Apply it to something physical: Its ok the Winona Ryder shoplifted, she never had any intention of paying for it anyways. That's stealing...
Acctually. It would be more like if Winona Ryder had went into the shop, took lots of photos of the cloths, then made some cloths that look identical to them.
She did not steal anything. She violated a copyright law.
Looking back at my palm, I wonder "how could it ever be sold??". The palm is sooo limited in functionality compared to the Zaurus. First of all, you get a shell...
OK OK....Lets jusy stop right there shall we? How many PDA owners do you think really need a shell?
Now don't answer just yet. Think really hard about it. Go outside and mingle with the other people in the real world for a while, not the geeks we surround ourselves with, and ask yourself that question again.
I'm pretty sure the NiCad will suffer damage after a number of those kinds of cycles.
Nope, unless you talking into the 100's. Probably right about lead acid. But not really something you want in a R/C car or a drill.
And yes, I know mice aren't high-drain devices:)
Just dispelling the myth that NiCads no longer have a use.
Although, on a note. I once saw a prog where they made a high-speed electric car made to run on those flat salt lakes where they go for all the land speed records etc. It used 100's or 1000's of ~C sized NiCads.
Read the artical again. It says that the majority of people say they judge a site by it's contents, but in reality they're judging it by it's look and AI etc. That different to what you seem to be arguing against.
Anyone who visits xfree.org can pretty much be wiped off the average user list.
They didn't say every person jugded a site by it's look, it was the majority./.ers and people who go to sites like xfree.org are clearly in the minority of web users.
The blame for fonts set in pixels shouldn't really be placed soley on the designers (even though they should be aware of browser bugs). The Browser makers are to blame also. The W3C says that a font defined in ANY unit should be overridable by the browser, that includes pixels.
It takes a skilled designer to make a page look nice, clean and proffesional, much much harder than most people think.
A skilled worker would get paid lots of money.
Usaly, only large, creditable and sucsessful companies would ever spend lots on the look and feel of their site (since when was the last time you saw a nicly layed-out pr0n site?).
Maybe you should not be aiming all of these at the developers but at the markeing people to?
There are quite a few things in there that the developer may have no say in.
People seem to think that design is all about making it look pretty. It's not. It's as important as the IA behind it. What's the point in having good AI if the layout is design confusingly, and mixes the wrong elements together? or it's unclear where the sections are in a page etc?
Don't diss NiCads.
LiIon and NiMH may be better for most applications, but neither is a replacment for really high-drain devices.
You can drain a 7.2v 3000mA NiCad pack flat in 4 mins with no damage (they get very hot though). Try that with a LiIon and you'll be staring and a battery that's looks as if it's had a thermo-nuclar-meltdown.
Yes. Most PDAs can play videos and MP3s (although I have yet to see one with a DVD player). But they usaly do this very pooly compared to a laptop/desktop. I can't fit my 8GB music collection onto any PDA I know of. Browsing the web is a horrible experience even at 640x480, let alone any PDA screen. And working with any real graphics application is pretty much impossible (always a case of 'the more room, the better').
If these things aren't really cheap, who will want to pay a laptop price for the ability to do what their palm and PPC already does, plus DVD?
In that case, who would want to buy a laptop either?
You seem to be under the impression that these tablets are more like PDAs than laptops. I'm under the impression that they're more like to laptops, or at least that's where I think they will be heading.
I agree 100%. There should be a way to stop all the animation. If there is one thing that's as slow as re-sizing a window, it all the fancy animation on save dialog boxes etc. It's a pain in the ass to have to wait a few seconds when there is no need to.
BTW, if you really wana see annoying animation. Try zooming on a photo in iPhoto. It has to animate the zooming...It takes forever on an iBook.
Pop quiz: What's the difference between Microsoft's future XP tablets and their existing Pocket PCs, aside from more horsepower you don't need and larger screens, which you also don't need?
Answer: A foldout keyboard and a full-featured/normal desktop OS.
Stop comparing these to any form of PDA, they are obviously not meant to replace them.
Stop whining about keyboards, and go at look at photos. What do most of them come with?
Stop blabering about how much faster it is to type. If you really need to type a lot, you can foldout/attatch a keyboard.
If you mostly type at your computer. Then stop complaining because obviously this computer is not for you.
This is not only godsent for Fedex and the like, but also as a personal laptop for around the house, on the bus etc when you want to do anything that doesn't require too much typing (browsing the web, reading, listening to music, whatching DVD's, most graphic design/3d/video related apps etc).
Just because you don't have a use for this, and also feel the need to flame anything that comes out of MS. Doesn't mean everyone else feels the same way.
Actually Apple has stated on the record that they don't think that the Tablet PC has any future.
That depends if by Tablet PC they are refering to a true Tablet PC or not. Like the origonal poster said, most of these new XP Tablets aren't really tablets in the traditional sence, but hybid laptops.
Has anyone actually has a look that the photos?
They basicly look like low/mid-end laptops with a swivel screen. I think they're brilliant and might be the next big thing. And after Apple have released handwriting recgonision software. It makes me wonder what they have in mind for their next laptop line-up.
Im running what is now considered fairly modest hardware (TiBook 667MHz, Gigabit Ethernet, 512 MB RAM)
That TiBook has G4 processor and a much better video card than my iBook. That will make a huge, as it is the main cause of Aqua being slow on iBooks.
However, this is the case for any OS: As it continues to evolve, it will make more demands on the available hardware at hand. Heck, we'd want it to rather than freezing all our hardware in its current state.
I did say I understood that. And I said it was still unacceptable. When I bought my iBook, I was under the impression that it could (or should I say: was going to after a few OS upgrades) run Aqua fine. I'm running a fresh install of 10.2 now. The speed improvments aren't as great as I was lead to beleive.
Anyways. I have ran top (the little CLI app that give your machine usages specs) a few times, and I usaly have about 130MBs free, unlike when I first got it with 128MBs, it was swapping all the time.
Resizing any window is incredibly slow to the point where it's very annoying
When switching between applications, there is a 1 or 2 second lag while the windows changes from unactive to active (the greyed out buttons etc)
Scrolling is slow to the piont where you use the scroll wheel, and have to wait for the window to catch up
All web browsers feel like I'm using on 14.4k modem (even though it does actually download fast, and Chimera/Mozilla process the page fast)
All of these add up when your using the computer.
Maybe you can handle this. But I can't. Not the way I work anyway. I'm always opening and closing windows, switching between things, re-sizing windows etc. (I'm a web developer).
I understand why this is happening, and I understand that design of OS X's window manager is good thing. But it still doesn't change the fact that you need some grunt to run it. I would have accepted that if my iBook was a few years old. But it's not. It's not even a year old. Yet it will never run Aqua faster than the 233Mhz PC running Win98 that I'm typing this from (work computer).
Don't get me wrong. I love OS X, it's the best OS I've used (excuding the GUI speed). And I look forward to dumping my win2k box at home when get the $ to by a PowerMac. But that does not excuse the fact that Aqua will never run fast on my iBook. If I had knowen this, I would never have bought the 600Mhz iBook and would have waited for something faster (like the 800Mhz iBooks just released).
Note: The actual processing power avalible is more than enough for what I use my iBook for. It plays DVD's without stutter, and crunches other numbers just fine. I'm specificly talking about the Aqua, the GUI here.
BTW, why does it matter if windows has a built in HTML rendering engine? If for some reason you don't like using IE because of this, then use something like Pheonix or Mozilla or Opera or...
Slashdot Mirror
Acctually. It would be more like if Winona Ryder had went into the shop, took lots of photos of the cloths, then made some cloths that look identical to them.
She did not steal anything. She violated a copyright law.
OK OK....Lets jusy stop right there shall we? How many PDA owners do you think really need a shell?
Now don't answer just yet. Think really hard about it. Go outside and mingle with the other people in the real world for a while, not the geeks we surround ourselves with, and ask yourself that question again.
I think it slower write speed. Not slower over all.
Nope, unless you talking into the 100's. Probably right about lead acid. But not really something you want in a R/C car or a drill.
And yes, I know mice aren't high-drain devices :)
Just dispelling the myth that NiCads no longer have a use.
Although, on a note. I once saw a prog where they made a high-speed electric car made to run on those flat salt lakes where they go for all the land speed records etc. It used 100's or 1000's of ~C sized NiCads.
Read the artical again. It says that the majority of people say they judge a site by it's contents, but in reality they're judging it by it's look and AI etc. That different to what you seem to be arguing against.
They didn't say every person jugded a site by it's look, it was the majority. /.ers and people who go to sites like xfree.org are clearly in the minority of web users.
The blame for fonts set in pixels shouldn't really be placed soley on the designers (even though they should be aware of browser bugs). The Browser makers are to blame also. The W3C says that a font defined in ANY unit should be overridable by the browser, that includes pixels.
Much better than the horrid teal of a certain site I won't mention :P
It takes a skilled designer to make a page look nice, clean and proffesional, much much harder than most people think.
A skilled worker would get paid lots of money.
Usaly, only large, creditable and sucsessful companies would ever spend lots on the look and feel of their site (since when was the last time you saw a nicly layed-out pr0n site?).
Maybe you should not be aiming all of these at the developers but at the markeing people to?
There are quite a few things in there that the developer may have no say in.
People seem to think that design is all about making it look pretty. It's not. It's as important as the IA behind it. What's the point in having good AI if the layout is design confusingly, and mixes the wrong elements together? or it's unclear where the sections are in a page etc?
Looks more like 2 geeks on a date to me :P
Don't diss NiCads.
LiIon and NiMH may be better for most applications, but neither is a replacment for really high-drain devices.
You can drain a 7.2v 3000mA NiCad pack flat in 4 mins with no damage (they get very hot though). Try that with a LiIon and you'll be staring and a battery that's looks as if it's had a thermo-nuclar-meltdown.
Yes. Most PDAs can play videos and MP3s (although I have yet to see one with a DVD player). But they usaly do this very pooly compared to a laptop/desktop. I can't fit my 8GB music collection onto any PDA I know of. Browsing the web is a horrible experience even at 640x480, let alone any PDA screen. And working with any real graphics application is pretty much impossible (always a case of 'the more room, the better').
If these things aren't really cheap, who will want to pay a laptop price for the ability to do what their palm and PPC already does, plus DVD?
In that case, who would want to buy a laptop either?
You seem to be under the impression that these tablets are more like PDAs than laptops. I'm under the impression that they're more like to laptops, or at least that's where I think they will be heading.
BTW, if you really wana see annoying animation. Try zooming on a photo in iPhoto. It has to animate the zooming...It takes forever on an iBook.
The title should have been "Is Aqua slow?". Because I think the GUI is on most people's minds when talking about the speed of OS X.
Answer: A foldout keyboard and a full-featured/normal desktop OS.
Stop comparing these to any form of PDA, they are obviously not meant to replace them.
Stop whining about keyboards, and go at look at photos. What do most of them come with?
Stop blabering about how much faster it is to type. If you really need to type a lot, you can foldout/attatch a keyboard.
If you mostly type at your computer. Then stop complaining because obviously this computer is not for you.
This is not only godsent for Fedex and the like, but also as a personal laptop for around the house, on the bus etc when you want to do anything that doesn't require too much typing (browsing the web, reading, listening to music, whatching DVD's, most graphic design/3d/video related apps etc).
Just because you don't have a use for this, and also feel the need to flame anything that comes out of MS. Doesn't mean everyone else feels the same way.
That depends if by Tablet PC they are refering to a true Tablet PC or not. Like the origonal poster said, most of these new XP Tablets aren't really tablets in the traditional sence, but hybid laptops.
Has anyone actually has a look that the photos?
They basicly look like low/mid-end laptops with a swivel screen. I think they're brilliant and might be the next big thing. And after Apple have released handwriting recgonision software. It makes me wonder what they have in mind for their next laptop line-up.
Yeah...But if I couldn't afford a 512MB stick of RAM, I think a PowerBook would be bit out of my reach ;)
I payed $4000NZ for my 600Mhz iBook. That's just under $2000US. it was a slightly cheaper price compared to other vendors to.
PowerMac range from ~$5000-10,000, TiBooks: $7000-$9000.
In general, they are much more expensive than PCs.
* Move the swap file to a swap partition.
Yip....Still slow.
What hardware are you running?
That TiBook has G4 processor and a much better video card than my iBook. That will make a huge, as it is the main cause of Aqua being slow on iBooks.
However, this is the case for any OS: As it continues to evolve, it will make more demands on the available hardware at hand. Heck, we'd want it to rather than freezing all our hardware in its current state.
I did say I understood that. And I said it was still unacceptable. When I bought my iBook, I was under the impression that it could (or should I say: was going to after a few OS upgrades) run Aqua fine. I'm running a fresh install of 10.2 now. The speed improvments aren't as great as I was lead to beleive.
Anyways. I have ran top (the little CLI app that give your machine usages specs) a few times, and I usaly have about 130MBs free, unlike when I first got it with 128MBs, it was swapping all the time.
- There is always a slight delay when using menus
- Resizing any window is incredibly slow to the point where it's very annoying
- When switching between applications, there is a 1 or 2 second lag while the windows changes from unactive to active (the greyed out buttons etc)
- Scrolling is slow to the piont where you use the scroll wheel, and have to wait for the window to catch up
- All web browsers feel like I'm using on 14.4k modem (even though it does actually download fast, and Chimera/Mozilla process the page fast)
All of these add up when your using the computer.Maybe you can handle this. But I can't. Not the way I work anyway. I'm always opening and closing windows, switching between things, re-sizing windows etc. (I'm a web developer).
I understand why this is happening, and I understand that design of OS X's window manager is good thing. But it still doesn't change the fact that you need some grunt to run it. I would have accepted that if my iBook was a few years old. But it's not. It's not even a year old. Yet it will never run Aqua faster than the 233Mhz PC running Win98 that I'm typing this from (work computer).
Don't get me wrong. I love OS X, it's the best OS I've used (excuding the GUI speed). And I look forward to dumping my win2k box at home when get the $ to by a PowerMac. But that does not excuse the fact that Aqua will never run fast on my iBook. If I had knowen this, I would never have bought the 600Mhz iBook and would have waited for something faster (like the 800Mhz iBooks just released).
Note: The actual processing power avalible is more than enough for what I use my iBook for. It plays DVD's without stutter, and crunches other numbers just fine. I'm specificly talking about the Aqua, the GUI here.
BTW, why does it matter if windows has a built in HTML rendering engine? If for some reason you don't like using IE because of this, then use something like Pheonix or Mozilla or Opera or...