Well, the important point to take home is that SP3 will be at least as vapid as this "techarp.com" article was, and that will surely be good news for anyone who was worried that Microsoft would go all Vista on this final XP service pack.
It would be very cool of Apple to release an Apple II kit that would allow people to build thier own Apple IIs. They could include the ROMs and maybe a Disk II interface to allow connection to a flash card. Given the vast library of old Apple II software out there it would be a cool project for a geeky kid (or a geeky nostalgic grown-up). Apple II forever, right?
The 3rd-party iPod battery market has been over-saturated for years. You can get a new battery for any iPod model, including the tools needed to perform the replacement, for under $30 dollars.
Do the original terms of the sale/license agreement permit Microsoft to do this?
And if so, does this show that the product, even as initially sold, was defective, unfit for purpose, or deceptively advertised? It's not first time in history a music format has become obsolete. Although, in this case it's never been easier to transfer your music to another format.
Useful in the incredibly unlikely event that Google loses your data.
Also useful if you switch email accounts at a later date. I'm not going to argue the merits of backing up your data, especially when, in this case, it's so easy and automatic. If you don't get it that's your problem.
indexed for fast searching
This is Google you're talking about here. Your email is already indexed, and searchable better and faster than a desktop app will be able to.
I use Spotlight regularly, and I routinely find it useful that my email archive is included in its search, whether or not I'm online.
Why not use IMAP?
I've been using this setup long before Google offered IMAP access. GMail's non-standard POP3 implementation is designed precisely for archival purposes, and that's precisely what I need and it works very well. I want my email archive to be a single collection, and if I switch email accounts I want to continue to archive to the same collection. That's not possible with IMAP.
Not to mention that I've never met an IMAP client I didn't hate, and I do not trust an IMAP client to give me proper off-line access to my entire email archive.
For me, GMail+POP3 is the definitive solution to my many years of IMAP woes.
9531 GMail messages archived locally on my laptop, backed up with the rest of my laptop data, indexed for fast searching and available for off-line viewing wherever I am. Doesn't everybody do this? All you need is a good POP3 mail client.
App Zapper is not essential system software, and is not comparable to the Windows application install/uninstall process.
I guess you don't realize this, but most Windows uninstallers do nothing more than reverse the install process; files created by the application after it was installed (preferences, cache, etc.) are not removed by the uninstaller. In other words, the net effect of Windows uninstall is the same as dragging an application to the trash.
Windows could use a tool like App Zapper (and I think there are a few).
Yes, it's sad. The poor Open Apple. One of the last remaining bits of Apple II legacy has finally been removed from the Mac, and the once-mystical Apple/Splat/Command key becomes just another key.
However, the backspace key is still labeled "Delete", so Apple II fans can still enjoy that one at least.
It really has nothing to do with running out of memory. Their event dispatcher needs to notify a rapidly increasing number of listeners for each event, and eventually cannot keep up. Hence, their system slows over time and eventually stops.
A moderately experienced programmer would recognize the problem very easily by, say, noticing that a listener method is getting called 100,000 times for each event.
Just remember, if windows got taken down by a third party app, not only would you be screaming and shouting about bill gates and phalluses, but also you would be baying for the blood of anyone who dare use windows.
No I wouldn't, James. Who are you talking about? Care to provide an example?
Neither Slashdot readers, Apple users, nor Microsoft users operate as a collective unit. Just because User B says something that contradicts User A, it does not make either a "hippo"-crite.
A question for you: What is it about OS X that makes it good for audio/video/graphic work? That's your assertion, so I assume you have at least of some reason to believe it.
Why were Linux users so enthusiastic about NEXTSTEP-derived window managers, such as WindowMaker and AfterStep? What lead to the development of GNUStep?
That's NEXTSTEP.
Now, say you chose NEXTSTEP as the basis for your perfect operating system and desktop environment. You get to keep all of the good design decisions, throw away or refactor all of the bad design decisions, and do it without any backward compatibility restrictions. What you end up with is OS X.
But why an Apple laptop? Here's why: I can open up a bunch of SSH and X11 sessions to a remote server over wi-fi, close the lid and throw it in my back-pack, go eat lunch, come back and open the lid, and all of my remote X11 apps and sessions are still alive. OS X just works damn well on Apple's laptop hardware.
There are no barriers to Linux adoption, except...
on
Ubuntu Linux vs. Mac OS X
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
... its quality.
There's nothing stopping anyone from installing and switching to Linux; the process couldn't possibly be cheaper or more simple. Yet few people try it out, and far fewer people (outside of first-year Comp Sci students) stick with it as their primary desktop. Why? Isn't it time to stop with the excuses and start looking at the software?
In the mid-to-late 90s, Linux desktop development could have started on one of two paths:
Linux as a true alternative to Windows, for people who don't like Windows.
Linux as a substitution for Windows, for people who can't afford Windows (or just don't like Microsoft).
Of course, they (Gnome and KDE) went with the latter, the rationalization being that it would be easier for Windows users to switch to a familiar Windows-like desktop. (That it's much, much easier for developers to copy Win95 instead of designing something original is just a bonus, I guess.)
The downside to this approach is that the Linux Desktop, as a Windows clone, offers few compelling reasons for Windows users to switch. The best the Linux Desktop can achieve is "almost as good as Windows" which isn't much of a selling point for people looking to get away from Windows.
The bottom line is that the Linux Desktop has not been, and continues not to be a compelling alternative for Windows users, even for those who appreciate having a good bash shell close at hand.
And it's a shame. Most of the features that compelled me to try out OS X were right there in NEXTSTEP as far back as 1993. Yet both Gnome and KDE decided to model their GUIs off of Windows 95 instead. Because of that, the Linux Desktop is as disappointing to me now as it was in 1998.
If the device detects that it has been stolen, through any number of means such as plugging in to an unauthorized computer or by geographic location, the device disables its charging circuit so that it can't be charged from any changer.
It has nothing to do with the iPod only working with specific, Apple-branded, chargers. That would be stupid.
I recently went through my old PC to remove the unused software it has collected over the years. Not only was this a long and painful process involving questions about shared DLLs that no end-user is even remotely qualified to answer, but nearly half of the uninstallers failed out-right. On top of that, my PC was still littered with registry settings, program files, and cache files from applications that were supposedly uninstalled successfully.
Do you think the App-Zapper people will develop a version for Windows? I'd pay $20 for that!
The reality is that most Windows uninstallers do little more than what is accomplished from dragging an application bundle to the trash. The reason it works on OS X (and NEXTSTEP) is because the program files and system configuration settings are contained entirely within the application bundle, as opposed to being scattered throughout the file system and registry. That is why Windows needs an uninstaller.
The reason the situation is better on OS X is because OS X doesn't obfuscate the file system the way Windows does. For people who are paranoid about a clean computer it's relatively trivial to go into ~/Library/Caches, ~/Library/Application Support, and ~/Library/Preferences and clear out stuff. Average users do this, and it's this simplicity that allows programs like App-zapper to exist. Writing such a tool for Windows would be practically impossible.
Given the choice between Application/Framework Bundles vs. requiring an installer/uninstaller program for even the simplest application, I'll choose bundles every time. It's a valid point that OS X could include a catalog of legitimate uninstallers for applications that do provide them, but on the other hand, I've been getting along just fine with/Library/Receipts for the two and a half years I've been using OS X. You know that you can select 'File->Show Files' from an OS X installer packages to view all files contained within the package, right? Another feature I wish Windows had.
But if that's all too much for Grandma then perhaps she should stick with Windows.
(By the way AppTrap does what App-Zapper does, and it's free and open source.)
It's not even really about the price. They want Apple to license the tech for their ACC files so other players besides iPods can play the music.
I don't think that's the case, actually. That would only increase iTunes' market share and Jobs' clout, which is the real issue at hand.
From the article, Universal wants out of its long-term blanket licensing agreement, and instead wants to license music to Apple on a release-by-release basis, which would give them the option to negotiate the terms for a specific release and withhold a release from the iTunes if the terms weren't favorable.
Apple doesn't make much money directly from music sales. Again, from the article, they want to keep the price of music down because it makes iTunes and the iPod look more attractive. Universal thinks that's unfair, because Apple makes money selling iPods. Universal wants to be able to charge whatever they want. In other words, it's just about the money.
The record companies don't like that they're being marginalized, but there's nothing they can do about it. If an iPod owner's music isn't available on iTunes, they'll just go back to file sharing.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the important point to take home is that SP3 will be at least as vapid as this "techarp.com" article was, and that will surely be good news for anyone who was worried that Microsoft would go all Vista on this final XP service pack.
It would be very cool of Apple to release an Apple II kit that would allow people to build thier own Apple IIs. They could include the ROMs and maybe a Disk II interface to allow connection to a flash card. Given the vast library of old Apple II software out there it would be a cool project for a geeky kid (or a geeky nostalgic grown-up). Apple II forever, right?
The 3rd-party iPod battery market has been over-saturated for years. You can get a new battery for any iPod model, including the tools needed to perform the replacement, for under $30 dollars.
And if so, does this show that the product, even as initially sold, was defective, unfit for purpose, or deceptively advertised? It's not first time in history a music format has become obsolete. Although, in this case it's never been easier to transfer your music to another format.
I'm reminded of this episode in which some poor schmuck visited an Apple Store for the first time and wrote about it in his blog.
I've been using this setup long before Google offered IMAP access. GMail's non-standard POP3 implementation is designed precisely for archival purposes, and that's precisely what I need and it works very well. I want my email archive to be a single collection, and if I switch email accounts I want to continue to archive to the same collection. That's not possible with IMAP.
Not to mention that I've never met an IMAP client I didn't hate, and I do not trust an IMAP client to give me proper off-line access to my entire email archive.
For me, GMail+POP3 is the definitive solution to my many years of IMAP woes.
9531 GMail messages archived locally on my laptop, backed up with the rest of my laptop data, indexed for fast searching and available for off-line viewing wherever I am. Doesn't everybody do this? All you need is a good POP3 mail client.
App Zapper is not essential system software, and is not comparable to the Windows application install/uninstall process.
I guess you don't realize this, but most Windows uninstallers do nothing more than reverse the install process; files created by the application after it was installed (preferences, cache, etc.) are not removed by the uninstaller. In other words, the net effect of Windows uninstall is the same as dragging an application to the trash.
Windows could use a tool like App Zapper (and I think there are a few).
Well, using the dark "Slashdot" green background for the entire story description is a little much.
But I really like the updated layout. They're no longer wasting valuable real estate on the pointless left-hand column.
Yes, it's sad. The poor Open Apple. One of the last remaining bits of Apple II legacy has finally been removed from the Mac, and the once-mystical Apple/Splat/Command key becomes just another key.
However, the backspace key is still labeled "Delete", so Apple II fans can still enjoy that one at least.
The trackpad is no wider than the existing ones; it's just taller with a much thinner button.
I wonder if these new trackpad gestures will find their way to existing models? The three-finger back/forward swiping would be nice to have.
Where do you work?
So, what's your analysis? Why is #6 less than #2, and what does than mean?
Where does the memory go when an application is minimized? Where does the memory come back from when you restore the application?
Hint: the application isn't doing anything. It's an OS trick.
Bonus Question: Why do you think Firefox disables this trick?
It really has nothing to do with running out of memory. Their event dispatcher needs to notify a rapidly increasing number of listeners for each event, and eventually cannot keep up. Hence, their system slows over time and eventually stops.
A moderately experienced programmer would recognize the problem very easily by, say, noticing that a listener method is getting called 100,000 times for each event.
No I wouldn't, James. Who are you talking about? Care to provide an example?
Neither Slashdot readers, Apple users, nor Microsoft users operate as a collective unit. Just because User B says something that contradicts User A, it does not make either a "hippo"-crite.
A lot of things don't work with Ubuntu's pdf viewer.
There's an interesting discussion on the same topic over here.
Formerly known as the Hitler Heart.
A question for you: What is it about OS X that makes it good for audio/video/graphic work? That's your assertion, so I assume you have at least of some reason to believe it.
If you're confused as to why some choose OS X then I would suggest doing some research into the features that made NEXTSTEP a compelling Unix Desktop and workstation in the 90s. For instance:
That's NEXTSTEP.
Now, say you chose NEXTSTEP as the basis for your perfect operating system and desktop environment. You get to keep all of the good design decisions, throw away or refactor all of the bad design decisions, and do it without any backward compatibility restrictions. What you end up with is OS X.
But why an Apple laptop? Here's why: I can open up a bunch of SSH and X11 sessions to a remote server over wi-fi, close the lid and throw it in my back-pack, go eat lunch, come back and open the lid, and all of my remote X11 apps and sessions are still alive. OS X just works damn well on Apple's laptop hardware.
... its quality.
There's nothing stopping anyone from installing and switching to Linux; the process couldn't possibly be cheaper or more simple. Yet few people try it out, and far fewer people (outside of first-year Comp Sci students) stick with it as their primary desktop. Why? Isn't it time to stop with the excuses and start looking at the software?
In the mid-to-late 90s, Linux desktop development could have started on one of two paths:
Of course, they (Gnome and KDE) went with the latter, the rationalization being that it would be easier for Windows users to switch to a familiar Windows-like desktop. (That it's much, much easier for developers to copy Win95 instead of designing something original is just a bonus, I guess.)
The downside to this approach is that the Linux Desktop, as a Windows clone, offers few compelling reasons for Windows users to switch. The best the Linux Desktop can achieve is "almost as good as Windows" which isn't much of a selling point for people looking to get away from Windows.
The bottom line is that the Linux Desktop has not been, and continues not to be a compelling alternative for Windows users, even for those who appreciate having a good bash shell close at hand.
And it's a shame. Most of the features that compelled me to try out OS X were right there in NEXTSTEP as far back as 1993. Yet both Gnome and KDE decided to model their GUIs off of Windows 95 instead. Because of that, the Linux Desktop is as disappointing to me now as it was in 1998.
If the device detects that it has been stolen, through any number of means such as plugging in to an unauthorized computer or by geographic location, the device disables its charging circuit so that it can't be charged from any changer.
It has nothing to do with the iPod only working with specific, Apple-branded, chargers. That would be stupid.
sudo perl /Developer/Tools/uninstall-devtools.pl
You think developers can handle that?
No worse than OS X, huh?
/Library/Receipts for the two and a half years I've been using OS X. You know that you can select 'File->Show Files' from an OS X installer packages to view all files contained within the package, right? Another feature I wish Windows had.
I recently went through my old PC to remove the unused software it has collected over the years. Not only was this a long and painful process involving questions about shared DLLs that no end-user is even remotely qualified to answer, but nearly half of the uninstallers failed out-right. On top of that, my PC was still littered with registry settings, program files, and cache files from applications that were supposedly uninstalled successfully.
Do you think the App-Zapper people will develop a version for Windows? I'd pay $20 for that!
The reality is that most Windows uninstallers do little more than what is accomplished from dragging an application bundle to the trash. The reason it works on OS X (and NEXTSTEP) is because the program files and system configuration settings are contained entirely within the application bundle, as opposed to being scattered throughout the file system and registry. That is why Windows needs an uninstaller.
The reason the situation is better on OS X is because OS X doesn't obfuscate the file system the way Windows does. For people who are paranoid about a clean computer it's relatively trivial to go into ~/Library/Caches, ~/Library/Application Support, and ~/Library/Preferences and clear out stuff. Average users do this, and it's this simplicity that allows programs like App-zapper to exist. Writing such a tool for Windows would be practically impossible.
Given the choice between Application/Framework Bundles vs. requiring an installer/uninstaller program for even the simplest application, I'll choose bundles every time. It's a valid point that OS X could include a catalog of legitimate uninstallers for applications that do provide them, but on the other hand, I've been getting along just fine with
But if that's all too much for Grandma then perhaps she should stick with Windows.
(By the way AppTrap does what App-Zapper does, and it's free and open source.)
I don't think that's the case, actually. That would only increase iTunes' market share and Jobs' clout, which is the real issue at hand.
From the article, Universal wants out of its long-term blanket licensing agreement, and instead wants to license music to Apple on a release-by-release basis, which would give them the option to negotiate the terms for a specific release and withhold a release from the iTunes if the terms weren't favorable.
Apple doesn't make much money directly from music sales. Again, from the article, they want to keep the price of music down because it makes iTunes and the iPod look more attractive. Universal thinks that's unfair, because Apple makes money selling iPods. Universal wants to be able to charge whatever they want. In other words, it's just about the money.
The record companies don't like that they're being marginalized, but there's nothing they can do about it. If an iPod owner's music isn't available on iTunes, they'll just go back to file sharing.