Reading a mail that you want to reply to? You have to click "more options" near the "from" addressee, which pops open the mail header, which in turn contains the "reply" and "forward" controls.
Sean, you got this flat out wrong. To reply, just scroll down and start typing in the box. Viola - reply.
Gmail is not the best in the world. Deleting takes WAY to many clicks and there are some interface design changes I'd make, but it doesn't change that Hotmail is still VERY mushed together and cluttered. This isn't my opinion as much as the sum of the experiences of most people I know that use[d] Hotmail.
As for using it under Mozilla, as others have noted, you do lose some functionality, and I believe it even warns you that IE is recommended for full use. At least, as of last time I checked.
Hotmail has truly sucked for about 3 years now. I hate to be the broken record, but gmail isn't just a hip new thing (like, say, Orkut was). It's a MUCH better system for using e-mail. Hotmail's interface is cluttered, it's bogged down with spam, it's limited to IE, it's slow, and it's got ridiculous limits. How could anyone stick with it?
By the way, if anyone wants an invite, post here. I've got 6 to kill.
That's the whole point of A9.com. It's for them to offer you stored searches on the server side and be able to "help" you by tracking everything you do.
Before you dismiss it as bad, which it may well be, at least consider it. Because what made Amazon so great was that by simply using the site, it got to 'know' you, suggest items etc. I love that feature. I think it's awesome that the site frequently suggests things I own or want to own.
Perhaps enough searching on Debian troubleshooting and it will suggest a book on Debian or something. I can see how the two might offer a nice service when associated.
I may be repeating Microsoft marketing, but you are repeating tired old fanboy crap.
Computers AREN'T cars, and NONE of them behave like it. Linux is still a nightmare for the average user, BSD is pretty much unsuable as a desktop system, Zeta/BeOS/SkyOS/Syllable/Menuet/PegasOS and all other hobby OSes are not ready for primetime. Macs have their share of problems too. ALL OSes suck.
You can bitch and moan about XP all you like, but as the admin of literally hundreds of computers, I can tell you - as a fact - for me, XP has been much more stable and is much more useable. Not to mention my own experience - at my house, my XP box runs far longer than my 2000 box.
But it's cool, dude. I know it's fashionable to pretend Win2k, which was never a really great desktop system, was a better OS. With an HCL about half as long as XP, you go ahead and ignore drivers as a problem.
Sorry, but that's retarded. It should have been obvious that I was stating an opinion and using hyperbole, not asserting that some study showed it to actually be 1000 times more stable. Your statement seems to imply you have some sort of factual proof. Of course, though, you don't. You just think that because YOU had better results with Windows 2000, natch, the rest of the world does^W should too.
Quit being a blowhole. Microsoft made something more stable, and if you're too much of an asshat to turn off theming and benefit from the stability, that's your own fault.
In re-reading I didn't really say that right, but stand by what I meant to say.
Windows XP is, in my experience, much more stable than 2000. I've seen 2000 bluescreen plenty of times. XP notsomuch.
Separate thought: what can make XP unstable is bad drivers and bad hardware. They will take down XP in a heartbeat. But how can you hold Microsoft responsible for supporting every peripheral ever made?
Well, Beavis, I can't argue that XP looks retarded, but I don't know that there's much difference to customizing XP and say, getting KDE just right, or worse, having to download, compile, and configure XFCE (which is awesome).
I'm basing my assertion on experience. I am the IT manager/network admin of hundreds of computers, and I used to work for the Navy, where we had a very large IT department. In my experience, XP is extremely stable. Lots of times you can do simple things like restart a service to "repair" the system without a restart. There's no doubt in my mind that thing that Linux users do would NEVER be done by a Windows user.
After all, if my Linux box has a problem, I'll drop out to the terminal (Al+F1), login, su to root, kill -9 the hanging process, shutdown offending services/threads, and manually relaunch them.
On XP, Explorer and other process will restart themselves if they crash, but sometimes you have to wait. And other times it needs a push. I'm willing to bet the average XP user, at first glance, reboots. Does that count?
I know it's very en vogue to hate Microsoft here, but let's be honest. XP is 1000 times as stable as 2000, but it's with this trade off: device drivers and bad hardware can crash the system.
I've been using XP since the Devil's Own gold disc was out in August 2001, and I've experienced a failure exactly one time. It was due to a bad, unsigned driver.
On the other hand, I have had several reasons to reboot my Windows servers, but in truth, I've had to reboot my Linux servers too. Windows 2003 is a HUGE improvement, and at the same time, my newer Linux servers run for ages without so much as a second glance.
My Linux desktop has lots of applications crash, and frequently - X crashes semi-regularly, and my applications are frequently hit or miss.
The only reason XP needs a reboot more frequently is this: people don't know what they're doing. They don't apply patches, they don't have current AV or spyware protection, and they reboot as the first measure of troubleshooting.
I love Linux, and I want Microsoft to get crushed in court, but I know crap when I hear it. Windows is not as bad a product as it used to be, plain and simple.
I don't get it. I'm not a native speaker, maybe that's why. Care to explain?
a collection of good [written material] is okay.
but a collection of [good written] material is not only gramatically incorrect, it's also ironic, since anyone who would call something "good written" obviously didn't know that the proper phrase would be "well written."
Regarding our current system, what do you think can be done to encourage people to vote for third party candidates? It seems to me that most people still feel it's a "wasted vote."
There's no marketing department on Earth - well, at least in the US - who would put their stamp of approval on Joogle, which is way too Jewish sounding.
I'd think GIM is the way to go too. Plus, it continues the Gmail paradigm.
The company is already way overvalued! Why let all the execs and stockholders get lots of money for a company that has been nothing more than a dishonest bully?
Anyone who is suggesting IBM buy them is completely missing the point. That's what they want!
Windows 2003 is 1000 times better than 2000. It's signficantly more stable, it's got the fantastic volume shadow copy (kinda like CVS...kinda), it's got DFS, and it's extremely well supported.
Don't think of it like a new Windows - it's actually Windows NT 5.2, which is heavily built upon 2000.
I'm waiting for someone to develop a way to distribute the load of web pages via bittorrent. Wouldn't it be great if when a webserver hit a certain load, it was served by another server?
Think about it: no more Slashdotting - just set your site up on a tracker the first time, and it's automagically covered under high load.
Actually, THAT is a great question. Because I always say "sequel" and many I know do too. But I also know plenty of people who say S-Q-L. What do ya'll say?
Separately, I'm amazed that people still do dev work for BeOS. By that, I mean, of all the open source projects to spend time on, why choose this one?! It seems there's a lot of open source projects that offer the world more value than BeOS does.
You obviously aren't a developer. Most FLOSS developers are unpaid volunteers (most, not all). That means they do what interests them. Hey, if you're going to paint your house, why not paint mine - it needs it more. That philosophy makes no sense, right?
BeOS developers do it because they love it. It's an excellent environment, and it's easy to write for. There's tons of great software waiting to be ported over. It's faster, by shitloads, than Linux (actually, it feels faster, but that's another story).
The point is, whjy should a developer work on something other than what interests them, and who are you to decide what value their code offers?
90% of the time I let my mod points expire, but today I wish I had some to mod you down.
Everyone I know pronounces it properly, "Be-Oh-Es."
Those who don't usually say "Be-Ohse." I've never heard "Be-aws" in my life, and I used it exclusively for over a year.
Have you ever heard anyone say LindowsOS as "Lin-doze-aws" or "Lin-doze-Ohse?" How about the other free BeOS replacement, "BlueEyedOS?" Is the the "OS part of that prounounced?
Slashdot Mirror
Reading a mail that you want to reply to? You have to click "more options" near the "from" addressee, which pops open the mail header, which in turn contains the "reply" and "forward" controls.
Sean, you got this flat out wrong. To reply, just scroll down and start typing in the box. Viola - reply.
Gmail is not the best in the world. Deleting takes WAY to many clicks and there are some interface design changes I'd make, but it doesn't change that Hotmail is still VERY mushed together and cluttered. This isn't my opinion as much as the sum of the experiences of most people I know that use[d] Hotmail.
As for using it under Mozilla, as others have noted, you do lose some functionality, and I believe it even warns you that IE is recommended for full use. At least, as of last time I checked.
the last time I tried Hotmail in firefox, which I admit was a while ago, it gave me several warnings on EVERY page about using an unsupported browser.
If this has changed, bravo Microsoft.
Hotmail has truly sucked for about 3 years now. I hate to be the broken record, but gmail isn't just a hip new thing (like, say, Orkut was). It's a MUCH better system for using e-mail. Hotmail's interface is cluttered, it's bogged down with spam, it's limited to IE, it's slow, and it's got ridiculous limits. How could anyone stick with it?
By the way, if anyone wants an invite, post here. I've got 6 to kill.
I don't understand - with all these talented hackers, why doesn't someone write a plugin that allows MS Office to "Export to" or "Save as..." .sxw?
Wouldn't that be a BIG step towards accomplishing this? After all, it's the FORMAT that's a big deal, not the app.
That's the whole point of A9.com. It's for them to offer you stored searches on the server side and be able to "help" you by tracking everything you do.
Before you dismiss it as bad, which it may well be, at least consider it. Because what made Amazon so great was that by simply using the site, it got to 'know' you, suggest items etc. I love that feature. I think it's awesome that the site frequently suggests things I own or want to own.
Perhaps enough searching on Debian troubleshooting and it will suggest a book on Debian or something. I can see how the two might offer a nice service when associated.
That is a fantastic feature. Good to know.
I may be repeating Microsoft marketing, but you are repeating tired old fanboy crap.
Computers AREN'T cars, and NONE of them behave like it. Linux is still a nightmare for the average user, BSD is pretty much unsuable as a desktop system, Zeta/BeOS/SkyOS/Syllable/Menuet/PegasOS and all other hobby OSes are not ready for primetime. Macs have their share of problems too. ALL OSes suck.
You can bitch and moan about XP all you like, but as the admin of literally hundreds of computers, I can tell you - as a fact - for me, XP has been much more stable and is much more useable. Not to mention my own experience - at my house, my XP box runs far longer than my 2000 box.
But it's cool, dude. I know it's fashionable to pretend Win2k, which was never a really great desktop system, was a better OS. With an HCL about half as long as XP, you go ahead and ignore drivers as a problem.
It's not even *more* stable than win2k.
Sorry, but that's retarded. It should have been obvious that I was stating an opinion and using hyperbole, not asserting that some study showed it to actually be 1000 times more stable. Your statement seems to imply you have some sort of factual proof. Of course, though, you don't. You just think that because YOU had better results with Windows 2000, natch, the rest of the world does^W should too.
Quit being a blowhole. Microsoft made something more stable, and if you're too much of an asshat to turn off theming and benefit from the stability, that's your own fault.
In re-reading I didn't really say that right, but stand by what I meant to say.
Windows XP is, in my experience, much more stable than 2000. I've seen 2000 bluescreen plenty of times. XP notsomuch.
Separate thought: what can make XP unstable is bad drivers and bad hardware. They will take down XP in a heartbeat. But how can you hold Microsoft responsible for supporting every peripheral ever made?
Well, Beavis, I can't argue that XP looks retarded, but I don't know that there's much difference to customizing XP and say, getting KDE just right, or worse, having to download, compile, and configure XFCE (which is awesome).
I'm basing my assertion on experience. I am the IT manager/network admin of hundreds of computers, and I used to work for the Navy, where we had a very large IT department. In my experience, XP is extremely stable. Lots of times you can do simple things like restart a service to "repair" the system without a restart. There's no doubt in my mind that thing that Linux users do would NEVER be done by a Windows user.
After all, if my Linux box has a problem, I'll drop out to the terminal (Al+F1), login, su to root, kill -9 the hanging process, shutdown offending services/threads, and manually relaunch them.
On XP, Explorer and other process will restart themselves if they crash, but sometimes you have to wait. And other times it needs a push. I'm willing to bet the average XP user, at first glance, reboots. Does that count?
I know it's very en vogue to hate Microsoft here, but let's be honest. XP is 1000 times as stable as 2000, but it's with this trade off: device drivers and bad hardware can crash the system.
I've been using XP since the Devil's Own gold disc was out in August 2001, and I've experienced a failure exactly one time. It was due to a bad, unsigned driver.
On the other hand, I have had several reasons to reboot my Windows servers, but in truth, I've had to reboot my Linux servers too. Windows 2003 is a HUGE improvement, and at the same time, my newer Linux servers run for ages without so much as a second glance.
My Linux desktop has lots of applications crash, and frequently - X crashes semi-regularly, and my applications are frequently hit or miss.
The only reason XP needs a reboot more frequently is this: people don't know what they're doing. They don't apply patches, they don't have current AV or spyware protection, and they reboot as the first measure of troubleshooting.
I love Linux, and I want Microsoft to get crushed in court, but I know crap when I hear it. Windows is not as bad a product as it used to be, plain and simple.
Yeah, but most of the asshats here wouldn't get that.
./, home of 1337 haXX0rz who can bearly spel.
After all, this is teh
I don't get it. I'm not a native speaker, maybe that's why. Care to explain?
a collection of good [written material] is okay.
but a collection of [good written] material is not only gramatically incorrect, it's also ironic, since anyone who would call something "good written" obviously didn't know that the proper phrase would be "well written."
"good written material"
When not read properly, that's one of the funniest things I've heard in a long time. Good written. As in "written goodly."
Regarding our current system, what do you think can be done to encourage people to vote for third party candidates? It seems to me that most people still feel it's a "wasted vote."
Also, editors - great theme!
Reading SCO news is like watching someone fall out of a tree and hitting every branch on the way down.
It used to amuse me, now it annoys me. I'm just waiting for them to shrivel up and go away.
There's no marketing department on Earth - well, at least in the US - who would put their stamp of approval on Joogle, which is way too Jewish sounding.
I'd think GIM is the way to go too. Plus, it continues the Gmail paradigm.
Why do people keep saying this?
The company is already way overvalued! Why let all the execs and stockholders get lots of money for a company that has been nothing more than a dishonest bully?
Anyone who is suggesting IBM buy them is completely missing the point. That's what they want!
Windows 2003 is 1000 times better than 2000. It's signficantly more stable, it's got the fantastic volume shadow copy (kinda like CVS...kinda), it's got DFS, and it's extremely well supported.
Don't think of it like a new Windows - it's actually Windows NT 5.2, which is heavily built upon 2000.
Yes. Check YOUR email.
check your e-mail
I'm waiting for someone to develop a way to distribute the load of web pages via bittorrent. Wouldn't it be great if when a webserver hit a certain load, it was served by another server?
Think about it: no more Slashdotting - just set your site up on a tracker the first time, and it's automagically covered under high load.
Actually, THAT is a great question. Because I always say "sequel" and many I know do too. But I also know plenty of people who say S-Q-L. What do ya'll say?
Separately, I'm amazed that people still do dev work for BeOS. By that, I mean, of all the open source projects to spend time on, why choose this one?! It seems there's a lot of open source projects that offer the world more value than BeOS does.
You obviously aren't a developer. Most FLOSS developers are unpaid volunteers (most, not all). That means they do what interests them. Hey, if you're going to paint your house, why not paint mine - it needs it more. That philosophy makes no sense, right?
BeOS developers do it because they love it. It's an excellent environment, and it's easy to write for. There's tons of great software waiting to be ported over. It's faster, by shitloads, than Linux (actually, it feels faster, but that's another story).
The point is, whjy should a developer work on something other than what interests them, and who are you to decide what value their code offers?
90% of the time I let my mod points expire, but today I wish I had some to mod you down.
Everyone I know pronounces it properly, "Be-Oh-Es."
Those who don't usually say "Be-Ohse." I've never heard "Be-aws" in my life, and I used it exclusively for over a year.
Have you ever heard anyone say LindowsOS as "Lin-doze-aws" or "Lin-doze-Ohse?" How about the other free BeOS replacement, "BlueEyedOS?" Is the the "OS part of that prounounced?