Mac Columnist Andy Ihnatko once wrote a column about a game like that; he dubbed it "Web That Porn". Unfortunately I can't seem to find the column online:(
I think Michael was referring to something along the lines of cloned items through cheat codes or just outright bugs. In that sense, those items are cheated and, as such, should have "never existeed in the first place". If my interprettation is right, Michael omitted "should have"---but we have come to expect grammar snafus on/.
Think of it this way: Imagine there is a God and that God fucks up, leaving a loophole open that lets anybody create a Ficus tree out of thin air. God realizes that fuck up, closes the loophole, and retroactively zaps all the ficus trees that should have never existed out of existence.
The ROM is gone, but I think the OS still checks something on the board before booting. That said, i'd love to know if someone can get the MacOS booting on a chrp machine.
I ask because of an interesting tidbit my girlfriend slipped from her work. She does tech support for the university I'm at; apparently the upstream bandwidth figures have been sort of loopy the past few days, showing regular, repeating bandwidth spikes every hour or two.
I'm not much in the know otherwise, but I do know that there are A LOT of unsecured NT boxes running around here. (Wannabe geeks in the dorms installing warez'd NT for some reason)
Actually you could probably do that by *adding* JavaScript through a small proxy app. Instead of moving the window offscreen, though, which can cause some occasional headaches, dump the pages into a 1px x 1px iframe (works in Mozilla and IE5+; not sure on Opera but iframe tag is standards compliant.) Going the iframe route has the added benefit that it spawns 0 windows.
I'm not refering to add on customizations. Look at the built in software packages. Microsoft's OS package includes the ability to manipulate the UI and even has a load of themes, with more to download from their website. Apple started to, but then dropped the whole thing.
Yes, and some people have reverse engineered that same API and are developing their own themes. Isn't this a good thing? It's not as though Apple pulled the functionality out---they simply didn't bother fully implementing. True it would have been better if Apple had documented that API, but they didn't.
The themes resource I pointed out for MacOS X requires zero add-on software to MacOS X. Kaleidoscope, though, is in the same vein as something like Stardock---a 3rd party themeing add-on for Windows.
And yes, I belive you are correct - I ment fascist. Apple is much like a dictatorship. Why would anyone fund that when they have so many better choices?
You already said it: If you don't like what Apple does, don't buy from Apple. But that doesn't explain why a lot of people (24 million or so, last quarter) chose to buy Macs over an x86 box. A lot of us buy Macs because, for the job, it's the better machine. Forget about Apple's Photoshop tests: a G4/733 outpaces an Intellistation 1.1 GHZ P3 in nearly every Photoshop operation you can throw at it, including ones that aren't Altivec optimized (example: mode conversions aren't optimized for Altivec, but run faster on a G4)
Though not everyone may understand it, some people do place form over function---iMac buyers, Cube buyers, etc. It does become a valid consideration when total experience is factored in. if you think an iMac looks nicer sitting on your desk than a Dell, and does what you need, great---buy the iMac if you want to pay the premium for form.
Oh dear gods imagine that: a company fufilling its fiduciary obligation to its shareholders.
Seems kind of communist to me
I think you meant fascist, especially since you accused apple of being capitalists above.
The MacOS 9.x and previous interfaces were quite limiting (not very customizable)...
UI not customizable under MacOS 9.x? http://kaleidoscope.net/
UI not customizable under MacOS X?
http://www.ResExcellence.com/themes/
A price comparison if you will... yea a Ferrari 355 will blow the doors off of a Honda S2000, but you can get five or six S2000s for the price of one 355. COME ON! The Honda stimulates my need just as much as the Ferrari, and I can get one for my friend too.
You remind me of those guys that take a cheap Honda hatchback, trick it out, drop in a bigger engine and put a big tailpipe on it. Course it'll run fast, but it's still a cheap Honda hatchback at its core. Me... I'd rather buy a Mercedes. Sure, it may not run as fast as your Honda or be as affordable---but it's built a good bit better and doesn't sound like a chainsaw.;-)
They were all tech glitches which is to be expected from pre-release software: MacOS X 10.1 isn't shipping till September. They've got 6 weeks to take care of these relatively minor issues.
Oh, wait, since these same IP-down-your-throat goons are going to be collaborating with electronics corps anyhoo, we can forget about recordable media at all.
Actually they are one-in-the-same: Sony Corp, for example.
No, Pantone, not Adobe, has a monopoly on this area because Pantone tests and mixes the inks, and publishes the swatch books. If you want Pantone support in your program, you need to pay a license fee to Pantone, NOT Adobe. (Furthermore, you're arguing spot color when I clearly was talking about CMYK. You can do spot without Photoshop, as long as you have an up-to-date and fresh swatchbook and a printer willing to accomodate your use of anything non-Photoshop.)
And I can do a CMYK conversion in a non-Photoshop program and bring it into Photoshop with all four channels intact and correct. Did it all the time when I last worked in-house for a printer, batch converting several hundred RGB images into CMYK.
Difference between Adobe v. Killustrator and Ford v. Kontour: The former is name confusion between two vector drawing programs; the latter is a car and a drawing program. Now I will admit that, between Illustrator and Freehand, I can choose between two programs that do everything I need except scratch my ass. But neither is even close to being a car.
Ummmm... then why can every other image editor I have on my Mac---including a freeware program---convert between CMYK and RGB just peachy (ie, as good as Photoshop)?
Not necessarily... an A/C box has to run the compressor and fans continously while in operation. Depending on how powerful of a unit, it can eat-up a LOT of power. But a waterfall would just require a return pump and gravity would do the rest.
Adobe charges $500 or $600 or whatever it is these days for Photoshop
Relative worth: I can easily recoup the $600 license fee for Photoshop in one 12 hour day. For what I make on my billable hours, Photoshop is priced correctly.
Re:Sick of hearing about "such a great design"
on
Apple Dumps the Cube
·
· Score: 1
Titanium G4 and the new iBook. 'Nuff said.
----
Re:Lack of real of innovations was the real proble
on
Apple Dumps the Cube
·
· Score: 1
-And get rid of those stupid orb shaped speakers... they look cool, but aren't practical.
What's so impractical about them? They're small and sound relatively good for their size. My only complaint is that the overall diameter of the case should be about 1"-2" greater to allow for a larger base---if they get unseated, they have the tendency to roll.
----
Re:Sick of hearing about "such a great design"
on
Apple Dumps the Cube
·
· Score: 1
It's like buying a furnace or water-heater for its looks
Do you have your furnace or water heater sitting on your desktop? That analogy may hold true for servers (there is something to be said for elegance in industrial design no matter what/where the product is used), but it doesn't hold true for desktops. Given the choice between some generic tower with a thin, rattling case whose vibrations are barely audible over the roar of at least two cooling fans and a 19" monitor which can double as a space heater and backend-weight in my car come winter OR my whisper-silent G4 733 tower and 17" LCD (15 pounds, 6" deep), I'll take the latter over the former anytime.
they sued Macromedia because Flash 5 had a "tabbed panel interface" that Adobe claims they made first
No they didn't. They sued Macromedia over a very specific behavior of the tabbed panels, specifically the ability to customize said panels by dragging out individual tabs to create your own, customized panel. that's a unique innovation, and Adobe was doing long before Macromedia or anyone else.
Slashdot Mirror
Mac Columnist Andy Ihnatko once wrote a column about a game like that; he dubbed it "Web That Porn". Unfortunately I can't seem to find the column online :(
----
Did the poster ever claim that Apple was the original innovator? No. Did Jobs? No. Both just said, "Hey... look... it's easy to open".
----
I think Michael was referring to something along the lines of cloned items through cheat codes or just outright bugs. In that sense, those items are cheated and, as such, should have "never existeed in the first place". If my interprettation is right, Michael omitted "should have"---but we have come to expect grammar snafus on /.
Think of it this way: Imagine there is a God and that God fucks up, leaving a loophole open that lets anybody create a Ficus tree out of thin air. God realizes that fuck up, closes the loophole, and retroactively zaps all the ficus trees that should have never existed out of existence.
----
Return the string for MacHTTP (machttp.org).
----
The ROM is gone, but I think the OS still checks something on the board before booting. That said, i'd love to know if someone can get the MacOS booting on a chrp machine.
----
I ask because of an interesting tidbit my girlfriend slipped from her work. She does tech support for the university I'm at; apparently the upstream bandwidth figures have been sort of loopy the past few days, showing regular, repeating bandwidth spikes every hour or two. I'm not much in the know otherwise, but I do know that there are A LOT of unsecured NT boxes running around here. (Wannabe geeks in the dorms installing warez'd NT for some reason)
----
Actually you could probably do that by *adding* JavaScript through a small proxy app. Instead of moving the window offscreen, though, which can cause some occasional headaches, dump the pages into a 1px x 1px iframe (works in Mozilla and IE5+; not sure on Opera but iframe tag is standards compliant.) Going the iframe route has the added benefit that it spawns 0 windows.
----
I'm not refering to add on customizations. Look at the built in software packages. Microsoft's OS package includes the ability to manipulate the UI and even has a load of themes, with more to download from their website. Apple started to, but then dropped the whole thing.
Yes, and some people have reverse engineered that same API and are developing their own themes. Isn't this a good thing? It's not as though Apple pulled the functionality out---they simply didn't bother fully implementing. True it would have been better if Apple had documented that API, but they didn't.
The themes resource I pointed out for MacOS X requires zero add-on software to MacOS X. Kaleidoscope, though, is in the same vein as something like Stardock---a 3rd party themeing add-on for Windows.
And yes, I belive you are correct - I ment fascist. Apple is much like a dictatorship. Why would anyone fund that when they have so many better choices?
You already said it: If you don't like what Apple does, don't buy from Apple. But that doesn't explain why a lot of people (24 million or so, last quarter) chose to buy Macs over an x86 box. A lot of us buy Macs because, for the job, it's the better machine. Forget about Apple's Photoshop tests: a G4/733 outpaces an Intellistation 1.1 GHZ P3 in nearly every Photoshop operation you can throw at it, including ones that aren't Altivec optimized (example: mode conversions aren't optimized for Altivec, but run faster on a G4)
Though not everyone may understand it, some people do place form over function---iMac buyers, Cube buyers, etc. It does become a valid consideration when total experience is factored in. if you think an iMac looks nicer sitting on your desk than a Dell, and does what you need, great---buy the iMac if you want to pay the premium for form.
----
Apple is a company trying to make money.
...
... yea a Ferrari 355 will blow the doors off of a Honda S2000, but you can get five or six S2000s for the price of one 355. COME ON! The Honda stimulates my need just as much as the Ferrari, and I can get one for my friend too.
;-)
Oh dear gods imagine that: a company fufilling its fiduciary obligation to its shareholders.
Seems kind of communist to me
I think you meant fascist, especially since you accused apple of being capitalists above.
The MacOS 9.x and previous interfaces were quite limiting (not very customizable)
UI not customizable under MacOS 9.x? http://kaleidoscope.net/
UI not customizable under MacOS X?
http://www.ResExcellence.com/themes/
A price comparison if you will
You remind me of those guys that take a cheap Honda hatchback, trick it out, drop in a bigger engine and put a big tailpipe on it. Course it'll run fast, but it's still a cheap Honda hatchback at its core. Me... I'd rather buy a Mercedes. Sure, it may not run as fast as your Honda or be as affordable---but it's built a good bit better and doesn't sound like a chainsaw.
----
They were all tech glitches which is to be expected from pre-release software: MacOS X 10.1 isn't shipping till September. They've got 6 weeks to take care of these relatively minor issues.
----
Oh, wait, since these same IP-down-your-throat goons are going to be collaborating with electronics corps anyhoo, we can forget about recordable media at all. Actually they are one-in-the-same: Sony Corp, for example.
----
No, Pantone, not Adobe, has a monopoly on this area because Pantone tests and mixes the inks, and publishes the swatch books. If you want Pantone support in your program, you need to pay a license fee to Pantone, NOT Adobe. (Furthermore, you're arguing spot color when I clearly was talking about CMYK. You can do spot without Photoshop, as long as you have an up-to-date and fresh swatchbook and a printer willing to accomodate your use of anything non-Photoshop.)
And I can do a CMYK conversion in a non-Photoshop program and bring it into Photoshop with all four channels intact and correct. Did it all the time when I last worked in-house for a printer, batch converting several hundred RGB images into CMYK.
----
Difference between Adobe v. Killustrator and Ford v. Kontour: The former is name confusion between two vector drawing programs; the latter is a car and a drawing program. Now I will admit that, between Illustrator and Freehand, I can choose between two programs that do everything I need except scratch my ass. But neither is even close to being a car.
----
Ummmm... then why can every other image editor I have on my Mac---including a freeware program---convert between CMYK and RGB just peachy (ie, as good as Photoshop)?
----
And if someone releases an image editor called Ophotoshop?
----
Not necessarily... an A/C box has to run the compressor and fans continously while in operation. Depending on how powerful of a unit, it can eat-up a LOT of power. But a waterfall would just require a return pump and gravity would do the rest.
----
Adobe charges $500 or $600 or whatever it is these days for Photoshop Relative worth: I can easily recoup the $600 license fee for Photoshop in one 12 hour day. For what I make on my billable hours, Photoshop is priced correctly.
----
fwiw, IE5.1 carbon ships on the MacOS X CD.
----
Titanium G4 and the new iBook. 'Nuff said.
----
-And get rid of those stupid orb shaped speakers... they look cool, but aren't practical.
What's so impractical about them? They're small and sound relatively good for their size. My only complaint is that the overall diameter of the case should be about 1"-2" greater to allow for a larger base---if they get unseated, they have the tendency to roll.
----
----
Why don't you put the power supply under your desk?
----
----
...Aside from the fact that Adobe sells no product which contains the word "paint" prominently
----
How long ago did this happen? Call your credit card company and dispute the charges.
----