That argument has nothing to do with using pixel width layout (I'm sure you know this, but many here won't; the programmer crowd and the web design crowd are two that don't have identical skillsets).
Using CSS for _formatting_ - what kind of formatting? There are two things here: layout and style
for layout, there are things you can do with tables that you cannot do well with CSS without resorting to hacks, browser-specific CSS, or even background images (to make things 'look' like columns). Depending on the design, this can be quite ugly - at least until CSS Column support is broadbased. I'm hoping for that with IE7, but I'm not holding my breath. For outer layout, I still find a table can be the best solution, then use CSS for everything else. It depends entirely on the design requirements. Not every design challenge has a CSS solution as the best one for _layout_. Though nested tables are still 'teh suk,' no doubt. Please read what I wrote here, and not what you may wish me to be saying; I'm not advocating a return to the 'tag soup' days.
for styling content, SURE, don't bother with anything but CSS.
We _really_ need IE to be fixed up to a point to be usable without resorting to so many hacks. And CSS still needs some massive improvement in functionality; there are things you just can't do with CSS layout-wise without multiply-nested DIVs that you can do with a single table, and that's just ridiculous.
1600 x 1200 @ 75hz here on a Samsung SyncMaster CRT
Same res @ 85Hz here, on a Hitachi CRT. Suck it.:)
(hey, you asked for it)
Totally cannot wait for LCDs or whatever flat panel technology to come out that's a) affordable, b) fast enough to not have ghosting issues, and c) true colour fidelity
You're right that the memory isn't really the worst aspect of Thunderbird performance. It's just damned slow for whatever reason. I don't care what the reason is, I just want it fast. And more features.
I _so_ can't wait to switch to OS X. *sigh* C'mon Apple, make with the x86 Mac mini already! (So I can choose other apps not available on Windows.)
Let me put it a better way, then, all that cool stuff Xerox invented at PARC? Xerox wasn't the one who made the products that people use. Other companies either bought the rights to those things, stole the ideas, or invented them later independently. (In general.)
Google doesn't have that problem.
Now that I've explained the joke to DEATH, I hope you can appreciate the genius of the brevity originally deployed.
I find Opera to be useful in development. While it's rendering is often goofy, it's also more unforgiving of HTML errors, and often shows broken things AS broken. I find more HTML bugs with Opera than I do with IE or FF.
If they could replace the renderer with Gecko or the one in Konqueror/Safari, and still keep the speed and low resource requirements, I'd be all over that thang.
The problem at this point is - I'm hopelessly addicted to many of the Firefox plugins available; absolutely invaluable nowadays, and I can learn to live with Firefox's problems because of them.
Re:Becoming the new Xerox Parc
on
Guido Goes Google
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Considering they're actually bringing out products that people USE, I'd say not.:)
Opera has (had?) some great developers. They don't get the credit they deserve for innovation
Now THERE you're really hitting the point, but not even completely. It's not just their innovating new features, but the performance they're able to achieve with their application. The speed and memory requirements are fantastic compared to everything else out there. IE and FF can't touch Opera for memory usage OR speed (in most cases).
I just wish it's renderer was better; it produces goofy results too often. I'd like to see them take the Gecko renderer and run it through the Opera-resource-debigulator(tm) and use that in Opera. I'd also like them to make an email client that doesn't require 30Meg of RAM, and actually performs at a reasonable speed. Ugh. Let's hope Thunderbird 1.5 is a big improvement in the performance arena, though I have no hope it'll be anything other than worse in the resource requirements arena.
1. Would probably be anti-competitive and may cause more legal problems for MS.
Opera isn't even a blip on the radar as far as competition goes for IE. Firefox, with all its publicity, is still in the minority of browsers. Also, when you're talking about free ($) products, I'm not sure the anti-competition clauses even come into play.
2. Will make MS look really bad if they can't keep up or rewrite a web browser. The world's largest software company can't handle their own web browser code? Major PR and industry set back.
They've already proven that to be the case; it's not like it would be news to anyone at this point.
4. Won't do activeX and other MS propriety stuff out of box.
Bad for MS, but it'd be great for the users. Hence, they won't do it. *shrug*
Okay, so I'm taking a test in an advanced physics class. This teacher _really_ has it out for me, and my so-called 'attitude.' I don't suck up to him, and I'm a bit of a smartass, and he's got a bit of a problem with that. Anyway, he told me in no uncertain terms that no matter how well I did on the test, I was gonna flunk. But I took it anyway, and found it a very easy test. I wrote, "I aced this!" on the test before I handed it in, and I also put an apple on his desk that was boobytrapped to explode slightly after a small jarring motion (I knew he'd just throw it in the trashcan after I left).
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire: 3,858 screens.
Now granted, no studio in their right mind would expect Serenity to need as many screens as something like a new Harry Potter movie, but that still doesn't compare too favourably, especially considering that it wasn't opening against much competition at the time. I think 'Flight Plan' was the big movie from the previous week - nothing major opened the same week as Serenity.
This reminds me of the days of running OS/2 (2.0), and disabling the Presentation Manager and WorkPlace Shell, and running the text-mode Tshell for the interface.
That's a fine idea for those who are technically savvy enough to change their browser settings, but face it -- most people couldn't change a browser setting if their life depended on it. The lowest common denominator on the Web is pretty damned low, unfortunately. Those who are savvy enough to do that can also override Web fonts, anyway, right?
The power consumption in the article is "Total System Power Consumption," not the TDP of the chip itself. This is also a mobile chip installed in a _desktop motherboard_.
Slashdot Mirror
using CSS for formatting (not tables)
That argument has nothing to do with using pixel width layout (I'm sure you know this, but many here won't; the programmer crowd and the web design crowd are two that don't have identical skillsets).
Using CSS for _formatting_ - what kind of formatting? There are two things here: layout and style
for layout, there are things you can do with tables that you cannot do well with CSS without resorting to hacks, browser-specific CSS, or even background images (to make things 'look' like columns). Depending on the design, this can be quite ugly - at least until CSS Column support is broadbased. I'm hoping for that with IE7, but I'm not holding my breath. For outer layout, I still find a table can be the best solution, then use CSS for everything else. It depends entirely on the design requirements. Not every design challenge has a CSS solution as the best one for _layout_. Though nested tables are still 'teh suk,' no doubt. Please read what I wrote here, and not what you may wish me to be saying; I'm not advocating a return to the 'tag soup' days.
for styling content, SURE, don't bother with anything but CSS.
We _really_ need IE to be fixed up to a point to be usable without resorting to so many hacks. And CSS still needs some massive improvement in functionality; there are things you just can't do with CSS layout-wise without multiply-nested DIVs that you can do with a single table, and that's just ridiculous.
1600 x 1200 @ 75hz here on a Samsung SyncMaster CRT
:)
Same res @ 85Hz here, on a Hitachi CRT. Suck it.
(hey, you asked for it)
Totally cannot wait for LCDs or whatever flat panel technology to come out that's a) affordable, b) fast enough to not have ghosting issues, and c) true colour fidelity
Someday, my prince will come...*sigh*
You're right that the memory isn't really the worst aspect of Thunderbird performance. It's just damned slow for whatever reason. I don't care what the reason is, I just want it fast. And more features.
I _so_ can't wait to switch to OS X. *sigh* C'mon Apple, make with the x86 Mac mini already! (So I can choose other apps not available on Windows.)
Let me put it a better way, then, all that cool stuff Xerox invented at PARC? Xerox wasn't the one who made the products that people use. Other companies either bought the rights to those things, stole the ideas, or invented them later independently. (In general.)
Google doesn't have that problem.
Now that I've explained the joke to DEATH, I hope you can appreciate the genius of the brevity originally deployed.
Laugh, varmint! *blam!*
Lazlo, FYI, when you call someone else a freak, you'd best not do it whilst living in a 'lair.' :)
I was referring to a standalone mail client, but it's good you mentioned Opera has the capability.
I find Opera to be useful in development. While it's rendering is often goofy, it's also more unforgiving of HTML errors, and often shows broken things AS broken. I find more HTML bugs with Opera than I do with IE or FF.
If they could replace the renderer with Gecko or the one in Konqueror/Safari, and still keep the speed and low resource requirements, I'd be all over that thang.
The problem at this point is - I'm hopelessly addicted to many of the Firefox plugins available; absolutely invaluable nowadays, and I can learn to live with Firefox's problems because of them.
Considering they're actually bringing out products that people USE, I'd say not. :)
Jordan is the best movie character ever.
Indeed. Michelle Meyrink was the only reason I went to see, "Nice Girls Don't Explode." I prefer to remember her as Jordan. *yikes*
Opera has (had?) some great developers. They don't get the credit they deserve for innovation
Now THERE you're really hitting the point, but not even completely. It's not just their innovating new features, but the performance they're able to achieve with their application. The speed and memory requirements are fantastic compared to everything else out there. IE and FF can't touch Opera for memory usage OR speed (in most cases).
I just wish it's renderer was better; it produces goofy results too often. I'd like to see them take the Gecko renderer and run it through the Opera-resource-debigulator(tm) and use that in Opera. I'd also like them to make an email client that doesn't require 30Meg of RAM, and actually performs at a reasonable speed. Ugh. Let's hope Thunderbird 1.5 is a big improvement in the performance arena, though I have no hope it'll be anything other than worse in the resource requirements arena.
1. Would probably be anti-competitive and may cause more legal problems for MS.
Opera isn't even a blip on the radar as far as competition goes for IE. Firefox, with all its publicity, is still in the minority of browsers. Also, when you're talking about free ($) products, I'm not sure the anti-competition clauses even come into play.
2. Will make MS look really bad if they can't keep up or rewrite a web browser. The world's largest software company can't handle their own web browser code? Major PR and industry set back.
They've already proven that to be the case; it's not like it would be news to anyone at this point.
4. Won't do activeX and other MS propriety stuff out of box.
Bad for MS, but it'd be great for the users. Hence, they won't do it. *shrug*
I don't think that fits in the category of 'problem.' Not to me, anyway.
I'm thinking that the type of programmer who can't wrap his head around whitespace in Python is perhaps a programmer one could do without.
Okay, so I'm taking a test in an advanced physics class. This teacher _really_ has it out for me, and my so-called 'attitude.' I don't suck up to him, and I'm a bit of a smartass, and he's got a bit of a problem with that. Anyway, he told me in no uncertain terms that no matter how well I did on the test, I was gonna flunk. But I took it anyway, and found it a very easy test. I wrote, "I aced this!" on the test before I handed it in, and I also put an apple on his desk that was boobytrapped to explode slightly after a small jarring motion (I knew he'd just throw it in the trashcan after I left).
Oh, wait, that was a movie I saw.
Uhhh...nevermind, then.
...that IE was a pile of cock.
Yeah, but I wonder where it's been, cuz it smells like ass...
IMDb shows it opened on 2,188 screens.
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire: 3,858 screens.
Now granted, no studio in their right mind would expect Serenity to need as many screens as something like a new Harry Potter movie, but that still doesn't compare too favourably, especially considering that it wasn't opening against much competition at the time. I think 'Flight Plan' was the big movie from the previous week - nothing major opened the same week as Serenity.
What makes a TV Network Execubot turn nuetral anyway?
Extra-Strength Neutronium Robot Breakfast Cereal! It's mm-mm-good!
That's what they get for not having opposable thumbs. Stupid bears.
I'm pretty sure they get turned into oil, just like all the other dinosaurs.
This reminds me of the days of running OS/2 (2.0), and disabling the Presentation Manager and WorkPlace Shell, and running the text-mode Tshell for the interface.
Those were the days, man...good times.
That's a fine idea for those who are technically savvy enough to change their browser settings, but face it -- most people couldn't change a browser setting if their life depended on it. The lowest common denominator on the Web is pretty damned low, unfortunately. Those who are savvy enough to do that can also override Web fonts, anyway, right?
Come here Shady, OMG NO!
That was, perhaps, not the real Shady. Will the real Shady please stand up.
...what?
Your understanding of our Constitution is, sadly, much better than that of most Americans.
However, whether something is Constitutional, or legal, doesn't necessarily make it _right_.
The power consumption in the article is "Total System Power Consumption," not the TDP of the chip itself. This is also a mobile chip installed in a _desktop motherboard_.