The first computer in the house was a Commodore Business Machine - basically a PET with a large 80 column display and a better keyboard. It also had this dual 5.25" disk drive that was the size of a buick.
The first computer that was completely my own was an Apple//e. Started with a monochrome monitor, one 5.25" drive and an ImageWriter printer. A second Disk ][ drive was quickly added.
Different cable companies service different parts of NJ. I live in Jersey City, too but have Comcast cable.
I'm paying a mint, too but I am opting for digital for HD and a firewire enabled cable box I can hook up to my MythTV machine. I don't recall if Comcast's basic service or other low tier service plans come with Scifi or not.
Well, your experience is different from mine. I've worked at large web agencies and "Big 5" advertising agencies. Most devs I know (including me) end up using tables simply because we're required to support every browser made in the past six years and it simply isn't time and aggravation quotient efficient to try to do everything in CSS.
Most folks I know use a combination of table and CSS-based layout. Tables are simply very easy to code for. It may not be so easy to radically revise the layout after the fact, but a good developer can design so any kind of routine content refresh won't completely break their code.
Chances are that if the layout were to really change, the entire site is probably getting refreshed anyway, so preserving existing content usually isn't that important.
The only time I use CSS exclusively is if the design is relatively simple and the browser requirements are fairly narrow. It just isn't worth the time and budget otherwise.
One of the things I like about WoW is that I'm not forced to party up to do everything in the game. I don't have a problem partying up for a challenging instance, but most of the time I prefer to tool around myself.
This is pretty strange. I haven't had any problems trying to mount CD's I've burned in OS X on PCs. In fact, the Finder (in 10.3, at least) explicitly states that the CD will work in any PC or Mac.
Just burned a CDRW on my Mac. Mounted just fine on my XP PC. Maybe there's something wrong with your colleague's Mac?
How do you get so overloaded with spam so quickly? Even the account that I use in situations where I might attract spam only gets, at most, 10 junk mails each day -- and it's been in use for well over six years. The accounts I use for friends or colleagues and for mailing lists get almost no spam (one or two each month for the last account).
I admit I'm pretty paranoid about posting my addresses in publicly viewable places. However, I'm surprised that people seem to have to cycle through addresses so rapidly. Obviously, we can't rely on spammers to regulate themselves, so maybe folks should re-examine their online habits if spam is that big a problem.
(going on very little sleep, here so if something seems incoherent, many happy polly-logies)
It's not necessarily a matter of compromising one's beliefs. If 95% of your potential users use a particular browser, you simply have to code to that reality.
IMHO, it's not all that reasonable to expect most of the internet public to download a new browser, just so they can get some product information from a corporate website. Since most of them can barely operate their computers in the first place, expecting them to install a new piece of software isn't realistic.
The other reality *is* money. Clients have X dollars to spend on their sites. I think if you asked any company advertising on the web (and I'm not talking about banners - I'm taking about corporate websites - most of them are simply another form of advertising) if they'd like their site to work on every conceivable browser, they'd say yes in a second. However, the financial realities on the client side don't always allow for this. As I'm sure you know, budgets are always tight. Should I turn away a client because because they can't afford the full treatment? Sounds a lot like cutting my (and the client's) nose off to spite my face.
Also, if you present them with a development plan that could potentially alienate 95% of their potential users or drive them from your site, they'll say no, and with good reason. They want to get their message out without making their users jump through hoops.
I think supporting the standards as they are written are great and I generally code to make sure my html renders properly on as many browsers as possible. However I draw the line at advocating technologies that most of the web viewing public can't use -- especially technologies that can be implemented in other ways that produce essentially the same effect as the less supported ones.
Most of us who do web development do it for clients who don't take kindly to being told that they should switch their browsers. Also, there is the (probably true) view that most of the technically illiterate masses out there, confronted with the need to download a strange piece of software so they can browse some website, will simply skip the site and go elsewhere.
I can't count the number of times, I've been told not to worry about code not rendering perfectly in some fringe browser like Netscape or Safari. Clients are concerned mainly about the 95% of people that are browsing on Windows IE and if they can save some man hours by ignoring them, they're usually happy to do so.
Fortunately, I'm at a job now where some of the management and directors are on Macs or use alternate browsers, so there's a fair amount of concern about coding to the widest audience possible. Still, I think if I were to propose a solution that was only partially compatible with the 95% market share browser, I'd get laughed out of the room. You have to code to your audience. If they're by far a majority of WinIE, you have to take that into account.
Well, from my experience, Apple's service has been exemplary, The last time I sent my PowerBook in for repair (blown hinges on a TiBook), Apple also replaced everything except the hard drive, memory, bottom case and airport card cause they were a little out of spec. I also got the machine back in two days.
The only time Apple took more than three days to get my machine back to me was when a part was out of stock. They gave me a $200.00 credit on the Apple Store as an apology.
As for the single processor, why would you want a single processor 1.6, when the new low end is a dual 1.8 for a couple of hundred bucks more? There is some evidence that the new 1.8 might not be quite as good as the old one, but it's still better than a single 1.6 and is cheaper than it was before.
My experience with Apple hardware (all the way back to the Apple//e) is that its quality is well above the average, both in terms of quality and engineering.
Osiris, an intrusion detection software package, will compile and run on OS X. Seems to work, but haven't had a real intrusion attempt yet to test it against (knock on wood).
On second reading, it seems that you did install X11 on your OS X install. Blame not enough sleep keeping those Suicide Hotline Day operators busy last night.
The reason why you'd bother is to have the flexibility of having a consumer-level GUI and applications base *along* with all the X11 goodies.
There are multiple desktop utilities available for OS X. Here's one at Versiontracker Haven't used it, so YMMV.
Slashdot Mirror
And just so everyone is clear, 'Replace this steaming pile with Ubuntu" is probably *not* the kind of feedback Microsoft is looking for ;)
Which is a ridiculous claim as Warhammer Fantasy Battle and 40K have been around much longer than Warcraft.
The first computer in the house was a Commodore Business Machine - basically a PET with a large 80 column display and a better keyboard. It also had this dual 5.25" disk drive that was the size of a buick.
//e. Started with a monochrome monitor, one 5.25" drive and an ImageWriter printer. A second Disk ][ drive was quickly added.
The first computer that was completely my own was an Apple
Different cable companies service different parts of NJ. I live in Jersey City, too but have Comcast cable.
I'm paying a mint, too but I am opting for digital for HD and a firewire enabled cable box I can hook up to my MythTV machine. I don't recall if Comcast's basic service or other low tier service plans come with Scifi or not.
And since IE has >85% market share, it becomes the developer's problem.
Well, your experience is different from mine. I've worked at large web agencies and "Big 5" advertising agencies. Most devs I know (including me) end up using tables simply because we're required to support every browser made in the past six years and it simply isn't time and aggravation quotient efficient to try to do everything in CSS.
Most folks I know use a combination of table and CSS-based layout. Tables are simply very easy to code for. It may not be so easy to radically revise the layout after the fact, but a good developer can design so any kind of routine content refresh won't completely break their code.
Chances are that if the layout were to really change, the entire site is probably getting refreshed anyway, so preserving existing content usually isn't that important.
The only time I use CSS exclusively is if the design is relatively simple and the browser requirements are fairly narrow. It just isn't worth the time and budget otherwise.
One of the things I like about WoW is that I'm not forced to party up to do everything in the game. I don't have a problem partying up for a challenging instance, but most of the time I prefer to tool around myself.
Except we're not given any choice by our bosses or clients.
If any of us were to refuse to code for IE, we'd be looking for a new job the next day.
This is pretty strange. I haven't had any problems trying to mount CD's I've burned in OS X on PCs. In fact, the Finder (in 10.3, at least) explicitly states that the CD will work in any PC or Mac.
Just burned a CDRW on my Mac. Mounted just fine on my XP PC. Maybe there's something wrong with your colleague's Mac?
What's with the graphics? They're so six years ago.
Here in New York, it's usually other cities subbing for NYC.
More and more film and TV are being filmed on location here now, though.
Eudora does this, too.
Today, maze cars. Tomorrow, life clocks and sandmen.
Any word on when/if the PC or Mac versions will be published? I hope our wait won't be as long as it was for Halo.
How do you get so overloaded with spam so quickly? Even the account that I use in situations where I might attract spam only gets, at most, 10 junk mails each day -- and it's been in use for well over six years. The accounts I use for friends or colleagues and for mailing lists get almost no spam (one or two each month for the last account).
I admit I'm pretty paranoid about posting my addresses in publicly viewable places. However, I'm surprised that people seem to have to cycle through addresses so rapidly. Obviously, we can't rely on spammers to regulate themselves, so maybe folks should re-examine their online habits if spam is that big a problem.
Vassar is coed now (and has been since 1969).
Were you using the machine for anything? Four months uptime on a box that's just sitting idle isn't all that impressive.
(going on very little sleep, here so if something seems incoherent, many happy polly-logies)
It's not necessarily a matter of compromising one's beliefs. If 95% of your potential users use a particular browser, you simply have to code to that reality.
IMHO, it's not all that reasonable to expect most of the internet public to download a new browser, just so they can get some product information from a corporate website. Since most of them can barely operate their computers in the first place, expecting them to install a new piece of software isn't realistic.
The other reality *is* money. Clients have X dollars to spend on their sites. I think if you asked any company advertising on the web (and I'm not talking about banners - I'm taking about corporate websites - most of them are simply another form of advertising) if they'd like their site to work on every conceivable browser, they'd say yes in a second. However, the financial realities on the client side don't always allow for this. As I'm sure you know, budgets are always tight. Should I turn away a client because because they can't afford the full treatment? Sounds a lot like cutting my (and the client's) nose off to spite my face.
Also, if you present them with a development plan that could potentially alienate 95% of their potential users or drive them from your site, they'll say no, and with good reason. They want to get their message out without making their users jump through hoops.
I think supporting the standards as they are written are great and I generally code to make sure my html renders properly on as many browsers as possible. However I draw the line at advocating technologies that most of the web viewing public can't use -- especially technologies that can be implemented in other ways that produce essentially the same effect as the less supported ones.
Most of us who do web development do it for clients who don't take kindly to being told that they should switch their browsers. Also, there is the (probably true) view that most of the technically illiterate masses out there, confronted with the need to download a strange piece of software so they can browse some website, will simply skip the site and go elsewhere.
I can't count the number of times, I've been told not to worry about code not rendering perfectly in some fringe browser like Netscape or Safari. Clients are concerned mainly about the 95% of people that are browsing on Windows IE and if they can save some man hours by ignoring them, they're usually happy to do so.
Fortunately, I'm at a job now where some of the management and directors are on Macs or use alternate browsers, so there's a fair amount of concern about coding to the widest audience possible. Still, I think if I were to propose a solution that was only partially compatible with the 95% market share browser, I'd get laughed out of the room. You have to code to your audience. If they're by far a majority of WinIE, you have to take that into account.
Well, from my experience, Apple's service has been exemplary, The last time I sent my PowerBook in for repair (blown hinges on a TiBook), Apple also replaced everything except the hard drive, memory, bottom case and airport card cause they were a little out of spec. I also got the machine back in two days.
//e) is that its quality is well above the average, both in terms of quality and engineering.
The only time Apple took more than three days to get my machine back to me was when a part was out of stock. They gave me a $200.00 credit on the Apple Store as an apology.
As for the single processor, why would you want a single processor 1.6, when the new low end is a dual 1.8 for a couple of hundred bucks more? There is some evidence that the new 1.8 might not be quite as good as the old one, but it's still better than a single 1.6 and is cheaper than it was before.
My experience with Apple hardware (all the way back to the Apple
Ah, the eternal question: +1 funny or -1 flamebait. Can't really tell.
Osiris, an intrusion detection software package, will compile and run on OS X. Seems to work, but haven't had a real intrusion attempt yet to test it against (knock on wood).
But you *can* install X11 from Fink. IIRC, it's somewhat slower than Apple's X11, but works just fine.
What are the odds that this service will work on Macs? Not good, I'd say.
On second reading, it seems that you did install X11 on your OS X install. Blame not enough sleep keeping those Suicide Hotline Day operators busy last night.
The reason why you'd bother is to have the flexibility of having a consumer-level GUI and applications base *along* with all the X11 goodies.
There are multiple desktop utilities available for OS X. Here's one at Versiontracker Haven't used it, so YMMV.