how's this for an option: "font-family:avant garde, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;" If the user has the designer's preferred font, great, it gets used. If not, it'll review the designer's remaining preferences, and if worse comes to worse, just pick whatever the reader's default sans-serif font is.
ditto what the rest of these guys said, XP runs great on a 350mhz Celeron with a gob of RAM. But after all, XP really is just Windows NT v5.1. There's something to be said for incremental upgrades...
You write code with broken table tags, and you're calling me an "asswit"? If all browsers crashed from errors like that the web would be a lot better-coded -- because jerks like you who can't properly write the most basic of languages (HTML) wouldn't be involved.
Many javascript programmers consider Mozilla to have a buggier javascript implementation than MSIE; what they don't get is that MSIE is very good at interpreting buggy code, which leads to... well, bugs and incompatibility. Mozilla forces you to do it the right way, which leads to greater compatibility in the grand scheme of things.
I wish this article had addressed the whole MSIE "document.body" mess, though. The correct DOM equivalent is "document.documentelement", but it doesn't work in MSIE6 unless the document is properly defined with a DOCTYPE declaration (otherwise MSIE is in backward-compatibility/buggy mode).
Otherwise, a really great introduction. I've been using Mozilla to do javascript for months and didn't know most of the data here.
A couple other people have already pointed out, but I really have to restate: the GF4 440 Go is nowhere near the same class a chip as the GF4 4200. The "440 Go" is a low-power version of the GF4MX, which in turn is just a souped-up GF2. The GF4 4200 is MASSIVELY better.
The GF4MX series (including the Go) play today's 3D software fine, but are mostly useless for tomorrow's stuff (like Doom3). The GF4 series is almost absurdly overpowered for today's software, and is ready for tomorrow's. (and this doesn't even touch on the new ATI and GF-FX cards...)
In most of the other comparisons (except for the processor speed, which I find largely irrelevent), I tend to agree with your assessments, however.
I tried a test-build of Phoenix for OS X last winter; it was obviously much faster than Camino (then Chimera), and possibly as fast as Safari (which didn't exist at the time).
Of course, it was also buggy as hell, could hardly go more than a dozen pages without crashing... but the proof of concept was there; Phoenix for OS X would rock.
Where do you get off calling this system "amateurish"? The bastard has survived a day-long slashdotting. I've been inputting data all day and havent encountered a single error. There's a few bits that could stand some refinement -- linking of new titles to authors should be easier -- but overall this thing is TIGHT.
In Mozilla browsers, when a link is defined like [a href="blah" target="_new" ], clicking on this link opens the new page in a new window.
When a user is using tabbed browsing, they are aggregating all of their windows into a single window. Clicking on "_new" links in tabbed browsing mode should open documents into new tabs, not new windows.*
"Right-clicking" and selecting "open in a new tab" is not an acceptable solution because it is unintuitive, not all users even have right-buttons (don't tell me to explain keyboard shortcuts to my grandma), and if a user in unsure of which links open into new windows and which ones are normal links, they need to adjust to a habit of right-click/open-new-tabbing EVERY link they encounter. I think you can agree that's pretty absurd behavior.
*an exception might be made for links that trigger new windows with specified sizes (like those small comments windows many blogs use)
I hope that Apple is bright enough to have an option that forces all "open in new window" javascripts to "open in new tab." This is possible in Mozilla and Phoenix (but not Chimera), but requires a plug-in installation.
I've seen many new users of tabbed browsing become baffled by new windows popping up all over the place. If tabbed browsing is to be integrated, it needs to be done right. This seems like the sort of humane interface element that Apple used to have a real knack for, but since OS X you never can quite be sure.
Hard drive space requirements are going to vary from user to user, and I think it's a safe assumption that most hard drives are far larger than a typical user needs, but that's not the point.
Hard drives don't appear to have the life that they used to. On top of that, most major hard drive manufacturers cut their warranties from three to one year.
That sucks. Maybe hard drives are big enough, just for now. Maybe they need to start being constructed better again.
The problem is, the current keyboard design wasn't designed for Most Users, it just sort of evolved.
There aren't 12 function keys because it's a good idea. In the late-eighties, there was a one-upsmanship contest going on to see who could squeeze the most in the space; for a long ten was the standard, but enough keyboards were marketed as "better" because they had 12 keys that it eventually became the standard.
(is there a single application that uses all 15 F-keys on a Mac keyboard??)
Let's go back to you. As a writer, what do you do with back-tik and Scroll Lock? Wouldn't it be great if you could depend on PrtScn to print? Wouldn't replacing the mess of F-keys with standard commands like Cut/Copy/Paste/Undo be beneficial to your work as a writer? (forget for a moment that you've memorized ctrl-x etc.; wouldn't have been better not to have to?)
Re:You forgot to mention tabs, so I will.
on
Safari Beta Updated
·
· Score: 1, Flamebait
At any given time, I have six-eight web pages open, plus BBEdit. With Chimera, I can have two simple windows open and dash through all of my pertinent documents. With Safari... fuggedaboutit.
Maybe if I had a Cinema display I could juggle nine windows, but at 1024x768??
I don't mind if Apple wants to leave tabs off for simplicity and consistency's sake, but there should be a hidden tabs feature that "power users" can turn on for their own benefit.
I don't understand your arguement at all. Why can't a 12" laptop with DVI (plugged into, say, a Cinema Display) be a desktop replacement?
I've been itching for a Mac laptop, but the iBooks are too underpowered and the TiBook was too big. I wanted an ultraportable that could plug into a nice big screen when I came home. But then Apple had to go and leave out the DVI, leave out the L3 cache, and stick a crappy videochip on it. What a deal-breaker.
I'm not a Monday-morning CEO, I'm a critic. You, on the other hand, are an apologist.
I was referring to the $800 CRT iMac (there is no 700mhz flat panel iMac, to the best of my knowledge). It doesn't come with wireless networking, it doesn't have a flat-panel display, and calling it the equivalent of a mid-range PC (which will have a processor that's at least twice as fast, USB 2.0, triple HD capacity, and a GeForce-class video chip), is just absurd. It's a GREAT computer, and it's low-end, period.
Tell me to hush up? What makes your opinion any more valid than mine?
*( why doesn't anybody else include airport antennas? because they have their heads up their butts, it has nothing to do with price. )
Give me a break. Of course they have low-end machines -- the 700mhz iMac is low-end relative to the dual-proc 1.4ghz G4. It's based on a motherboard that hasn't seen a revision in over two years, and a processor that's just a faster version of a processor that's been for sale for 3+ years. The longer motherboards and processors are in production, the cheaper they get to make. The 700mhz iMac could be sold for $500 easy. (and those Airport antennas? it's just a cable whip, it couldn't cost more than a couple bucks)
But you're right, they do care about selling machines for high profit margins. They gave up on building computers "for the rest of us" a long time ago.
I find the idea that Jaguar can be effectively run on 128mb, even with only a single app active, laughable. And again, 128mb can be had for under $20, soon they'll be at the bottom of Cracker-Jack boxes. It's ridiculous for them to be shipping machines with 256mb, even on their low end.
There was one point in the last decade where more Macintoshes were being sold to Windows users than people who already owned Macs. That was when the iMac was first introduced, at a $1000 price point. For the first time, a low-end Mac cost as much as a low-end PC, and buyers flocked to them.
Today a low-end PC can be had for ~$500 (less if you're willing to go with Lindows). If Apple really wants "switchers," they need to have a low-end machine for $500. The eMac just isn't affordable enough. (and there's no doubt in my mind that 700mhz G3 iMacs, which are still available for $800, could be sold profitably for about $500)
btw, the low-end eMacs are still shipping with 128mb RAM. Has anyone here tried running Jag with 256mb? What's another 128mb SDR cost, $20?
Strangely enough, that was kind of the point of the original NES (a.k.a. Famicom - family computer) in the first place. Remember that parallel/expansion port thingy?
Slashdot Mirror
It feels more to me like Novel finally announcing a Windows 95 version of WordPerfect long after Word 6.0 had gobbled up the market.
The king is dead! Long live King InDesign!
how's this for an option: "font-family:avant garde, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;" If the user has the designer's preferred font, great, it gets used. If not, it'll review the designer's remaining preferences, and if worse comes to worse, just pick whatever the reader's default sans-serif font is.
? With a CSS declaration of text-indent:5% of course.
When you use HTML properly (i.e. wrapping paragraphs in -- gasp -- paragraph tags), it works great.
A friend of mine has caught neighborhood kids stealing NetFlix discs out of her mailbox several times. She returns them from work now.
ditto what the rest of these guys said, XP runs great on a 350mhz Celeron with a gob of RAM. But after all, XP really is just Windows NT v5.1. There's something to be said for incremental upgrades...
You write code with broken table tags, and you're calling me an "asswit"? If all browsers crashed from errors like that the web would be a lot better-coded -- because jerks like you who can't properly write the most basic of languages (HTML) wouldn't be involved.
I wish this article had addressed the whole MSIE "document.body" mess, though. The correct DOM equivalent is "document.documentelement", but it doesn't work in MSIE6 unless the document is properly defined with a DOCTYPE declaration (otherwise MSIE is in backward-compatibility/buggy mode).
Otherwise, a really great introduction. I've been using Mozilla to do javascript for months and didn't know most of the data here.
A couple other people have already pointed out, but I really have to restate: the GF4 440 Go is nowhere near the same class a chip as the GF4 4200. The "440 Go" is a low-power version of the GF4MX, which in turn is just a souped-up GF2. The GF4 4200 is MASSIVELY better.
The GF4MX series (including the Go) play today's 3D software fine, but are mostly useless for tomorrow's stuff (like Doom3). The GF4 series is almost absurdly overpowered for today's software, and is ready for tomorrow's. (and this doesn't even touch on the new ATI and GF-FX cards...)
In most of the other comparisons (except for the processor speed, which I find largely irrelevent), I tend to agree with your assessments, however.
I tried a test-build of Phoenix for OS X last winter; it was obviously much faster than Camino (then Chimera), and possibly as fast as Safari (which didn't exist at the time).
Of course, it was also buggy as hell, could hardly go more than a dozen pages without crashing... but the proof of concept was there; Phoenix for OS X would rock.
There have been rampant complaints about that "occasional bug" reducing battery charge lifetime to less than two hours.
Where do you get off calling this system "amateurish"? The bastard has survived a day-long slashdotting. I've been inputting data all day and havent encountered a single error. There's a few bits that could stand some refinement -- linking of new titles to authors should be easier -- but overall this thing is TIGHT.
In Mozilla browsers, when a link is defined like [a href="blah" target="_new" ], clicking on this link opens the new page in a new window.
When a user is using tabbed browsing, they are aggregating all of their windows into a single window. Clicking on "_new" links in tabbed browsing mode should open documents into new tabs, not new windows.*
"Right-clicking" and selecting "open in a new tab" is not an acceptable solution because it is unintuitive, not all users even have right-buttons (don't tell me to explain keyboard shortcuts to my grandma), and if a user in unsure of which links open into new windows and which ones are normal links, they need to adjust to a habit of right-click/open-new-tabbing EVERY link they encounter. I think you can agree that's pretty absurd behavior.
*an exception might be made for links that trigger new windows with specified sizes (like those small comments windows many blogs use)
I hope that Apple is bright enough to have an option that forces all "open in new window" javascripts to "open in new tab." This is possible in Mozilla and Phoenix (but not Chimera), but requires a plug-in installation.
I've seen many new users of tabbed browsing become baffled by new windows popping up all over the place. If tabbed browsing is to be integrated, it needs to be done right. This seems like the sort of humane interface element that Apple used to have a real knack for, but since OS X you never can quite be sure.
Hard drive space requirements are going to vary from user to user, and I think it's a safe assumption that most hard drives are far larger than a typical user needs, but that's not the point.
Hard drives don't appear to have the life that they used to. On top of that, most major hard drive manufacturers cut their warranties from three to one year.
That sucks. Maybe hard drives are big enough, just for now. Maybe they need to start being constructed better again.
Enough "hard drive of tomorrow" articles, already.
The problem is, the current keyboard design wasn't designed for Most Users, it just sort of evolved.
There aren't 12 function keys because it's a good idea. In the late-eighties, there was a one-upsmanship contest going on to see who could squeeze the most in the space; for a long ten was the standard, but enough keyboards were marketed as "better" because they had 12 keys that it eventually became the standard.
(is there a single application that uses all 15 F-keys on a Mac keyboard??)
Let's go back to you. As a writer, what do you do with back-tik and Scroll Lock? Wouldn't it be great if you could depend on PrtScn to print? Wouldn't replacing the mess of F-keys with standard commands like Cut/Copy/Paste/Undo be beneficial to your work as a writer? (forget for a moment that you've memorized ctrl-x etc.; wouldn't have been better not to have to?)
At any given time, I have six-eight web pages open, plus BBEdit. With Chimera, I can have two simple windows open and dash through all of my pertinent documents. With Safari... fuggedaboutit.
Maybe if I had a Cinema display I could juggle nine windows, but at 1024x768??
I don't mind if Apple wants to leave tabs off for simplicity and consistency's sake, but there should be a hidden tabs feature that "power users" can turn on for their own benefit.
- a crippled G4 (no L3 cache) that barely edges out the iBook
- a video chipset that is much slower than the year-old 15" Powerbook's Radeon, in some cases no faster than the iBook
- $50 of extra RAM
I suppose it's better than the iBook, but for folks who wanted a more-portable Powerbook it's a real letdown.I don't understand your arguement at all. Why can't a 12" laptop with DVI (plugged into, say, a Cinema Display) be a desktop replacement?
I've been itching for a Mac laptop, but the iBooks are too underpowered and the TiBook was too big. I wanted an ultraportable that could plug into a nice big screen when I came home. But then Apple had to go and leave out the DVI, leave out the L3 cache, and stick a crappy videochip on it. What a deal-breaker.
I'm not a Monday-morning CEO, I'm a critic. You, on the other hand, are an apologist.
I was referring to the $800 CRT iMac (there is no 700mhz flat panel iMac, to the best of my knowledge). It doesn't come with wireless networking, it doesn't have a flat-panel display, and calling it the equivalent of a mid-range PC (which will have a processor that's at least twice as fast, USB 2.0, triple HD capacity, and a GeForce-class video chip), is just absurd. It's a GREAT computer, and it's low-end, period.
Tell me to hush up? What makes your opinion any more valid than mine?
*( why doesn't anybody else include airport antennas? because they have their heads up their butts, it has nothing to do with price. )
Give me a break. Of course they have low-end machines -- the 700mhz iMac is low-end relative to the dual-proc 1.4ghz G4. It's based on a motherboard that hasn't seen a revision in over two years, and a processor that's just a faster version of a processor that's been for sale for 3+ years. The longer motherboards and processors are in production, the cheaper they get to make. The 700mhz iMac could be sold for $500 easy. (and those Airport antennas? it's just a cable whip, it couldn't cost more than a couple bucks)
But you're right, they do care about selling machines for high profit margins. They gave up on building computers "for the rest of us" a long time ago.
I find the idea that Jaguar can be effectively run on 128mb, even with only a single app active, laughable. And again, 128mb can be had for under $20, soon they'll be at the bottom of Cracker-Jack boxes. It's ridiculous for them to be shipping machines with 256mb, even on their low end.
There was one point in the last decade where more Macintoshes were being sold to Windows users than people who already owned Macs. That was when the iMac was first introduced, at a $1000 price point. For the first time, a low-end Mac cost as much as a low-end PC, and buyers flocked to them.
Today a low-end PC can be had for ~$500 (less if you're willing to go with Lindows). If Apple really wants "switchers," they need to have a low-end machine for $500. The eMac just isn't affordable enough. (and there's no doubt in my mind that 700mhz G3 iMacs, which are still available for $800, could be sold profitably for about $500)
btw, the low-end eMacs are still shipping with 128mb RAM. Has anyone here tried running Jag with 256mb? What's another 128mb SDR cost, $20?
No kidding. Powerbook Duos still fetch close to $300.
Strangely enough, that was kind of the point of the original NES (a.k.a. Famicom - family computer) in the first place. Remember that parallel/expansion port thingy?
Does that mean the death of Chimera?