/.ing tech-sites is one thing, but/.ing cute sites is CRUEL!!!1!!!1one!!!1één!!1!!!zwei!!!1!!!1!!deux!1! !!!!1~!~!~!@!!!eleven!!1!!!!!1!!111123~!~!!!elf
A lot of non-professional multitrack music recorders use lossy compression (mp2, mp3 or proprietary) nowadays. It uses less disk space and less disk I/O. Good A/D converters are much more important. Most of the time you can even bounce (merge) tracks a couple of times before you actually hear the difference....
Of course there are companies (like Tascam) that market low-budget multitrackers with lossless recording, but the tradeoff is that there wasn't enough money left to include good A/D converters and the recording is limited to two tracks at a time....
When Mac OS X was released, there was a 'compatibility layer' for OS 9 apps, but it was slow and kludgy as hell. That was a clear message to the users and the developers like 'Hey, this is a new OS, you'd better buy/develop apps that are specifically written for it!', and within a year every major app was modified to run natively on OS X, and the OS9 layer could be removed.
Microsoft is way too nice for the users and developers. They make things just too compatible. If you want to develop in VB now like you did back in '96, you can, and people can run your software. This is not how it's supposed to be and this is killing Windows development. In one of the comments on the Minimsft blog I read that Vista will have 86 different technologies like RPC/MAPI/COM/OLE/OLEDB/VB/VB.NET/.NET 1.0/.NET 1.1/DTC/COM+/WPF/WPF-E/Windows Forms/etc (quote), mostly just for compatibility. Why do they implement those technologies so good? Do it crappy (but just not crappy enough to make users too angry) and people will stop using them, switch to new technologies, and you can clean up your OS!
If OS X had provided native OS9-support, there would still be people devving like they did for OS Classic, and updates to OS X would be a lot harder to do for Apple.
Most languages nowadays are focused on serial code, so I guess that a new language must be created with the low-levelness of C, but with parallel coding in mind. It takes a whole new mindset to program in such a language (maybe even a completely different approach to text editing and source files), but multi-core processors will kill the traditional programming paradigms anyway....
I think books are pretty intuitive and userfriendly. 36-42 lines per page, 12 words per line is OK with me, and that needs a pocket-sized book to be readable. The only thing I miss in dead-tree books is the last three lines of the previous page and the first three lines of the next page (in italic or with a gray bg to distinguish it), so I don't have to flip pages when I lost track of the sentence.....
Re:Why not at least *try* for intuitiveness?
on
Vim 6.4 Released
·
· Score: 1
I think the Vi(m) keystrokes *are* pretty intuitive:
:wq : Write-Quit :w : Write
x : erase char
[num]dd : Delete line(s) <-- multiple keystrokes for destructive action!
[num]G : Goto line
n : Next
p : Previous
w : next Word
b : (prev word) : Back
i : Insert
a : Append
o : Open line :s : Substitute
dw : Delete Word
and so on, and so forth.... But from a GUI-viewpoint only a GUI has good usability. A GUI is nice for intuitiveness, but won't ever get you to the speed of an editor that's completely controllable with your keyboard.
Of course some keystrokes are obscure (h,j,k,l for cursor movement), but you use them so often that it's easier to have keys that are next to each other than (say) 'u' (up), 'd' (down), 'l' (left), 'r'(right). But hey, you *can* use the arrow keys in gvim!
But Vim isn't alone. Most games use obscure keystrokes too.
And if you can't remember the keystrokes...
on
Vim 6.4 Released
·
· Score: 1
I know someone who organized a concert of Status Quo. He payed lots of money to the band, and *still* some organization wants to have a certain (high!) percentage of that money to 'pay the artists'. The stupid thing is that the artists were already payed, and the money goes to the Dutch music industry. That's stealing!
When I read the title of this post I thought: "At least it can't get worse!". But I'm afraid I was wrong....
24bit/96KHz - Lots of crap has been made with this label. Please tell me something about the DACs they use. I'd rather have a good (professional) 16bit/44.1KHz board than a consumer-level 24bit/96KHz one.
'better than CD quality' - how? why? The only way to do this is by interpolating. How does it know if something is an MP3 artifact or if it's part of the music? How will it react to music that's encoded with OGG or AAC (and therefore has other compression characteristics)? Will this be 'better' like applying an unsharp-mask over a JPEG-compressed image which results in ugly squares?
Slashdot Mirror
You sound like a Jehova's witness predicting the end of the world...
/.ing tech-sites is one thing, but /.ing cute sites is CRUEL!!!1!!!1one!!!1één!!1!!!zwei!!!1!!!1!!deux!1! !!!!1~!~!~!@!!!eleven!!1!!!!!1!!111123~!~!!!elf
Here's a nice BitTorrent link with all the keynotes since Steve Job's comeback (1997) + the introduction of the original Mac in 1984 (>10GB!!!):
click
A lot of non-professional multitrack music recorders use lossy compression (mp2, mp3 or proprietary) nowadays. It uses less disk space and less disk I/O. Good A/D converters are much more important. Most of the time you can even bounce (merge) tracks a couple of times before you actually hear the difference....
Of course there are companies (like Tascam) that market low-budget multitrackers with lossless recording, but the tradeoff is that there wasn't enough money left to include good A/D converters and the recording is limited to two tracks at a time....
...silent.
When Mac OS X was released, there was a 'compatibility layer' for OS 9 apps, but it was slow and kludgy as hell. That was a clear message to the users and the developers like 'Hey, this is a new OS, you'd better buy/develop apps that are specifically written for it!', and within a year every major app was modified to run natively on OS X, and the OS9 layer could be removed.
Microsoft is way too nice for the users and developers. They make things just too compatible. If you want to develop in VB now like you did back in '96, you can, and people can run your software. This is not how it's supposed to be and this is killing Windows development. In one of the comments on the Minimsft blog I read that Vista will have 86 different technologies like RPC/MAPI/COM/OLE/OLEDB/VB/VB.NET/.NET 1.0/.NET 1.1/DTC/COM+/WPF/WPF-E/Windows Forms/etc (quote), mostly just for compatibility. Why do they implement those technologies so good? Do it crappy (but just not crappy enough to make users too angry) and people will stop using them, switch to new technologies, and you can clean up your OS!
If OS X had provided native OS9-support, there would still be people devving like they did for OS Classic, and updates to OS X would be a lot harder to do for Apple.
Don't worry, it's completely SFW :)
....for Dutch online real estate buyers :)
:)
go to www.funda.nl (the country's biggest real estate website) and search for 'konijn' (Dutch for 'rabbit')
Most languages nowadays are focused on serial code, so I guess that a new language must be created with the low-levelness of C, but with parallel coding in mind. It takes a whole new mindset to program in such a language (maybe even a completely different approach to text editing and source files), but multi-core processors will kill the traditional programming paradigms anyway....
I miss the part with the stuffed monkeys selling your company to Novell....
An OS designed by two opposing UI teams is already bad enough...
I think books are pretty intuitive and userfriendly. 36-42 lines per page, 12 words per line is OK with me, and that needs a pocket-sized book to be readable. The only thing I miss in dead-tree books is the last three lines of the previous page and the first three lines of the next page (in italic or with a gray bg to distinguish it), so I don't have to flip pages when I lost track of the sentence.....
...this was the argument against a certain mp3 player....
you mean 'jhead -purejpg'??
you mean this?
You can install it without asking your boss!!!
I think the Vi(m) keystrokes *are* pretty intuitive:
:wq : Write-Quit
:w : Write
:s : Substitute
x : erase char
[num]dd : Delete line(s) <-- multiple keystrokes for destructive action!
[num]G : Goto line
n : Next
p : Previous
w : next Word
b : (prev word) : Back
i : Insert
a : Append
o : Open line
dw : Delete Word
and so on, and so forth.... But from a GUI-viewpoint only a GUI has good usability. A GUI is nice for intuitiveness, but won't ever get you to the speed of an editor that's completely controllable with your keyboard.
Of course some keystrokes are obscure (h,j,k,l for cursor movement), but you use them so often that it's easier to have keys that are next to each other than (say) 'u' (up), 'd' (down), 'l' (left), 'r'(right). But hey, you *can* use the arrow keys in gvim!
But Vim isn't alone. Most games use obscure keystrokes too.
...download a Cheat Sheet and print it.
not ':wZZ', but ':wq' (write-quit) OR 'ZZ' (or ':x'). Three not-that-hard-to-learn commands.
nineteen eighty-four.
Oh joy. Flashing ads in newspapers. I can't wait.
Escaped.
I know someone who organized a concert of Status Quo. He payed lots of money to the band, and *still* some organization wants to have a certain (high!) percentage of that money to 'pay the artists'. The stupid thing is that the artists were already payed, and the money goes to the Dutch music industry. That's stealing!
When I read the title of this post I thought: "At least it can't get worse!". But I'm afraid I was wrong....
That means that Apple abandoned the CRT.... Are they the first to do this?
MIPS - said before, Meaningless.
24bit/96KHz - Lots of crap has been made with this label. Please tell me something about the DACs they use. I'd rather have a good (professional) 16bit/44.1KHz board than a consumer-level 24bit/96KHz one.
'better than CD quality' - how? why? The only way to do this is by interpolating. How does it know if something is an MP3 artifact or if it's part of the music? How will it react to music that's encoded with OGG or AAC (and therefore has other compression characteristics)? Will this be 'better' like applying an unsharp-mask over a JPEG-compressed image which results in ugly squares?