The author forgot to mention that OS X does not support jdk 1.4.1 on any browser other than Safari, which is a bit annoying. Try it. If you use mozilla, you can only use applets that are 1.3.x compliant.
The author's view is also biased towards only OS X users. I LIKE the fact that mozilla/firebird looks the same on every platform I use (I switch between XP, os X, NT, 2k, Linux depending on what I'm doing). So, the fact that mozilla looks 'ported' should be irrelevant to it's rating - not only that, one can change mozilla's themes, or create your own if you REALLY want to.
Don't get me wrong, safari is good. The only REAL problem to me is that it's only on OS X;-)
Sad? I'm not sure I'm going to shed a tear for an operating system that has caused many headaches for sys admins across the world. There is, after all, a reason there were six service packs;-) I think the sooner the world can purge servers of nt4 the better.
Ultimately, it will be interesting to see the real world performance of the G5. I own a 2100+ amd athlon, but I don't feel much of a speed increase from my old 1 Ghz. As usual, a processor is only one part of a computer's performance, and the 1Ghz bus that the G5 will use will greatly contribute to the percieved speed of the system. Also, the interaction with OS X will be important. I use a G4 powerbook running jaguar, but occassionally there are slow downs - not sure why.
What does ranting about the lifecycle of open source software actually have to do with the topic? So what if MS releases software MUCH faster? They should! They have a lot of cash to do it.
This is about someone testing mozilla 0.9.4 and saying that they weren't sure whether or not it performed properly or just 'fluked' out, when there was a much more up to date version available. Why don't I just complain about IE 3.0 and say how crap it is? Also, the author's comment that mozilla is buggy casts a negative shadow on the program when it could be perfectly fine (IMHO anyway) in it's current incarnation.
Did anyone notice how he mentions Mozilla 0.9.4 and totally neglects Mozilla 1.0?
Re: PalmOS on the iPaq? Would it make M$ wince
on
Palm OS 5.0 Preview
·
· Score: 1
Battery life is definitely one of the hurdles, but if there's a need for it, someone will likely try to overcome this. For instance:this guy has made a good first attempt.
That's true, a pda doesn't 'need' to do those things, but Microsoft and co want to find a new niche in the market. It's obvious Palm have a strangle hold, but as most readers have pointed out, that majority don't want to spend any more because their device does it's job perfectly. When you think about it, targeting business/high end users is quite smart, because they are willing to spend money, and they will always upgrade.
Also, it's a GREAT entertainment device. I have an iPaq and it's great not to have to carry a pda and an mp3 player. Not, a great business tool, but very fun to use.
Actually, I think you're right. The lack of a remote forces you to take the unit out(of your pocket, etc) every time u need to change volume, song, etc. Another feature that would be nice to have.
I have one of these as well, and on the whole, it is VERY good. Only two things I can think of is the random play seems to not be... very random. Has anyone else noticed this? Also, I get errors hooking it up to win2k so I use my win98 side to handle file transfers. Other than that, maybe a low battery warning would be nice.
Slashdot Mirror
Does the 1.4.1 plugin work for mozilla yet? I updated, but no luck so far.
The author forgot to mention that OS X does not support jdk 1.4.1 on any browser other than Safari, which is a bit annoying. Try it. If you use mozilla, you can only use applets that are 1.3.x compliant. The author's view is also biased towards only OS X users. I LIKE the fact that mozilla/firebird looks the same on every platform I use (I switch between XP, os X, NT, 2k, Linux depending on what I'm doing). So, the fact that mozilla looks 'ported' should be irrelevant to it's rating - not only that, one can change mozilla's themes, or create your own if you REALLY want to. Don't get me wrong, safari is good. The only REAL problem to me is that it's only on OS X ;-)
Sad? I'm not sure I'm going to shed a tear for an operating system that has caused many headaches for sys admins across the world. There is, after all, a reason there were six service packs ;-) I think the sooner the world can purge servers of nt4 the better.
I wonder how many xboxes with Halo are included? ;-)
Ultimately, it will be interesting to see the real world performance of the G5. I own a 2100+ amd athlon, but I don't feel much of a speed increase from my old 1 Ghz. As usual, a processor is only one part of a computer's performance, and the 1Ghz bus that the G5 will use will greatly contribute to the percieved speed of the system. Also, the interaction with OS X will be important. I use a G4 powerbook running jaguar, but occassionally there are slow downs - not sure why.
have a look at: http://jdbc.postgresql.org/doc.html
Why not try Pheonix then?
What does ranting about the lifecycle of open source software actually have to do with the topic? So what if MS releases software MUCH faster? They should! They have a lot of cash to do it. This is about someone testing mozilla 0.9.4 and saying that they weren't sure whether or not it performed properly or just 'fluked' out, when there was a much more up to date version available. Why don't I just complain about IE 3.0 and say how crap it is? Also, the author's comment that mozilla is buggy casts a negative shadow on the program when it could be perfectly fine (IMHO anyway) in it's current incarnation.
Yea, no kidding. Why doesn't he just try milestone 6 out and say it's crap and doesn't support anything?
Did anyone notice how he mentions Mozilla 0.9.4 and totally neglects Mozilla 1.0?
Battery life is definitely one of the hurdles, but if there's a need for it, someone will likely try to overcome this. For instance:this guy has made a good first attempt.
That's true, a pda doesn't 'need' to do those things, but Microsoft and co want to find a new niche in the market. It's obvious Palm have a strangle hold, but as most readers have pointed out, that majority don't want to spend any more because their device does it's job perfectly. When you think about it, targeting business/high end users is quite smart, because they are willing to spend money, and they will always upgrade. Also, it's a GREAT entertainment device. I have an iPaq and it's great not to have to carry a pda and an mp3 player. Not, a great business tool, but very fun to use.
Yea, I think it must be my windows installation. I'll try that though.
Uhh, well I actually use a 256 mb compact flash card ;-) nice try though ;-)
Actually, I think you're right. The lack of a remote forces you to take the unit out(of your pocket, etc) every time u need to change volume, song, etc. Another feature that would be nice to have.
I have one of these as well, and on the whole, it is VERY good. Only two things I can think of is the random play seems to not be... very random. Has anyone else noticed this? Also, I get errors hooking it up to win2k so I use my win98 side to handle file transfers. Other than that, maybe a low battery warning would be nice.
lol, sounds like a great idea. maybe even replace main.htm with a link to microsoft where u can download the security patch ;-)
What about the people with a usb adsl connection? Does openbsd support this?