Uuh I dont think so I'm using mozilla, and i'm seeing the popup lists with little scrollbars in my gtk theme, so they
must be using gtk for more than just 'low level drawing'. sure, its not used for menubars, back/forward buttons and
the browser scrollbar, but have a look at the buttons, lists, etc IN the html page... those are gtk controls!
Mozilla (and IE) render all GUI widgets except drop-down/combo boxes; Dropdown lists aren't rendered by the browser because they don't need to be (dropped down lists are not really part of a web page, like buttons and edit boxes)
It is flexible enough to allow programs to fully determine how it is to behave on lots of things
You mean, X doesn't enforce any sort of standard GUI guidelines, so each application UI is unique and different. That's supposed to be A Good Thing?
X does not force you into a specific widget set or window decoration method, window placement behavior, or anything else.
Wrong. X does not force developers into a specific widget set or window decoration method, window placement behavior, or anything. Meanwhile, the user left to suffer with the heaping pile of inconsistent X application interfaces that have collected over the years.
Consistency and Configurability are two different things. Without the former, the latter is meaningless.
If someone had a heart attack or something, and a cell phone jammer prevented someone else from dialing 911 (or its equivalent), could the owner of the cell phone jammer face legal liability?
I doubt it. I think it's pretty safe to assume that every "jamming" establishment would have a land line phone for use in such emergencies, so I don't think it would ever come up.
The really depressing thing is that, as far as resource usage is concerned, Mozilla is probably as good as it's going to get (Minus the leaks, or course)
I say this, because I think that Gecko does a far better job of managing resources than IE with respect to complex dynamic HTML, scripting, and emulating atandard user interface.
The memory usage of the Mozilla broswer (not mail) is pretty consistent now, although there still are some leaks. It will kick an at about 8-10MB and perhaps creap up to 16-20MB by the end of the day.
IE will typically use 4-5 MB for normal browsing, which is good (Same as embedded Gecko). However, IE turns into an absolute pig once it starts to render dynamic content, and emulate normal user interfaces, like what Gecko has to do all of the time. Blox is a good example, and a very neat site (some of it even works with Nav4.7) Take IE here and watch it ballon to 20-40 MB.
Comparing how Gecko and IE handle dynamic content, I would say Gecko does a damn fine job of it, and I doubt it could get any better
And that sucks, because a 30MB process makes for a real lousy mail reader. Actually, that really sucks, because I love the new mail reader in Mozilla, but I can't use it.
I've got 256MB of RAM, so you might think that 30MB Isn't such a bad thing. The problem is that if Mozilla get swapped out of memory(most likely because I've just run a build) It takes literally 10-15 seconds for Mozilla to swap back in (on NT), just so I can check my mail! Nav4.7, which I do use as my mail reader and primary browser, takes up about 8 MB, and takes about 2 seconds to swap back in.
I think that the only way Mozilla will be able to curb it's resource usage, WRT swapping, is to allow Mozilla run multiple isolated processes for mail, composer, etc. That way, you're dealing with perhaps a few 8MB processes instead of one giant 30+ MB process. And, you wouldn't have to worry about a crash taking down your entire session.
According to
reliable sources, Microsoft is beginning to (hire another company to) port some of its applications to Linux. Starting with Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player 6.3 (which is already ported to Sun Solaris).
The 'other company' is MainSoft. Apparently, they did the IE port to Solaris, and are currently porting Windows Media Player.
Hmm. Has this been on slashdot before? Has anybody else heard this news? And why would Microsoft do this (if it's true)? What would they have to gain?
Certainly they do not want to assist in bringing a free OS to mainstream desktops, do they? Is there an evil plan behind this, or do they just need things to spend money on...
It's ironic that Microsoft got into so much trouble for including a browser with the OS which they had a monopoly
with while Netscape at the same time was including email and a development platform with the browser they had
a monopoly with.
No it's not.
If all e-mail and news reader applications required the Netscape 'platform' in order to work, and the market for e-mail and news
reader clients became really hot, forcing Netscape to bundle their e-mail and news reader clients with their 'platform' in order to
compete, that would be ironic.
At that point, everybody would say "How in the hell did we get ourselves into such a position that we're completely dependent on
Netscape."
A Standard Interface is all well and good, but don't we all need different things from our desktops?
You know what I need from my desktop? I need all of my applications to work the same. I don't need to re-learn the GUI for each application I install. When I get an open/save/print dialog, I need that dialog to be the same throughout the system, regardless of which app spawned it. I need to assign my keyboard shortcuts once and have those shortcuts apply to every application I might use. I need a file manager that isn't retarded, and is designed to work well with all of my apps. I need to be able to drag and drop objects between all of my applications, and the desktop. I need all of my apps to reuse/share as much code as possible.
People that are against GUI standardization just don't know what the job of a GUI is. Don't think of it a standardization, think of it as consistency enforcement.
Results:
Borland C++: [C++ Warning] W8006 Initializing TCarColors with TDaysOfWeek
MSVC6 : error C2440: 'initializing' : cannot convert from 'enum TDaysOfWeek' to 'enum TCarColors'
Conversion to enumeration type requires an explicit cast (static_cast, C-style cast or function-style cast)
I'm in favor of space exploration as much as the next guy, but I can't believe that we're wasting so many resources on this useless thing. Robots are much more cost effective.
That's all fine and good, but... Elementary chaos theory tells us that all robots will eventually turn against their masters and run amok in an orgy of blood and kicking and the biting with the metal teeth and the hurting and shoving...
Robots in Space makes for a bad movie. As interesting as space exploration is for people like you and me, it's too hard to justify the funding if John Q. Public is not interested.
I wrote a timekeeping application for the engineering department of the company at which I co-op'ed. The project codes changed regularly, but once used, they were generally used for a few months. I used a combo box to allow the user to select from the list of previously entered project numbers, or add a new one when appropriate.
That is an effective use of a combo box, once the user knows what it does, which would not be overly obvious at first. It sounds like your widget is primarily used as a drop down list, with the added ability to add to the list, so why not do that: A plain drop down with an additional small button that adds a new item to the list. That way, you can take advantage of the speed of the drop down, and still allow an easy and intuitive method of adding to the list.
That's the problem with combo boxes; they all don't work that way. Some will add to their list, some don't. Additionally, if the user mis-types something, they've suddenly got a whole new problem to deal with.
Sure, it's a little thing, but it's the little things make your GUI a pleasurable experience for your user.
...I DAMN WELL see the point in having combo boxes around.
Oh Really? Give me some examples. There are really very few *effective* uses for combo boxes. One example that does work well is the location bar on a web browser, because it doesn't look anything like a drop down (it's so big). MS realized a few years ago the the combo box was horribly broken, but their attempt to fix it via AutoComplete(tm) doesn't solve any real problems.
Give me an example of a combo box, and I'll tell a more intuitive way to do it. Sure, there are times when you want to give the user the choice of Edit or List, but there are much better ways to do it. I don't use combo boxes in any of my software (or native drop downs, because they look like combo boxes). You can accomplish the same with Buttons, Menus, and Edit boxes, and your intent is much more clear to the user.
The advantage of an effective GUI is to allow the user to manipulate it instictivly, without the need to stop and think about what's going on.
One of the few original GUI elements to be created by MS, rather than be ripped off. You won't find on the Mac (or at least used to) or NeXTStep, but you will find it in Gnome and KDE because they don't know any better
Hmm, let's see...
The difference between drop down lists and combo boxes are indistinguishable. You have to use it to know what it is, by which time the advantage of using a drop down list is lost. Plus, most users don't know the difference between the two, which, again, defeats the advantage of using a drop down list.
Most two-bit GUI programmers (see VB programmers) don't know the difference either, and use the two interchangeably.
The function of most combo boxes is unclear. Do I type my own string? Do I have to pick one from the list? Can I leave it blank? Have you ever typed a string into a combo box just to find out that the string must match from the list? After a while, it makes me want to throw my PC out the window.
The combo box by far the worst GUI element to ever come out of MS school of GUI design and infect our lives. It is the most classic reason why the Win32 GUI, and the GUIs that blindly copy it, suck.
Two years ago I was very worried that IE would become so entrenched, any sort of meaningful web experience would require a PC running MS Windows.
With the beta release of Gecko and the announcment that companies like IBM, Intel, Liberate, NetObjects, Nokia, and Sun Microsystems, Gateway are planning to use Gecko and embed into their own apps and on to non-PC devices, I am no longer worried.
The whole point of MS putting so much effort and energy into IE was to prevent this from happeneing; to prevent the PC and Windows from becoming irrelevant in the internet age. They have failed. The war is over.
GNOME has the (more and more) nice control-center, where other apps may put their config stuff as well (just like Sawmill does) Also worth mentioning is the GConf configuration library
I think the problem may be that the people designing the Gnome and KDE desktops come from the CLI camp. Maybe they just don't understand what an effective GUI is? They equate "User Friendly" and "Easy to Use" with "Win95" and forget about the things that really count: "Intuitive", "Nice to use", "Works well with a mouse", etc... It is these GUI features that have allowed the Mac desktop to endure for 16 years, and NeXT Step to endure for 10 years; Meanwhile M$ changes their desktop every 2-3 years, and Linux is still trying to figure it all out. I know that this is the problem with E; Looks great, has huge hack value, solves no UI problems, and is completely useless.
The whole point of a GUI is this: I start up an application I've never used before, and it works the way I expect it to; it looks familiar, little guess work, I can quickly begin using the application in the way it was intended. Keyboard, mouse, file access, printing, all the same. Mac has this, Windows has this. Linux? The user is at the mercy of the developer. The value of choice associated with the Linux desktop is a complete facade. If the app was written using the GTK, it will only interact with the Gnome desktop, Gnome File access, Gnome help browser, and it will only listen to the Gnome configuration. If it was written using QT, I'm most likely forced to interact with KDE File manager, KDE Help browser, KDE configuration etc... I have NO choice. And if it was not written in either? I'm screwed. Each new application is a whole new set of problems for the user.
It's funny that if people need a good example of an Intuitive and mouse friendly desktop, they need look no further than WindowMaker. In fact, the state of the Linux Desktop would be downright pathetic if it was not for the wonderful work coming out of the WindowMaker and GNUstep camps. (That config util is a work of art! And the file manager, sexy! Now there's the compelling reason I need to get my Mom to switch to Linux)
Perhaps if the Gnome and KDE developers had to eat their own dog food and not be allowed to use the command line for ANYTHING, we might start to see some of Linux's desktop problems solved; less theme support, and more functionality. I know that they don't, because of the little things; you can't search through list boxes, list views, and tree views by typing the first few letters of the thing you're looking for. Such a simple yet vital feature, completely overlooked. How about screen corners and edges for optimized mouse use? Hardly utilized (Gnome not at all, KDE a little) Sure, these things are trivial to implement, but that fact that these things were overlooked in the first place means that we've got a long way to go before we see a usable Linux Desktop.
...
(I don't mean to come down so hard on KDE and Gnome, they both have many great features. I just think that some basic, fundamental functionality has been overlooked. A single point of configuration for starters...)
I was supprised to see his answer to this question. I thought Mozilla was meant to be an open source browser for everyone.
Netscape had stated from early on that Mozilla.org's product would be source code and it's customers would be hackers, including Netscape hackers. Unfortunately, most people seem to forget that, especially when milestone builds are released.
Personally, I'll be surprised if Netscape Navigator is at all similar to the current Mozilla builds, but, of course, only Netscape knows for sure.
I think the point is that other organizations, including Netscape/AOL, can use Mozilla.org to package their own Browser based on the Mozilla source code, as well as incorperate Mozilla into existing and future products.
Someone probably left out a/TABLE tag or put a FORM tag in the wrong place..
Nope.
If you try it in Linux you get the following message:
Citi f/i currently supports Windows 95, Windows 98, and Windows NT 4.0 running Netscape Navigator and Internet Explorer. It also supports Macintosh running Netscape Navigator only. If you need further assistance, please call 1-800-2-citifi.
You can, however, click 'About Citi/Fi' and you eventually end up at the same site at you see on Windows.
Since they only support Netscape on Macintosh I suspect they may require their cusomers to use some custom browser plugins.
Some of my fondest childhood memories revolve around Castle Wolfenstien.
[tick] [tick]
I have always considered the C64 version to be the better Castel Wolfenstein. I could never get the Apple version to work for very long. (I still can't actually, emulations and all)
I remeber being really dissapointed when Wolfenstein 3D came out. I was expecting a strategy game, not a shoot 'em up... That's what the beauty of Castle Wolfenstien was; you couldn't just run into a room and start blasting everyone or you'd get thoses crazy SS's after you, then you'd be dead. And you don't want to die because it takes so damn long for the game to re-load.
I'd just like to point out that if Microsoft had spent this long releasing a long-awaited product (like, say....Windows 2000?) the release of a new beta would be an opportunity to mock them rather than celebrate them.
You seem to forget that Microsoft has billions in the bank (growing each time a PC is sold anywhere) They can throw whatever resources into a project as they feel is necessary. Microsoft's products are as good and feature rich, or as bad and buggy, as they feel their products need to be, because they have the resources to do it.
That said, IE$ has been one of the most important projects at microsoft in the last five years, and look how long it took then to put out something that wasn't a complete joke.
You create a new Canada Post e-mail account. This account is associated with your postal address. You are then given a list of Commercial mail senders that might like to send you mail. Any specified commercial mail you receive will go to your e-mail account, and not be delivered to your home.
It's kind of a neat idea actually. The bill payment feature is just an added value. I guess it's for people who haven't discovered on-line banking yet.
Apparently it free to create an account, receive mail, and pay bills, so I'm not sure how they plan to generate revenue.
Reading this made me fire up my old Ms. Pac cocktail table and play a couple o' rounds. I "found" it in the back yard of some frat house 3 years ago on halloween; one of the happier days of my life. If I get over 150,000 pts I'm pretty happy.
That "press-release" is anything but believable, however, the score is not that far-fetched at all. After about 10 levels, there are very few chances to score points on anything but pills, and the odd fruit. (power pills stop working) I know that past this point, I will usually average between 10,000 and 20,00 per level, until my will breaks, then I die. (That's on Ms Pac)
On the original PacMan, there was no randomness to the ghosts'(monsters for the purests) movments. There was a fairly widely know pattern ( here and here) that could beat the ghosts on every level(43 seconds per level). Later, Namco released a mod-chip that would randomize the ghosts movements to give the "wiz-kidz" something new to do.
So... on an original Pac Man, if you apply the pattern flawlessly on every level until the game dies at level 255, you would obtain the theoretical maximum Pac Man score. 3,333,360 / 255 is 13,720.000 pts per level, which is a very reasonable average.
but...
I seems apparent that quite a few people have witnessed the game roll-over at L255, and I can't see how the score would vary too much from 3,333,360 after 255 levels of about 13,000 per level. So I don't see this as such a great feat. Not to mention that the artical is clearly fake. It's written like a crappy tabloid.
Slashdot Mirror
Consistency and Configurability are two different things. Without the former, the latter is meaningless.
I doubt it. I think it's pretty safe to assume that every "jamming" establishment would have a land line phone for use in such emergencies, so I don't think it would ever come up.
The really depressing thing is that, as far as resource usage is concerned, Mozilla is probably as good as it's going to get (Minus the leaks, or course)
I say this, because I think that Gecko does a far better job of managing resources than IE with respect to complex dynamic HTML, scripting, and emulating atandard user interface.
The memory usage of the Mozilla broswer (not mail) is pretty consistent now, although there still are some leaks. It will kick an at about 8-10MB and perhaps creap up to 16-20MB by the end of the day.
IE will typically use 4-5 MB for normal browsing, which is good (Same as embedded Gecko). However, IE turns into an absolute pig once it starts to render dynamic content, and emulate normal user interfaces, like what Gecko has to do all of the time. Blox is a good example, and a very neat site (some of it even works with Nav4.7) Take IE here and watch it ballon to 20-40 MB.
Comparing how Gecko and IE handle dynamic content, I would say Gecko does a damn fine job of it, and I doubt it could get any better
And that sucks, because a 30MB process makes for a real lousy mail reader. Actually, that really sucks, because I love the new mail reader in Mozilla, but I can't use it.
I've got 256MB of RAM, so you might think that 30MB Isn't such a bad thing. The problem is that if Mozilla get swapped out of memory(most likely because I've just run a build) It takes literally 10-15 seconds for Mozilla to swap back in (on NT), just so I can check my mail! Nav4.7, which I do use as my mail reader and primary browser, takes up about 8 MB, and takes about 2 seconds to swap back in.
I think that the only way Mozilla will be able to curb it's resource usage, WRT swapping, is to allow Mozilla run multiple isolated processes for mail, composer, etc. That way, you're dealing with perhaps a few 8MB processes instead of one giant 30+ MB process. And, you wouldn't have to worry about a crash taking down your entire session.
Hmm. Has this been on slashdot before? Has anybody else heard this news? And why would Microsoft do this (if it's true)? What would they have to gain?
Certainly they do not want to assist in bringing a free OS to mainstream desktops, do they? Is there an evil plan behind this, or do they just need things to spend money on...
If all e-mail and news reader applications required the Netscape 'platform' in order to work, and the market for e-mail and news reader clients became really hot, forcing Netscape to bundle their e-mail and news reader clients with their 'platform' in order to compete, that would be ironic.
At that point, everybody would say "How in the hell did we get ourselves into such a position that we're completely dependent on Netscape."
People that are against GUI standardization just don't know what the job of a GUI is. Don't think of it a standardization, think of it as consistency enforcement.
Code:
: [C++ Warning] W8006 Initializing TCarColors with TDaysOfWeek
enum TCarColors { RED, GREEN, BLUE };
enum TDaysOfWeek { MONDAY, TUESDAY };
TCarColors carColor = TUESDAY;
Results:
Borland C++
MSVC6 : error C2440: 'initializing' : cannot convert from 'enum TDaysOfWeek' to 'enum TCarColors' Conversion to enumeration type requires an explicit cast (static_cast, C-style cast or function-style cast)
That's all fine and good, but... Elementary chaos theory tells us that all robots will eventually turn against their masters and run amok in an orgy of blood and kicking and the biting with the metal teeth and the hurting and shoving...
Robots in Space makes for a bad movie. As interesting as space exploration is for people like you and me, it's too hard to justify the funding if John Q. Public is not interested.
That's the problem with combo boxes; they all don't work that way. Some will add to their list, some don't. Additionally, if the user mis-types something, they've suddenly got a whole new problem to deal with.
Sure, it's a little thing, but it's the little things make your GUI a pleasurable experience for your user.
Give me an example of a combo box, and I'll tell a more intuitive way to do it. Sure, there are times when you want to give the user the choice of Edit or List, but there are much better ways to do it. I don't use combo boxes in any of my software (or native drop downs, because they look like combo boxes). You can accomplish the same with Buttons, Menus, and Edit boxes, and your intent is much more clear to the user.
The advantage of an effective GUI is to allow the user to manipulate it instictivly, without the need to stop and think about what's going on.
Hmm, let's see...
The difference between drop down lists and combo boxes are indistinguishable. You have to use it to know what it is, by which time the advantage of using a drop down list is lost. Plus, most users don't know the difference between the two, which, again, defeats the advantage of using a drop down list.
Most two-bit GUI programmers (see VB programmers) don't know the difference either, and use the two interchangeably.
The function of most combo boxes is unclear. Do I type my own string? Do I have to pick one from the list? Can I leave it blank? Have you ever typed a string into a combo box just to find out that the string must match from the list? After a while, it makes me want to throw my PC out the window.
The combo box by far the worst GUI element to ever come out of MS school of GUI design and infect our lives. It is the most classic reason why the Win32 GUI, and the GUIs that blindly copy it, suck.
With the beta release of Gecko and the announcment that companies like IBM, Intel, Liberate, NetObjects, Nokia, and Sun Microsystems, Gateway are planning to use Gecko and embed into their own apps and on to non-PC devices, I am no longer worried.
The whole point of MS putting so much effort and energy into IE was to prevent this from happeneing; to prevent the PC and Windows from becoming irrelevant in the internet age. They have failed. The war is over.
We just have to convince KDE guys to use it...
The whole point of a GUI is this: I start up an application I've never used before, and it works the way I expect it to; it looks familiar, little guess work, I can quickly begin using the application in the way it was intended. Keyboard, mouse, file access, printing, all the same. Mac has this, Windows has this. Linux? The user is at the mercy of the developer. The value of choice associated with the Linux desktop is a complete facade. If the app was written using the GTK, it will only interact with the Gnome desktop, Gnome File access, Gnome help browser, and it will only listen to the Gnome configuration. If it was written using QT, I'm most likely forced to interact with KDE File manager, KDE Help browser, KDE configuration etc... I have NO choice. And if it was not written in either? I'm screwed. Each new application is a whole new set of problems for the user.
It's funny that if people need a good example of an Intuitive and mouse friendly desktop, they need look no further than WindowMaker. In fact, the state of the Linux Desktop would be downright pathetic if it was not for the wonderful work coming out of the WindowMaker and GNUstep camps. (That config util is a work of art! And the file manager, sexy! Now there's the compelling reason I need to get my Mom to switch to Linux)
Perhaps if the Gnome and KDE developers had to eat their own dog food and not be allowed to use the command line for ANYTHING, we might start to see some of Linux's desktop problems solved; less theme support, and more functionality. I know that they don't, because of the little things; you can't search through list boxes, list views, and tree views by typing the first few letters of the thing you're looking for. Such a simple yet vital feature, completely overlooked. How about screen corners and edges for optimized mouse use? Hardly utilized (Gnome not at all, KDE a little) Sure, these things are trivial to implement, but that fact that these things were overlooked in the first place means that we've got a long way to go before we see a usable Linux Desktop.
...
(I don't mean to come down so hard on KDE and Gnome, they both have many great features. I just think that some basic, fundamental functionality has been overlooked. A single point of configuration for starters...)
Netscape had stated from early on that Mozilla.org's product would be source code and it's customers would be hackers, including Netscape hackers. Unfortunately, most people seem to forget that, especially when milestone builds are released.
Personally, I'll be surprised if Netscape Navigator is at all similar to the current Mozilla builds, but, of course, only Netscape knows for sure.
I think the point is that other organizations, including Netscape/AOL, can use Mozilla.org to package their own Browser based on the Mozilla source code, as well as incorperate Mozilla into existing and future products.
Nope.
If you try it in Linux you get the following message:
Citi f/i currently supports Windows 95, Windows 98, and Windows NT 4.0 running Netscape Navigator and Internet Explorer. It also supports Macintosh running Netscape Navigator only. If you need further assistance, please call 1-800-2-citifi.
You can, however, click 'About Citi/Fi' and you eventually end up at the same site at you see on Windows.
Since they only support Netscape on Macintosh I suspect they may require their cusomers to use some custom browser plugins.
Anybody know for sure?
To my surprise, I found that the beta version information pages are still availble on home.mcom.com.
Much more fun than playing EA hockey, IMHO.
And then it appeared on Slashdot. Wierd...
Some of my fondest childhood memories revolve around Castle Wolfenstien.
[tick] [tick]
I have always considered the C64 version to be the better Castel Wolfenstein. I could never get the Apple version to work for very long. (I still can't actually, emulations and all)
I remeber being really dissapointed when Wolfenstein 3D came out. I was expecting a strategy game, not a shoot 'em up... That's what the beauty of Castle Wolfenstien was; you couldn't just run into a room and start blasting everyone or you'd get thoses crazy SS's after you, then you'd be dead. And you don't want to die because it takes so damn long for the game to re-load.
Ahh the memories...
[halt!] [comm-enn-zee]
They can throw whatever resources into a project as they feel is necessary.
Microsoft's products are as good and feature rich, or as bad and buggy, as they feel their products need to be, because they have the resources to do it.
That said, IE$ has been one of the most important projects at microsoft in the last five years, and look how long it took then to put out something that wasn't a complete joke.
You create a new Canada Post e-mail account. This account is associated with your postal address. You are then given a list of Commercial mail senders that might like to send you mail. Any specified commercial mail you receive will go to your e-mail account, and not be delivered to your home.
It's kind of a neat idea actually. The bill payment feature is just an added value. I guess it's for people who haven't discovered on-line banking yet.
Apparently it free to create an account, receive mail, and pay bills, so I'm not sure how they plan to generate revenue.
That "press-release" is anything but believable, however, the score is not that far-fetched at all.
After about 10 levels, there are very few chances to score points on anything but pills, and the odd fruit. (power pills stop working) I know that past this point, I will usually average between 10,000 and 20,00 per level, until my will breaks, then I die. (That's on Ms Pac)
On the original PacMan, there was no randomness to the ghosts'(monsters for the purests) movments. There was a fairly widely know pattern ( here and here) that could beat the ghosts on every level(43 seconds per level). Later, Namco released a mod-chip that would randomize the ghosts movements to give the "wiz-kidz" something new to do.
So... on an original Pac Man, if you apply the pattern flawlessly on every level until the game dies at level 255, you would obtain the theoretical maximum Pac Man score.
3,333,360 / 255 is 13,720.000 pts per level, which is a very reasonable average.
but...
I seems apparent that quite a few people have witnessed the game roll-over at L255, and I can't see how the score would vary too much from 3,333,360 after 255 levels of about 13,000 per level. So I don't see this as such a great feat.
-astrosmashNot to mention that the artical is clearly fake. It's written like a crappy tabloid.
Live fast, diarrhea - vandals