use Qt or GTK.
I also dislike the Windows style interface, but as a trained human-computer interface designer, I can state that interface consistency is important to even intermediate and advanced users. Interface consistency means you have to learn less, which means you learn faster. You can also start building motor reflexes for use of an application faster if it is more consistent. Why is "properties" always the last menu item in a context menu in Windows? Why is the "help" menu always the last menu item on the menu bar? Because if you always no that's where it is, it takes less time for you to find it, thus making YOU faster.
This is a major detractor to most cross-platform toolkits. Apps in Windows should look like Windows apps, Apps in MacOS should look like MacOS apps, Apps in KDE should look like KDE apps, etc. It helps the user immesurably, and makes learning applications more follow the power law of practice.
Many modern motherboard manufacturers, such as Tyan, only offer boot floppy images for the utilities used to flash your BIOS. ISO's would be a nice replacement.
The problem with the Matrox drivers is that the OpenGL performance is sub-par under Linux. And yeah, there's no difference between 150FPS and 250FPS in Quake, but what happens when Doom3 comes out? If the Parhelia can do 60FPS while the ATI R300 can do 100FPS, that makes a world of difference! That means with the R300 you can turn Anti-aliasing on, and use all of the efects, whereas you can't with the Matrox.
Matrox and ATI both need to make top-notch linux drivers like nVIDIA, but open-source. Matrox needs to implement occlusion culling, Z-compression, fast Z-clear, and a better memory controller.
If, however, NVIDIA open-sourced thier current driver code for thier graphics cards and the nForce, I'd probably ignore other companies' solutions completely.
I'll personally take it seriously when I see some reviews of the Linux drivers, if any exist. NVIDIA's Linux drivers are of very high quality, but closed source. If ATI releases some high-quality open-source Linux drivers that get it equivalent framerates to the Windows counterparts, I'll definately switch.
You have to have all the KDE Libs installed, but you do not have to be running KDE to take advantage of the eye candy. You will have to configure it with the KDE controll panel, but you can keep on using whatever other environment you wish.
You are incorrect. A Patent does *not* give the owner exclusive manufacture/production rights over patented works. What a patent *does* give the owner is the ability to stop others from *distributing* products covered under the patent.
For example, Company A patents making widgets green. Company B needs a green widget for internal use. Company B may manufacture a green widget for internal use.
Where patent problems come in is if Company B decides to make many green widgets and sell them. It is then Company A's job to react. Company A can do nothing to company B if it wants to. It can even do nothing for 10 years of the life of the patent, and then charge company B for infringement, waiting for green to be the standard color of widgets, and then decide to charge every manufacturer of green widgets. This is basically what Unisys did with the LZW algorithm. They officially didn't care about GIF's until they became one of the two standard graphics formats.
With the ps2 running at only around 300mhz, while I'd expected higher PC requirements I didn't expect that much extra.
Well, on the PS2, there is no large OS (like Windows) to deal with. Everything is designed specifically to do 3D accelleration and media streamin. The PS2's "emotion engine" is actually a 3 processor system: the CPU, VU0, and VU1. VU0 and VU1 (the "vector units") are specialized processors that are designed to do really fast matrix math. VU0 is connected on the same bus as the CPU, while VU1 is semi-coupled with the "Graphics Synthisizer" (GPU). VU0 is often used to do skinning, physics, and audio processing, while VU1 is often used to implement various procedural shaders and other programs similar to DX8 vertex and pixel shaders.
A PC, however, has only one CPU, a bunch of different busses, and games are traditionally run at higher resolutions. On a TV, every game is run at either 30FPS or 60FPS on an interlaced screen. Having a sharper, high-res, progressive display, a much higher fillrate is required for good viewing. So you need a higher pixel clock, higher filrate, more memory, more memory bandwidth, lower latencies, and more raw power. Throw a large OS on top of that (Windows 2000 or XP) and you're a tad short on CPU power, memory bandwidth, etc. compared to a simple, streamlined gaming machine.
They had access to the machine for only about an hour. The machine already had Windows XP on it. They had QIII and a couple other things with them. Read the damn article.
I'm sorry... I sat in the fourth row for both. I refuse to believe the camera he used for shooting was at such a low res. I could not see the pixels in the 35mm version. The lines were cleaner, the contrast was better, and there was no aliasing artifacts.
Another possibility is that for the film version some interpolation was used to scale the res up, and then printed on the film at far greater resolution.
24FPS is a limitation, but current digital theaters also display at 24FPS.
The real problem with current digital projection technology is resolution - it's not nearly high enough for the throw distance. I saw Episode II on a digital theater in Elizabeth, NJ, and I must say that I am impressed with the technology, but it has a long way to go. I was able to see the pictures. I've also seen the film on a pristine 35mm print, and it looked far sharper, and more vibrant, and overall better.
The technology is currently ungodly expensive, but it will come down. 35mm prints, if taken care of, will still look better. Digital projectors should require, in the long run, less maintenance, and will be much more consistent from theater to theater. Most movie theaters have very loud projectors that shake, are out of focus, and covered in dirt. Poor theaters with digital projectors will have, in the future, dead pixels, dying bulbs, and misaligned DMM chips (professional systems have three DMM chips -- Red, Green, and Blue. Doing this prevents the "rainbow" effects and various moire patterns that is present on many home DLP and DILA projectors).
That all said, if the resolution is incresed to 4-8 times what it is now on those projectors (don't know what it currently is), one should not be able to see the pixels.
Hmm... RedHat, Mandrake, SuSE and others are profitting by selling volunteer content (i.e., Free Software). There is NOTHING wrong with this! The volunteer content is available with or without these companies. These companies give you the option to buy with value added (tech support, easy updates, no ads, etc.)
Slashdot content is still free. If Taco, et al makes a buck, that's great too! He's not forcing you to subscribe.
As soon as I graduate (four more weeks baby!) and get a job (well, who knows in this market), I'll be subscribing.
Actually, the real benefit is using KVim embedded in other KDE applications. If you REALLY like VI's input method, and want to use it in your mailer, IDE, etc., that's where KVim comes in.
My college, NJIT, has a program in this. They didn't when I signed up; it was just a couple of CS classes. Now the program includes psych classes and multimedia classes, and is very well fleshed out. I'll be coming back for my masters in 3 years or so (when the burnout fades), and by then there will be an HCI major.
Place to start:
Ask Tog. Read the article on Fitts's law, and then read his other rants and articles. Feel free to email me for more resources.
Although many email clients offer *some* of these features in some form, the point is no client offers them all in a consise form. As a Human-Computer Interation (HCI) designer by trade, most of their design is head-on. The Floating PIM pane is a great idea, particularly if it has one line that notifies when new email is there and from whom, and can be used to un-hide the actual email client.
The split pane for the email messages, if done properly, could be nicely exploited. The "SPAM" button is a wonderful idea. The integrated instant messaging I could easilly do without... too hard to do it in both a useful and intuitive method.
I'm probably going to implement many of these designs this summer in a cross-platform open source email client. I may use some other client as a base as I'm not familiar with POP3 or IMAP. I'll probably wind up doing this in Qt.
Re:Screenshots anyone?
on
KDE 3.0 is Out
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Check some screen shots out here.
Keep in mind, these are only some of the possibilities. KDE is super-themable.
Re:My last post - anyone want a 50 karma account?
on
April Fools Wrap Up
·
· Score: 1, Troll
You seriously have a bug up your ass. I was amused, as I was last year, and the year before that. It's fun. If you take life too seriously, you'll just give yourself an ulcer.
I'll definately give it a shot at some point. I'd like one around the house to port my apps to. (My senior project is using SDL and OpenGL, and currently compiles under three OS's I can verify. More would be cool). I will never, however, allow myself to become dependent on non-free software, even if it's of high quality, as I've heard OS X is.
Open source/free software IS a benefit. It means that if I don't like it, I can change it.
In addition to that, there are other reasons some prefer Linux to MacOS X. For me, I prefer a System V style init to a BSD init (runlevels are cool). I like the GNU tools being defualt. I like the flexibility X gives me. I like compiling my kernel to MY specefications.
I've never used OS X, and have no real desire to. It's not free software, and is thus irrelevant to me. Also, can you disable the GUI in OS X so there's one less thing to go wrong when running a server? (I'm not trolling here... An honest question... I don't know this one)
The point I make is that subtle differences in software make a huge difference to people preference. Do you like OS X better than Linux? If so, great. I like Linux, and I'm 99% happy with it. The areas I'm not happy with, I do something about.
I wish you were correct, but do you forget Jon Johanneson (sp?)??? He was extridited from his home contry for distributing DeCSS in violation of the DMCA.
As an American, I am mortified by such a distasteful show of force that we think we can push our own stupid laws on other nations. Unfortunately, it's a fact of life.
There is a solution. Use an Alpha PAL8045 heat sink. It mounts directly to your motherboard, and allows you to choose your own 80mm fan. Unless you need the serious cooling to overclock, I'd suggest a Papst 80mm ultra-quiet fan. It does the job well, and you can use them to replace other case fans as well.
If you need help finding one, reply to this message.
I, myself, prefer a loud system, or at least a loud hard drive:)
DDR is still faster than Rambus. PC1600 DDR SDRAM (100mhz DDR=200mhz effective), offers 1.6GB/sec of memory bandwidth, the same as PC800 RDRAM. Why does Rambus perform better on the P4?
The i850 chipset has a dual-channel RDRAM controller. It handles two channels of PC800 RDRAM, offering twice the memory bandwidth of PC1600, and about 25% greater than PC2100.
Conversely, the newer i845 DDR SDRAM memory controller offers single-channel support for PC2100.
If a dual-channel DDR motherboard was available for the P4, it would smoke the Rambus performance. Period. The article at Tom's stated that at the higher speeds DDR must have a relatively high CAS latency (2.5). This is still FAR lower than the latency in RDRAM. RDRAM is high-bandwidth, high latency. DDR is high-bandwidth, low latency.
I've been really disappointed with most articles at Tom's of late.
Slashdot Mirror
Although this may be true, if Mozilla is harder to use at first, why would they start using Mozilla on Windows? In a tightly-controlled office environment where the IT staff forced people to use Mozilla, OpenOffice, etc. on Windows for 6 months because of a planned switch to UNIX/Linux, this would work. Why would my mom switch? I've offered to install it, and she doesn't see the point. She's perfectly happy with IE. Mozilla is intimidating to her. She uses IE, MS Office, etc. at work. Why should she waste her time learning something new?
I'm an avid Linux user who feel far more comfortable on the command line than a GUI. I use Emacs and GCC on the command line, because I don't trust pretty visual environments with my source code. I'm not the majority, neither are you. I am an HCI designer, however, and I think I'm a pretty good one. Consistency of interface is not the most important design element, but it is important because it decreases the learning curve.
Most users don't want to be flexible... they want the computer software to work the way they expect it to. They're not interested in digging deep into user preferences to tweak the interface to look/feel/act in a way that will save them keystrokes. Most of them simply want to perform a few tasks, then stop using the software that they are intimidated by.
I'm not saying Windows is inherently more friendly because it's popular. It is more user friendly than a lot of Linux distros out there, such as Debian (which is my personal favorite). I could take 10 computer users that have never used IE before, but have used Windows 9X/2K/XP extensively, test half of them on IE, and half on Mozilla. I can guarentee that the ones using IE will perform thier tasks faster and with fewer errors than those using Mozilla, simply because it looks familiar.
You are a bit of a different class of user than the average computer user. Mozilla's default interface is confusing at first. The toolbar buttons are non-standard, the look is unfamiliar, and the widgets behave differently. They do not perform properly with some of the Windows accessibility features, which means Mozilla is not usable by a small number of disabled people. The widgets don't change colors along with the global settings of the OS. It stands out --- that's bad. If it looks like just another Win32 app, people are less intimidated by it.
Now, I really like Mozilla, and Emacs, and XMMS and countless other apps that have non-standard interfaces. The increased learning curve is made up for by the incredible power the applications have. I am not a novice, however. I've done countless usability tests on more subjects than you will believe, and I can tell you that non-standard interfaces == higher learning curve. Sometimes there is a compelling reason to break away from the standard interface design, as the user may be given more power, speed, or flexibility in the long run.
Mozilla, however, is a browser. It's a standard desktop app that doesn't really gain anything extra from the non-standard way in which the widgets are rendered. It should look and feel like one. On Windows, it should use Win32. On MacOS X it should use Cocoa. On Linux it should use Qt or GTK.
I also dislike the Windows style interface, but as a trained human-computer interface designer, I can state that interface consistency is important to even intermediate and advanced users. Interface consistency means you have to learn less, which means you learn faster. You can also start building motor reflexes for use of an application faster if it is more consistent. Why is "properties" always the last menu item in a context menu in Windows? Why is the "help" menu always the last menu item on the menu bar? Because if you always no that's where it is, it takes less time for you to find it, thus making YOU faster.
This is a major detractor to most cross-platform toolkits. Apps in Windows should look like Windows apps, Apps in MacOS should look like MacOS apps, Apps in KDE should look like KDE apps, etc. It helps the user immesurably, and makes learning applications more follow the power law of practice.
Many modern motherboard manufacturers, such as Tyan, only offer boot floppy images for the utilities used to flash your BIOS. ISO's would be a nice replacement.
The problem with the Matrox drivers is that the OpenGL performance is sub-par under Linux. And yeah, there's no difference between 150FPS and 250FPS in Quake, but what happens when Doom3 comes out? If the Parhelia can do 60FPS while the ATI R300 can do 100FPS, that makes a world of difference! That means with the R300 you can turn Anti-aliasing on, and use all of the efects, whereas you can't with the Matrox.
Matrox and ATI both need to make top-notch linux drivers like nVIDIA, but open-source. Matrox needs to implement occlusion culling, Z-compression, fast Z-clear, and a better memory controller.
If, however, NVIDIA open-sourced thier current driver code for thier graphics cards and the nForce, I'd probably ignore other companies' solutions completely.
I'll personally take it seriously when I see some reviews of the Linux drivers, if any exist. NVIDIA's Linux drivers are of very high quality, but closed source. If ATI releases some high-quality open-source Linux drivers that get it equivalent framerates to the Windows counterparts, I'll definately switch.
You have to have all the KDE Libs installed, but you do not have to be running KDE to take advantage of the eye candy. You will have to configure it with the KDE controll panel, but you can keep on using whatever other environment you wish.
You are incorrect. A Patent does *not* give the owner exclusive manufacture/production rights over patented works. What a patent *does* give the owner is the ability to stop others from *distributing* products covered under the patent.
For example, Company A patents making widgets green. Company B needs a green widget for internal use. Company B may manufacture a green widget for internal use.
Where patent problems come in is if Company B decides to make many green widgets and sell them. It is then Company A's job to react. Company A can do nothing to company B if it wants to. It can even do nothing for 10 years of the life of the patent, and then charge company B for infringement, waiting for green to be the standard color of widgets, and then decide to charge every manufacturer of green widgets. This is basically what Unisys did with the LZW algorithm. They officially didn't care about GIF's until they became one of the two standard graphics formats.
With the ps2 running at only around 300mhz, while I'd expected higher PC requirements I didn't expect that much extra.
Well, on the PS2, there is no large OS (like Windows) to deal with. Everything is designed specifically to do 3D accelleration and media streamin. The PS2's "emotion engine" is actually a 3 processor system: the CPU, VU0, and VU1. VU0 and VU1 (the "vector units") are specialized processors that are designed to do really fast matrix math. VU0 is connected on the same bus as the CPU, while VU1 is semi-coupled with the "Graphics Synthisizer" (GPU). VU0 is often used to do skinning, physics, and audio processing, while VU1 is often used to implement various procedural shaders and other programs similar to DX8 vertex and pixel shaders.
A PC, however, has only one CPU, a bunch of different busses, and games are traditionally run at higher resolutions. On a TV, every game is run at either 30FPS or 60FPS on an interlaced screen. Having a sharper, high-res, progressive display, a much higher fillrate is required for good viewing. So you need a higher pixel clock, higher filrate, more memory, more memory bandwidth, lower latencies, and more raw power. Throw a large OS on top of that (Windows 2000 or XP) and you're a tad short on CPU power, memory bandwidth, etc. compared to a simple, streamlined gaming machine.
They had access to the machine for only about an hour. The machine already had Windows XP on it. They had QIII and a couple other things with them. Read the damn article.
I'm sorry... I sat in the fourth row for both. I refuse to believe the camera he used for shooting was at such a low res. I could not see the pixels in the 35mm version. The lines were cleaner, the contrast was better, and there was no aliasing artifacts.
Another possibility is that for the film version some interpolation was used to scale the res up, and then printed on the film at far greater resolution.
24FPS is a limitation, but current digital theaters also display at 24FPS.
The real problem with current digital projection technology is resolution - it's not nearly high enough for the throw distance. I saw Episode II on a digital theater in Elizabeth, NJ, and I must say that I am impressed with the technology, but it has a long way to go. I was able to see the pictures. I've also seen the film on a pristine 35mm print, and it looked far sharper, and more vibrant, and overall better.
The technology is currently ungodly expensive, but it will come down. 35mm prints, if taken care of, will still look better. Digital projectors should require, in the long run, less maintenance, and will be much more consistent from theater to theater. Most movie theaters have very loud projectors that shake, are out of focus, and covered in dirt. Poor theaters with digital projectors will have, in the future, dead pixels, dying bulbs, and misaligned DMM chips (professional systems have three DMM chips -- Red, Green, and Blue. Doing this prevents the "rainbow" effects and various moire patterns that is present on many home DLP and DILA projectors).
That all said, if the resolution is incresed to 4-8 times what it is now on those projectors (don't know what it currently is), one should not be able to see the pixels.
Hmm... RedHat, Mandrake, SuSE and others are profitting by selling volunteer content (i.e., Free Software). There is NOTHING wrong with this! The volunteer content is available with or without these companies. These companies give you the option to buy with value added (tech support, easy updates, no ads, etc.)
Slashdot content is still free. If Taco, et al makes a buck, that's great too! He's not forcing you to subscribe.
As soon as I graduate (four more weeks baby!) and get a job (well, who knows in this market), I'll be subscribing.
Actually, the real benefit is using KVim embedded in other KDE applications. If you REALLY like VI's input method, and want to use it in your mailer, IDE, etc., that's where KVim comes in.
:)
Now if only there was a KEmacs
My college, NJIT, has a program in this. They didn't when I signed up; it was just a couple of CS classes. Now the program includes psych classes and multimedia classes, and is very well fleshed out. I'll be coming back for my masters in 3 years or so (when the burnout fades), and by then there will be an HCI major.
Place to start: Ask Tog. Read the article on Fitts's law, and then read his other rants and articles. Feel free to email me for more resources.
Although many email clients offer *some* of these features in some form, the point is no client offers them all in a consise form. As a Human-Computer Interation (HCI) designer by trade, most of their design is head-on. The Floating PIM pane is a great idea, particularly if it has one line that notifies when new email is there and from whom, and can be used to un-hide the actual email client.
The split pane for the email messages, if done properly, could be nicely exploited. The "SPAM" button is a wonderful idea. The integrated instant messaging I could easilly do without... too hard to do it in both a useful and intuitive method.
I'm probably going to implement many of these designs this summer in a cross-platform open source email client. I may use some other client as a base as I'm not familiar with POP3 or IMAP. I'll probably wind up doing this in Qt.
Check some screen shots out here. Keep in mind, these are only some of the possibilities. KDE is super-themable.
You seriously have a bug up your ass. I was amused, as I was last year, and the year before that. It's fun. If you take life too seriously, you'll just give yourself an ulcer.
--Aaron
I'll definately give it a shot at some point. I'd like one around the house to port my apps to. (My senior project is using SDL and OpenGL, and currently compiles under three OS's I can verify. More would be cool). I will never, however, allow myself to become dependent on non-free software, even if it's of high quality, as I've heard OS X is.
Open source/free software IS a benefit. It means that if I don't like it, I can change it.
In addition to that, there are other reasons some prefer Linux to MacOS X. For me, I prefer a System V style init to a BSD init (runlevels are cool). I like the GNU tools being defualt. I like the flexibility X gives me. I like compiling my kernel to MY specefications.
I've never used OS X, and have no real desire to. It's not free software, and is thus irrelevant to me. Also, can you disable the GUI in OS X so there's one less thing to go wrong when running a server? (I'm not trolling here... An honest question... I don't know this one)
The point I make is that subtle differences in software make a huge difference to people preference. Do you like OS X better than Linux? If so, great. I like Linux, and I'm 99% happy with it. The areas I'm not happy with, I do something about.
I wish you were correct, but do you forget Jon Johanneson (sp?)??? He was extridited from his home contry for distributing DeCSS in violation of the DMCA.
As an American, I am mortified by such a distasteful show of force that we think we can push our own stupid laws on other nations. Unfortunately, it's a fact of life.
There is a solution. Use an Alpha PAL8045 heat sink. It mounts directly to your motherboard, and allows you to choose your own 80mm fan. Unless you need the serious cooling to overclock, I'd suggest a Papst 80mm ultra-quiet fan. It does the job well, and you can use them to replace other case fans as well.
:)
If you need help finding one, reply to this message.
I, myself, prefer a loud system, or at least a loud hard drive
--Aaron
DDR is still faster than Rambus. PC1600 DDR SDRAM (100mhz DDR=200mhz effective), offers 1.6GB/sec of memory bandwidth, the same as PC800 RDRAM. Why does Rambus perform better on the P4?
The i850 chipset has a dual-channel RDRAM controller. It handles two channels of PC800 RDRAM, offering twice the memory bandwidth of PC1600, and about 25% greater than PC2100.
Conversely, the newer i845 DDR SDRAM memory controller offers single-channel support for PC2100.
If a dual-channel DDR motherboard was available for the P4, it would smoke the Rambus performance. Period. The article at Tom's stated that at the higher speeds DDR must have a relatively high CAS latency (2.5). This is still FAR lower than the latency in RDRAM. RDRAM is high-bandwidth, high latency. DDR is high-bandwidth, low latency.
I've been really disappointed with most articles at Tom's of late.
Kathleen and Rob, congradulations! Nice to know nerds can find love too :)
ANYway... it's nice to see so many people are interested in this... it's already in the top 5 number of posts. I wonder how high it will go...
--Paladin128