But is there a higher learning curve than using a 2d tool because of what it's designed for? I've never used blender, so I can't so. But for any other 3d tool I've used, I would definitely say yes.
>> "You know that because you're Bill Gates? Who else can write that and be serious? As I wrote, Microsoft has been condemned in a court of law for worse. They don't have moral problems with criminal behaviour. For an example, I wrote: "DOS ain't done 'til Lotus won't run". (There are things like email api and other email clients, etc.)"
What I meant is there are no examples out there that are known. There is nothing you could find on the internet to show it. It's possible it happened, but I kind of doubt it. Just because they did unethical business moves, doesn't mean their coders did illegal things too. Doesn't mean the whole company is corrupt. You're assuming IF a THEN b.
>> "You really think that it is a relevant counter argument that Msoft have done that in other cases?!:-)"
Huh?
>> "And, AFAIK, all commercial O/S makers has to put fixes into their O/S to make certain programs to run (old MacOS and Office was a ridiculous example, if you read.. never mind.) Obviously not a relevant counter argument"
Absolutely, and I never meant it as a counter-argument.
>> "Never mind, this is over. It was nice to see attempts at arguments from you, even if they were flawed."
"I win! I win! lalalalala"
You just don't get it. Let's look at what I quoted again:
"Also, when you want some competitior's product to run badly (which Microsoft is famous for)"
That implies that Microsoft intentionally puts code into their OS to make competing products (such as Netscape back in the day) to intentionally go out of its way to make Netscape not work as well as it should. You provided NO examples of this and you can't, because there are none.
What Microsoft HAS done is been forced to put hacks into their OS to make sure certain highly used software works with new versions of Windows because of the software developer doing something [b]the wrong way[/b], which is not Microsofts fault.
OS X Public Beta was released Sept 2000. Do you think Microsoft managed to implement their themeing engine into XP beta in one month? Sure, it's possible. But the chances that they were not working on it before Sept 2000 are so fucking slim.
When you say retarded shit like "Also, when you want some competitior's product to run badly (which Microsoft is famous for)", you deserve nothing more than to be berated for your absolute and utter stupidity.
Captain Makeshitup was quite an accurate assesment.
Actually, Windows XP beta1 sported a new look (Watercooler) back in Oct 2000, way before OS X was released. Microsoft was already rewriting GDI to use a new themeing engine. Luna was simply the final look they chose for this, and it looks nothing like OS X at all.
As much as you won't want to believe it, Vista is very similar to the transition from OS 9 to OS X. The big different, of course, is that Apple took someone elses kernel and tools and built on top of them.
Apple also essentially forced developers to start writing their software for the new OS, with kind of shoddy emulation of OS 9 programs.
The important thing here though is that OS X was pretty much a completely new platform. Vista is not quite as much of a change, but it's pretty damn close. Vista is introducing a whole new API system (WinFX), graphics api (Avalon/WPF), communications platform (Indigo/WCF), completely new audio stack, completely new network stack, and a few other major changes. All this while maintaining compatibility with 95-99% of current windows applications out there without a shitty emulation layer.
Microsoft simply won't make a revolutionary OS anytime soon. There are too many people running Windows that simply won't stand for very little of their software running, if any, on a new version of Windows. So Microsoft is doing what I think is a good decision, they are making giant evolutionary steps towards a whole new platform. A transition.
So what? You can get IDEs that are free. That wasn't even my point. My point was the PLATFORM, not the development tools Microsoft sells (though they are damn good).
Slashdot Mirror
How about you provide some links? You make the claims, you provide the backup.
:)
I've been out of high school for 4 years, sorry, kid.
But is there a higher learning curve than using a 2d tool because of what it's designed for? I've never used blender, so I can't so. But for any other 3d tool I've used, I would definitely say yes.
No doubt. IE6 is retarded, but you gotta sites work for it sadly.
I usually use javascript for rollovers. If a person has javascript disabled, then oh well, no rollovers for them. No biggie.
The only browser they should even consider having JS disabled on it IE anyway.
You keep thinking that. It'll be slow at first, it always is. It's called transition.
>> "You know that because you're Bill Gates? Who else can write that and be serious? As I wrote, Microsoft has been condemned in a court of law for worse. They don't have moral problems with criminal behaviour. For an example, I wrote: "DOS ain't done 'til Lotus won't run". (There are things like email api and other email clients, etc.)" What I meant is there are no examples out there that are known. There is nothing you could find on the internet to show it. It's possible it happened, but I kind of doubt it. Just because they did unethical business moves, doesn't mean their coders did illegal things too. Doesn't mean the whole company is corrupt. You're assuming IF a THEN b. >> "You really think that it is a relevant counter argument that Msoft have done that in other cases?! :-)"
Huh?
>> "And, AFAIK, all commercial O/S makers has to put fixes into their O/S to make certain programs to run (old MacOS and Office was a ridiculous example, if you read .. never mind.) Obviously not a relevant counter argument"
Absolutely, and I never meant it as a counter-argument.
>> "Never mind, this is over. It was nice to see attempts at arguments from you, even if they were flawed."
"I win! I win! lalalalala"
You just don't get it. Let's look at what I quoted again:
"Also, when you want some competitior's product to run badly (which Microsoft is famous for)"
That implies that Microsoft intentionally puts code into their OS to make competing products (such as Netscape back in the day) to intentionally go out of its way to make Netscape not work as well as it should. You provided NO examples of this and you can't, because there are none.
What Microsoft HAS done is been forced to put hacks into their OS to make sure certain highly used software works with new versions of Windows because of the software developer doing something [b]the wrong way[/b], which is not Microsofts fault.
Do you get it now?
I honestly don't care how old or mature you think I am. You're the one making ridiculous accusations with no proof.
"In IE? I didn't think IE could handle :hover for anything but links."
Yes. It's called backward compatibility. Go fuck yourself
OS X Public Beta was released Sept 2000. Do you think Microsoft managed to implement their themeing engine into XP beta in one month? Sure, it's possible. But the chances that they were not working on it before Sept 2000 are so fucking slim.
:)
p.s. Don't use my insult
When you say retarded shit like "Also, when you want some competitior's product to run badly (which Microsoft is famous for)", you deserve nothing more than to be berated for your absolute and utter stupidity.
Captain Makeshitup was quite an accurate assesment.
Huh? Vista is still using the NT kernel, which is proven.
Actually, Windows XP beta1 sported a new look (Watercooler) back in Oct 2000, way before OS X was released. Microsoft was already rewriting GDI to use a new themeing engine. Luna was simply the final look they chose for this, and it looks nothing like OS X at all.
As much as you won't want to believe it, Vista is very similar to the transition from OS 9 to OS X. The big different, of course, is that Apple took someone elses kernel and tools and built on top of them. Apple also essentially forced developers to start writing their software for the new OS, with kind of shoddy emulation of OS 9 programs. The important thing here though is that OS X was pretty much a completely new platform. Vista is not quite as much of a change, but it's pretty damn close. Vista is introducing a whole new API system (WinFX), graphics api (Avalon/WPF), communications platform (Indigo/WCF), completely new audio stack, completely new network stack, and a few other major changes. All this while maintaining compatibility with 95-99% of current windows applications out there without a shitty emulation layer. Microsoft simply won't make a revolutionary OS anytime soon. There are too many people running Windows that simply won't stand for very little of their software running, if any, on a new version of Windows. So Microsoft is doing what I think is a good decision, they are making giant evolutionary steps towards a whole new platform. A transition.
Correct. They started over with the Windows Server 2003 + SP1 codebase.
Thank you for your insight Captain Makeshitup.
Congratulations, you've been fed FUD from /. and believed it.
Thank you for the insight Captain Makeshitup.
In IE? I didn't think IE could handle :hover for anything but links.
If JS wasn't allowed, then you can't do rollovers. ;)
Firefox hurts the web too then.
On the whole image not loading unless it's visible thing, that's what image preloading is for. Pretty easy to do.
Opera hurts the web? Hahaahha, that is the more ridiculous and retarded statement I have read on Slashdot this week, and that means a lot.
So what? You can get IDEs that are free. That wasn't even my point. My point was the PLATFORM, not the development tools Microsoft sells (though they are damn good).
Too bad he's donated somewhere close to $30billion.