FWIW, windows since NT has been a hybrid kernel rather than a pure monolithic kernel.
In this case, the problem seems to be a driver installed by the application. Unless you have any further information, your conclusion that MS is at fault would seem to be wrong.
No. Web pages should scale, and that's what CSS @media rules [w3.org] are designed for. But unfortunately, the entire HTML gets sent to the device no matter what @media it uses.
Utterly irrelevant to the matter at hand. You replied to me asking why a browser "should still be a relatively lightweight application by itself." What relevance does what you've just said had to that? In fact it seems to me that you're arguing for further browser complexity, support of multiple presentation modes, etc.
They use Safari, which is equally heavy for a reason
Ok, now wait, I thought you were arguing about why modern browsers were bad...yet here is a clear example of the same codebase (Webkit) running fine on both handheld and desktop. Does that defeat your argument?
How should a small web developer test his web site against the quirks of PDA browsers without owning all makes and models of PDAs?
Ok, somewhat pedantic as you're clearly right--even the iPhone has a desktop emulator. However, your statement does not stand for users.
Utterly irrelevant. Should screen resolution be limited to 320x240 so that subnotebooks and handhelds can run at the same resolution? Should games be forced to limit ther polgygons to something that can run on subnotebooks and handhelds? No, absolutely no. People don't use Firefox on their iPhones, and they don't use the Treo browser on their desktops. As it should be.
I'm not arguing for OR against anything you're saying here!
Let me put my belief another way. You could make an operating system that had no user configurable elements, no ability to install applications, and only one application--a web browser--and for many users, it would be perfectly acceptable as a primary computer.
People using web application != people should use web application
I don't necessarily disagree, however, my point is somewhat greater. My point is that XML+Javascript/etc is becoming a very powerful development platform in its own right. For both local AND web apps.
Don't tell me it is because web applications are easier to use.
Well, sometimes they ARE easier to use. More importantly, you don't have to download, install, update, make sure you're not installing a virus/spyware, you don't have to know what things like POP servers or SSL or SMTP are to check your email. You just have to be able to type "www.yahoo.com" etc. For many users, this is a BIG deal.
Why should we say. Because everything is done one the web, because "It's so cool".
There are many advantages (and disadvantages as well). Just a few--easy to roll out bugfxies, updates, security fixes, etc. Users don't have to download and install binary blobs. Users can have the same desktop experience on their work computer, their home laptop, and their smartphone. If a user's computer dies, they don't lose all their data.
You sound like you work for Google. I use as many browsers as are on OS X and Linux.
I don't work for google. I do occasionally develop webapps as part of my job, but it's not my main "thing"
However, I sure as hell am not spending my time in GMail [I have it but rarely use it], when I can use KMail, Mail.app, Thunderbird, Evolution, et al. for email.
When I went to college, every incoming student just about installed Mulberry as their email program. By the time I graduated, the IT services didnt even distribute Mulberry anymore because MOST PEOPLE preferred the univ webmail or gmail, etc. I was a holdout. Still am to some degree. MOST people preferred the web apps.
I actually fought this argument long and hard when I worked for the govt and they wanted to move off some very powerful legacy apps (Lotus Notes and TONS of programsi ncluded) to go to flashy web 2.0 junk. I'm basically conceding the fight though, IMHO, it's over.
I'm not interested in Web Suite Apps. When I want a spreadsheet I'm not headin' over to Google. I've got plenty of locally installed options from basic to advanced Numerical Analysis needs.
As I said in my post--"the average user utilizies a very small percentage of the functionality of Office." You are clearly not an average user, neither are most people on slashdot. I would not expect--at this point in time--most slashdot users and tech-savy users to switch from powerful desktop apps. For the secretary doing email and typing memos that the OP mentioned, does it matter?
i understand that the web has evolved quite a bit over the years--trust me, i know.
Ok, I trust you!;-)
one of the main benefits of the web as an application platform is that you can start accomplishing previous desktop computing tasks using a thin client.
That WAS one of the biggest benefits of web apps, and IS still an advantage. But again, look at the goals of Chrome..of the Webkit library..of the gecko library, etc. These XML/DOM/Javascript engines are becoming strong application development platforms in their own right. Google gears. It's very clear that this is the direction that both browsers and application development is heading in. (at least for now)
if a browser with a single blank page loaded eats up 1 GB of memory
So basically, not only is your complaint completely invalid, but I would question whether you've looked at Chrome's (or Firefox's for that matter) memory usage at all? I mean, 1gb for a single blank page is orders of magnitude off:p
As I argued before, there's no longer any point to additional computing power except to improve the user experience. Office is bad. Web browsers good.
yes, CPU clock speeds are going up, and memory prices are going down, but a web browser should still be a relatively lightweight application by itself.
Why? I spend more time in the web browser--by far--than any other application. Email? 10 years ago I used a standalone email app, now I mostly use webmail. 5 years ago I used AIM. Now I use web chat. Picasa? Google documents? Between javascript advances, DOM, rich media, plugins, TABS, etc etc etc, today's browser does things not even imaged in 10 years ago.
Chrome's very purpose is to make the browser a more generalized application development platform. Heck, WEBKIT is used in the same way (and XUL, etc for Firefox). The web browser ain't just for HTML circa '97 anymore. The web browser is probably the single most important application for most users.
there seems to be a negative trend of basic office applications becoming increasingly resource-intensive at a pace that negates simultaneous increases in computer processing power. that's not technological progress, that's just inefficient software development.
Exactly right. MS Office is a great example of this. The average user utilizes a very small percent of the functionality of Office, and yet everyone suffers the bloat. Can you honestly say that most people don't get anything out of a more rich browsing experience?
Opening a new process per rendering window is a property of google chrome NOT webkit. Try Safari if you want to see what Webkits looks like in a more established browser.
Additionally, I don't know about you, but I haven't bought a computer in several years that hasn't had 2gb, and 1gb seems to be the absolute floor. Memory isn't doing any good if it's not being used!
I think the idea is a bunch of people offer bounties for something worthwhile. So, if someone else wanted GTK, maybe they would offer $50, and then someone else $100, someone else $10, and so on, so the bounty grows.
I think I've played over 600 hours of Warcraft III lol.
Unfortunately, playing video games doesn't have too much correlation with programming knowledge etc. Unfortunate because if it did, wed have a shitload of awesome programmers out there:)
In any case, I think this discussion has gone on far longer than it needed to.
No, it's not the same because when the 3D engine is doing the scaling it outputs at the native resolution. LCD scaling is crap, except for the very few (for example, Gateway has a 30" I think called XHD3000) that have dedicated scaling chips.
I'm not sure you're understanding how this works? The native resolution is completely unrelated to what resolution a game or OS runs in. The "native resolution" means--for an LCD--the actual number of pixels. A game or OS CAN run at the native resolution, or it can run at another resolution taking up the actual pixels, or it can be stretched by the LCD, or it can upscaled via software. But this is all kind of irrelevant to the issue at hand, because Starcraft...cannot...do...scaling.
Actually, if you're interested, try running war3 at a bunch of different resolutions, and look at the non-3d parts of the game--the panels, UI, etc. It can give you a better idea of how Blizzard can make war3 resolution independent, even with bitmap graphics.
Well, first of all it's DirectX, not OpenGL
Golly, I had no idea my OSX (and OS9) computers supported DirectX. I wonder how Blizzard managed to do that, amazing! (tongue FIRMLY in cheek)
I never argued against that. My point is that allowing multiple resolutions doesn't mean that the viewport size has to change.
Which, again, was never in dispute! The reason Blizzard did not make Starcraft--a 2D game with a fixed viewport size--support multiple resolutions is the same as I've said in every post in this thread! I'm not sure what we're even talking about anymore:p
Well, the thing is, you can do that, but you can also not, and just scale the rendering code by a constant to keep the viewport the same.
Ok, so then you have low-res graphics magnified at 2x or 3x or whatever. Which is the same as what LCDs do.
Again, the difference between War3 and SC is that War3 was built from the ground up to support multiple resolutions, and to use OpenGL to be able to scale 3D. SC is all low res bitmaps. The only thing they could do that would make SC work at higher resolutions is to create new graphics!
That's one of the big advantages of having a 3D game engine--when you change the resolution you can effectively "zoom" in and out.
Starcraft was all sprites and 2d. This means that every graphic in the game is actually the size you see on screen. If they had wanted to keep the aspect the same, and the viewport the same, but allow multiple resolutions, they would have had to make more graphics.
If a stretched picture is all you want, most LCDs give you the option--you can stretch 640x480 to 1680x1050 if you want. It'll look like crap, but that's up to you:)
Not to mention, with the shorter passage, just think of the fuel savings for cargo vessels! Someone ought to do an analysis of the CO2 emissions reductions in shorter ocean trips:)
"These changes are irreversible under the present climate and indicate that the environmental conditions that have kept these ice shelves in balance for thousands of years are no longer present," said Muller.
The assumption, of course, is that today's "environmental conditions" are constant -- ie, global climate change will continue in the same rate and direction.
It's somewhat akin to me saying "If the weather stays like it is now (August) then we will not have any snowfall"
Of course, if the assumption that manmade global climate change in the heating direction is inexorable, then we're boned:)
How it all plays out remains to be seen but it's likely to have dire consequences for some regions and relatively little affect on others.
What I'm surprised about is that they haven't done anything for Starcraft's resolution. The only thing I can figure is that at some point the game reached an "untouchable" status where they didn't feel it was right or fair to make such a sweeping change.
I don't think they wanted to change the viewport size--can make a big difference.
Slashdot Mirror
It sounds like the easier solution might be not hanging out with stoners who want to post your picture online :)
FWIW, windows since NT has been a hybrid kernel rather than a pure monolithic kernel.
In this case, the problem seems to be a driver installed by the application. Unless you have any further information, your conclusion that MS is at fault would seem to be wrong.
If Windows didn't allow such extensive use of making every bit of software installing useless drivers and daemons
I'm not sure how to parse that...what do you mean?
With Windows apps, it's more than frequent, it's the norm.
What other windows apps do you run that require drivers to be installed?
You can untag yourself as well.
No. Web pages should scale, and that's what CSS @media rules [w3.org] are designed for. But unfortunately, the entire HTML gets sent to the device no matter what @media it uses.
Utterly irrelevant to the matter at hand. You replied to me asking why a browser "should still be a relatively lightweight application by itself." What relevance does what you've just said had to that? In fact it seems to me that you're arguing for further browser complexity, support of multiple presentation modes, etc.
They use Safari, which is equally heavy for a reason
Ok, now wait, I thought you were arguing about why modern browsers were bad...yet here is a clear example of the same codebase (Webkit) running fine on both handheld and desktop. Does that defeat your argument?
How should a small web developer test his web site against the quirks of PDA browsers without owning all makes and models of PDAs?
Ok, somewhat pedantic as you're clearly right--even the iPhone has a desktop emulator. However, your statement does not stand for users.
Utterly irrelevant. Should screen resolution be limited to 320x240 so that subnotebooks and handhelds can run at the same resolution? Should games be forced to limit ther polgygons to something that can run on subnotebooks and handhelds? No, absolutely no. People don't use Firefox on their iPhones, and they don't use the Treo browser on their desktops. As it should be.
You're running the latest and greatest browser revision--what's your problem?
I'm not arguing for OR against anything you're saying here!
Let me put my belief another way. You could make an operating system that had no user configurable elements, no ability to install applications, and only one application--a web browser--and for many users, it would be perfectly acceptable as a primary computer.
People using web application != people should use web application
I don't necessarily disagree, however, my point is somewhat greater. My point is that XML+Javascript/etc is becoming a very powerful development platform in its own right. For both local AND web apps.
Don't tell me it is because web applications are easier to use.
Well, sometimes they ARE easier to use. More importantly, you don't have to download, install, update, make sure you're not installing a virus/spyware, you don't have to know what things like POP servers or SSL or SMTP are to check your email. You just have to be able to type "www.yahoo.com" etc. For many users, this is a BIG deal.
Why should we say. Because everything is done one the web, because "It's so cool".
There are many advantages (and disadvantages as well). Just a few--easy to roll out bugfxies, updates, security fixes, etc. Users don't have to download and install binary blobs. Users can have the same desktop experience on their work computer, their home laptop, and their smartphone. If a user's computer dies, they don't lose all their data.
What application do you use more than any other?
Terminal.app would be close for me, but I think the web browser wins overall.
You sound like you work for Google. I use as many browsers as are on OS X and Linux.
I don't work for google. I do occasionally develop webapps as part of my job, but it's not my main "thing"
However, I sure as hell am not spending my time in GMail [I have it but rarely use it], when I can use KMail, Mail.app, Thunderbird, Evolution, et al. for email.
When I went to college, every incoming student just about installed Mulberry as their email program. By the time I graduated, the IT services didnt even distribute Mulberry anymore because MOST PEOPLE preferred the univ webmail or gmail, etc. I was a holdout. Still am to some degree. MOST people preferred the web apps.
I actually fought this argument long and hard when I worked for the govt and they wanted to move off some very powerful legacy apps (Lotus Notes and TONS of programsi ncluded) to go to flashy web 2.0 junk. I'm basically conceding the fight though, IMHO, it's over.
I'm not interested in Web Suite Apps. When I want a spreadsheet I'm not headin' over to Google. I've got plenty of locally installed options from basic to advanced Numerical Analysis needs.
As I said in my post--"the average user utilizies a very small percentage of the functionality of Office." You are clearly not an average user, neither are most people on slashdot. I would not expect--at this point in time--most slashdot users and tech-savy users to switch from powerful desktop apps. For the secretary doing email and typing memos that the OP mentioned, does it matter?
i understand that the web has evolved quite a bit over the years--trust me, i know.
Ok, I trust you! ;-)
one of the main benefits of the web as an application platform is that you can start accomplishing previous desktop computing tasks using a thin client.
That WAS one of the biggest benefits of web apps, and IS still an advantage. But again, look at the goals of Chrome..of the Webkit library..of the gecko library, etc. These XML/DOM/Javascript engines are becoming strong application development platforms in their own right. Google gears. It's very clear that this is the direction that both browsers and application development is heading in. (at least for now)
if a browser with a single blank page loaded eats up 1 GB of memory
Well, that's hyperbole to be sure.
Win2k3 server, FF3, according to task manager.
1 tab, our company intranet (XHTML+CSS+1 image+javascript) -- 30mb ... 30mb ... 30mb ... 30mb
+1 blank tab
+2nd blank tab
+3rd blank tab
(etc)
+5th tab -- google -- 31mb
How can you complain about 31mb?
--
Chrome, default 1st tab -- 22mb
1st tab -- google
2nd tab -- intranet
3rd tab -- microsoft.com
4th tab -- slashdot
5th,6th,6th tab -- blank
memory usage is ~60mb total.
So basically, not only is your complaint completely invalid, but I would question whether you've looked at Chrome's (or Firefox's for that matter) memory usage at all? I mean, 1gb for a single blank page is orders of magnitude off :p
As I argued before, there's no longer any point to additional computing power except to improve the user experience. Office is bad. Web browsers good.
yes, CPU clock speeds are going up, and memory prices are going down, but a web browser should still be a relatively lightweight application by itself.
Why? I spend more time in the web browser--by far--than any other application. Email? 10 years ago I used a standalone email app, now I mostly use webmail. 5 years ago I used AIM. Now I use web chat. Picasa? Google documents? Between javascript advances, DOM, rich media, plugins, TABS, etc etc etc, today's browser does things not even imaged in 10 years ago.
Chrome's very purpose is to make the browser a more generalized application development platform. Heck, WEBKIT is used in the same way (and XUL, etc for Firefox). The web browser ain't just for HTML circa '97 anymore. The web browser is probably the single most important application for most users.
there seems to be a negative trend of basic office applications becoming increasingly resource-intensive at a pace that negates simultaneous increases in computer processing power. that's not technological progress, that's just inefficient software development.
Exactly right. MS Office is a great example of this. The average user utilizes a very small percent of the functionality of Office, and yet everyone suffers the bloat. Can you honestly say that most people don't get anything out of a more rich browsing experience?
Thanks for the link, that's good to know.
Very interesting...the result of "++i + ++i" was not what I expected. Why does it do that?
Opening a new process per rendering window is a property of google chrome NOT webkit. Try Safari if you want to see what Webkits looks like in a more established browser.
Additionally, I don't know about you, but I haven't bought a computer in several years that hasn't had 2gb, and 1gb seems to be the absolute floor. Memory isn't doing any good if it's not being used!
FWIW, I think your file shadow/shortcut/alias/link example has always worked on Mac OS. Definitely works in OSX, and I believe in OS9 as well.
I think the idea is a bunch of people offer bounties for something worthwhile. So, if someone else wanted GTK, maybe they would offer $50, and then someone else $100, someone else $10, and so on, so the bounty grows.
I think I've played over 600 hours of Warcraft III lol.
Unfortunately, playing video games doesn't have too much correlation with programming knowledge etc. Unfortunate because if it did, wed have a shitload of awesome programmers out there :)
In any case, I think this discussion has gone on far longer than it needed to.
Hear hear.
No, it's not the same because when the 3D engine is doing the scaling it outputs at the native resolution. LCD scaling is crap, except for the very few (for example, Gateway has a 30" I think called XHD3000) that have dedicated scaling chips.
I'm not sure you're understanding how this works? The native resolution is completely unrelated to what resolution a game or OS runs in. The "native resolution" means--for an LCD--the actual number of pixels. A game or OS CAN run at the native resolution, or it can run at another resolution taking up the actual pixels, or it can be stretched by the LCD, or it can upscaled via software. But this is all kind of irrelevant to the issue at hand, because Starcraft...cannot...do...scaling.
Actually, if you're interested, try running war3 at a bunch of different resolutions, and look at the non-3d parts of the game--the panels, UI, etc. It can give you a better idea of how Blizzard can make war3 resolution independent, even with bitmap graphics.
Well, first of all it's DirectX, not OpenGL
Golly, I had no idea my OSX (and OS9) computers supported DirectX. I wonder how Blizzard managed to do that, amazing! (tongue FIRMLY in cheek)
I never argued against that. My point is that allowing multiple resolutions doesn't mean that the viewport size has to change.
Which, again, was never in dispute! The reason Blizzard did not make Starcraft--a 2D game with a fixed viewport size--support multiple resolutions is the same as I've said in every post in this thread! I'm not sure what we're even talking about anymore :p
Well, the thing is, you can do that, but you can also not, and just scale the rendering code by a constant to keep the viewport the same.
Ok, so then you have low-res graphics magnified at 2x or 3x or whatever. Which is the same as what LCDs do.
Again, the difference between War3 and SC is that War3 was built from the ground up to support multiple resolutions, and to use OpenGL to be able to scale 3D. SC is all low res bitmaps. The only thing they could do that would make SC work at higher resolutions is to create new graphics!
That's one of the big advantages of having a 3D game engine--when you change the resolution you can effectively "zoom" in and out.
Starcraft was all sprites and 2d. This means that every graphic in the game is actually the size you see on screen. If they had wanted to keep the aspect the same, and the viewport the same, but allow multiple resolutions, they would have had to make more graphics.
If a stretched picture is all you want, most LCDs give you the option--you can stretch 640x480 to 1680x1050 if you want. It'll look like crap, but that's up to you :)
Not to mention, with the shorter passage, just think of the fuel savings for cargo vessels! Someone ought to do an analysis of the CO2 emissions reductions in shorter ocean trips :)
From the part you highlighted:
"These changes are irreversible under the present climate and indicate that the environmental conditions that have kept these ice shelves in balance for thousands of years are no longer present," said Muller.
The assumption, of course, is that today's "environmental conditions" are constant -- ie, global climate change will continue in the same rate and direction.
It's somewhat akin to me saying "If the weather stays like it is now (August) then we will not have any snowfall"
Of course, if the assumption that manmade global climate change in the heating direction is inexorable, then we're boned :)
How it all plays out remains to be seen but it's likely to have dire consequences for some regions and relatively little affect on others.
That's the status quo.
What I'm surprised about is that they haven't done anything for Starcraft's resolution. The only thing I can figure is that at some point the game reached an "untouchable" status where they didn't feel it was right or fair to make such a sweeping change.
I don't think they wanted to change the viewport size--can make a big difference.