Windows Explorer is needed for the GUI to work. You haven't removed the problems, you've just removed a small subset of them and the main part is still there. IE is not really the problem, WE being the GUI file browser is the real problem as it is where IE comes from. IE is a stripped down WE.
You can't get rid of the IE functionality and thereby security issues in Windows, it's simply not possible.
Problem is, that doesn't really remove it. It just hides it. Go to Windows Explorer, in the address bar type in your favorite URL, like http://www.slashdot.org/ for instance, then watch as your innocent little Windows Explorer essentially becomes IE...
The DOJ never really made MS remove anything, IE is WE is the system browser. It's all a load of sh|t.
OK, the Dell DJ Ditty has a 512MB storage capacity, one of the Shuffles has a 512 MB storage capacity. The Dell site says "...the DJ Ditty's 512MB of storage can hold up to 220 songs..." encoded in WMA at 64kbps. The Apple site says "...the Shuffle's 512MB of flash memory is good for storing up to 120 songs..." encoded in AAC at 128 kbps.
If Gretchen is telling the truth then why isn't the capacity of the Ditty reported to be more than double the number of tracks of the Shuffle when encoding at half the sample rate? If you record at half the sample rate and your encoding algorithm produces smaller files than another encoding algorithm shouldn't you be able to store more than double the files on the Ditty than on the Shuffle?
Your girlfriend, on her Mac, has IE 5.2.1 at most. So, this site isn't accessible to her as you need IE 6.0 or better.
So, the editors got 2 of 3 correct.
If you use Firefox under Windows and have disabled all the MS tie-ins then it's not quite as easy to use IE as you think either. You can disable IE alltogether these days. In which case you need to use Windows Explorer as IE, they are virtually the same thing after all.
None of this changes the fact that most of the people that lost their homes lost their computers too, if they had one.
iTunes was developed from SoundJam MP, a popular commercial MP3 application distributed by the Macintosh software company Casady & Greene. Apple purchased the rights to the SoundJam MP software and hired the three programmers who created SoundJam. The first release of iTunes was very similar to SoundJam MP with the addition of CD burning, and a makeover of the user interface. Apple has added a number of significant features in subsequent versions.
The implication that Tiger icons have 1/4 the number of pixels that the Vista icons do is that Tiger isn't capable of using larger icons which is the advantage that Vista offers over Tiger, according to Thurrott. Which isn't the case, as shown by other/.ers, Tiger is capable of higher resolution icons than Thurrott and you believe.
Being a Thurrott/Microsoft apologist is definitely something you should be ashamed of.
Too bad your reading comprehension isn't sufficient. I quoted the entire statement and gleaned the meaning from it, as opposed to yourself, who made up whatever you chose to believe based upon little bits and pieces of the sentences provided. So, you still don't understand what was said no matter how you choose to butcher the statements that Thurrott made.
Let's cover the relevant sentence again:
...Windows Vista Beta 1 utilizes some 256 x 256 pixel icons (Figure), offering four times the resolution of the icons in Tiger.
This means that, like yourself, Thurrott doesn't know what the hell he is blathering on about. He claims that some of the new Vista icons have four times the resolution than those in Tiger. This implies that Tiger icons are 128x128 and do not allow higher resolutions, like 256x256.
Actually, it's quite interesting that you say that, I don't rate flamebait, while you regularly do. Hmmm...
I never said anything negative about MS, you've read that into my posts. I merely pointed out that you're cheap, which has nothing at all to do with MS or Linux or your homo-erotic fantasies about how others use their computers.
Strange thing too, you can get Linux distros from other companies pre-installed on machines, so it's not useless.
Icons in Windows XP are generally rendered at 32 x 32 pixels or 64 x 64 pixels in some cases, but the 128 x 128 pixel icons in OS X Tiger are much nicer (Figure). That said, Windows Vista Beta 1 utilizes some 256 x 256 pixel icons (Figure), offering four times the resolution of the icons in Tiger.
He is clearly saying that Tiger supports 128x128 pixel icons and does not support 256x256 pixel icons. He and you are both mistaken.
It is not Microsoft's responsibility to make sure the their software works on the various and sundry hardware implementations out there, it is the responsibility of the hardware vendors. The drivers for video cards, in the MS centric world, are the responsibility of the video card manufacturers. It's up to the video card manufacturers to provide working driver software to work with Windows, it's not up to Microsoft to do so.
You're the first person I've ever heard call Windows elegant. I will, however, agree with you that competition fuels innovation.
Wow, you don't understand the concept of a monopoly at all.
It appears that you also don't comprehend the fact that the iPod doesn't require you to use the iTune Music Store, therefore, there is no lock-in as you have been mislead to believe.
From what you say about interoperability between OS's, you haven't used A Macintosh for quite some time either.
Well, it seems that the Windows vernacular is sneaking into the article, as is to be expected from the likes of Paul. Transparency and translucency are not the same thing at all.
Windows is calling their ability to see windows behind other windows translucency, which is what it is, you can't really make out the detail of the window in back very clearly, it's a lot like looking through smoked/cloudy glass.
Apple has a feature called transparency. Where you can clearly see the windows behind the windows in the front. This was demonstrated a few interations ago in OS X when Jobs demoed it by showing that you could clearly see a Quicktime movie when it was running behind another window. Apple's implementation is an adjustable level of transparency so that you can make the windows more or less opaque.
I want to know if the Vista windows can be made to be more transparent than any of the crappy looking examples we have been shown so far.
In short, though there are some bizarre inconsistencies in the Tiger UI...
Would you care to justify your claim Paul? What inconsistencies are you refering to? No mention of what they are, just a typical empty swipe at the opposition. Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
This has been a rumor for quite some time now with no results to show for it. Why does it keep coming up? Every time there has been a new player in the downloadable music marketplace this rumor comes up with different justifications but never with any results.
"...has such poor command of the English language."
Didn't you intend to say: "...has such A poor command of the English language?
Sheesh! Pot meet kettle.:P
Translucent is not transparent.
on
Longhorn Preview
·
· Score: 1
It seems that you can sort of make out what is behind the top window, but it's all blurry and unreadable.
OS X goes beyond that and allows you to clearly see what is behind the top level window. This works to the extent that you can perfectly make out a video playing behind a transparent window. This effect is somewhat more like looking through hazy plastic rather than glass.
Longhorn falls far short of their target, Apple, yet again and it still isn't coming out for over a year.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting.
:)
So, this doesn't affect other browsers on the machine?
You could always just unplug it from the network too...
Windows Explorer is needed for the GUI to work. You haven't removed the problems, you've just removed a small subset of them and the main part is still there. IE is not really the problem, WE being the GUI file browser is the real problem as it is where IE comes from. IE is a stripped down WE.
You can't get rid of the IE functionality and thereby security issues in Windows, it's simply not possible.
Problem is, that doesn't really remove it. It just hides it. Go to Windows Explorer, in the address bar type in your favorite URL, like http://www.slashdot.org/ for instance, then watch as your innocent little Windows Explorer essentially becomes IE...
The DOJ never really made MS remove anything, IE is WE is the system browser. It's all a load of sh|t.
OK, the Dell DJ Ditty has a 512MB storage capacity, one of the Shuffles has a 512 MB storage capacity. The Dell site says "...the DJ Ditty's 512MB of storage can hold up to 220 songs..." encoded in WMA at 64kbps. The Apple site says "...the Shuffle's 512MB of flash memory is good for storing up to 120 songs..." encoded in AAC at 128 kbps.
"Gretchen Miller, director of mobile product marketing at Dell..." claims that "...Windows Media Audio format...""...doesn't take up as much space as Apple's encoding format."
If Gretchen is telling the truth then why isn't the capacity of the Ditty reported to be more than double the number of tracks of the Shuffle when encoding at half the sample rate? If you record at half the sample rate and your encoding algorithm produces smaller files than another encoding algorithm shouldn't you be able to store more than double the files on the Ditty than on the Shuffle?
Could it be the FM?
Yes, it requires iTunes to place music/book/podcast files on it which you want to access through the headphone jack.
Nobody in this administration gets fired. Even if they breach national security.
Your girlfriend, on her Mac, has IE 5.2.1 at most. So, this site isn't accessible to her as you need IE 6.0 or better.
So, the editors got 2 of 3 correct.
If you use Firefox under Windows and have disabled all the MS tie-ins then it's not quite as easy to use IE as you think either. You can disable IE alltogether these days. In which case you need to use Windows Explorer as IE, they are virtually the same thing after all.
None of this changes the fact that most of the people that lost their homes lost their computers too, if they had one.
iTunes was developed from SoundJam MP, a popular commercial MP3 application distributed by the Macintosh software company Casady & Greene. Apple purchased the rights to the SoundJam MP software and hired the three programmers who created SoundJam. The first release of iTunes was very similar to SoundJam MP with the addition of CD burning, and a makeover of the user interface. Apple has added a number of significant features in subsequent versions.
But that wouldn't count as "prior art"...
Then there's also the fact that iTunes had been using that interface layout since the initial release on January 9, 2001.
I just don't know if the fact that iTunes has a very similar layout to the iPod matters or not.
If not, the iPod was released back in November 2001.
The implication that Tiger icons have 1/4 the number of pixels that the Vista icons do is that Tiger isn't capable of using larger icons which is the advantage that Vista offers over Tiger, according to Thurrott. Which isn't the case, as shown by other /.ers, Tiger is capable of higher resolution icons than Thurrott and you believe.
Being a Thurrott/Microsoft apologist is definitely something you should be ashamed of.
Let's cover the relevant sentence again:This means that, like yourself, Thurrott doesn't know what the hell he is blathering on about. He claims that some of the new Vista icons have four times the resolution than those in Tiger. This implies that Tiger icons are 128x128 and do not allow higher resolutions, like 256x256.
Sorry, get over it, you're completely wrong.
Actually, it's quite interesting that you say that, I don't rate flamebait, while you regularly do. Hmmm...
I never said anything negative about MS, you've read that into my posts. I merely pointed out that you're cheap, which has nothing at all to do with MS or Linux or your homo-erotic fantasies about how others use their computers.
Strange thing too, you can get Linux distros from other companies pre-installed on machines, so it's not useless.
He is clearly saying that Tiger supports 128x128 pixel icons and does not support 256x256 pixel icons. He and you are both mistaken.
Now, don't be a Thurrott apologist too.
Misconceptions abound.
It is not Microsoft's responsibility to make sure the their software works on the various and sundry hardware implementations out there, it is the responsibility of the hardware vendors. The drivers for video cards, in the MS centric world, are the responsibility of the video card manufacturers. It's up to the video card manufacturers to provide working driver software to work with Windows, it's not up to Microsoft to do so.
You're the first person I've ever heard call Windows elegant. I will, however, agree with you that competition fuels innovation.
Wow, you don't understand the concept of a monopoly at all.
It appears that you also don't comprehend the fact that the iPod doesn't require you to use the iTune Music Store, therefore, there is no lock-in as you have been mislead to believe.
From what you say about interoperability between OS's, you haven't used A Macintosh for quite some time either.
So, you're suggesting that all you can afford is that crappy windows box from Dell? I see.
Maybe you should consider Linux, the OS for the truly cost conscious consumer.
Well, it seems that the Windows vernacular is sneaking into the article, as is to be expected from the likes of Paul. Transparency and translucency are not the same thing at all.
Windows is calling their ability to see windows behind other windows translucency, which is what it is, you can't really make out the detail of the window in back very clearly, it's a lot like looking through smoked/cloudy glass.
Apple has a feature called transparency. Where you can clearly see the windows behind the windows in the front. This was demonstrated a few interations ago in OS X when Jobs demoed it by showing that you could clearly see a Quicktime movie when it was running behind another window. Apple's implementation is an adjustable level of transparency so that you can make the windows more or less opaque.
I want to know if the Vista windows can be made to be more transparent than any of the crappy looking examples we have been shown so far.
If being cheap is your second most important feature then maybe you should consider a Yugo.
Windows ME...
Who? Me?
Would you care to justify your claim Paul? What inconsistencies are you refering to? No mention of what they are, just a typical empty swipe at the opposition. Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
This has been a rumor for quite some time now with no results to show for it. Why does it keep coming up? Every time there has been a new player in the downloadable music marketplace this rumor comes up with different justifications but never with any results.
Because stars of cult films are as much of a piece of nerd news as a story about the latest dual core processors are.
Didn't you intend to say: "...has such A poor command of the English language?
Sheesh! Pot meet kettle.
It seems that you can sort of make out what is behind the top window, but it's all blurry and unreadable.
OS X goes beyond that and allows you to clearly see what is behind the top level window. This works to the extent that you can perfectly make out a video playing behind a transparent window. This effect is somewhat more like looking through hazy plastic rather than glass.
Longhorn falls far short of their target, Apple, yet again and it still isn't coming out for over a year.
I was more surprised to learn that Barretta does the voices of Johnny Fiama, Dr. Teeth, Rowlf the dog and the Swedish Chef too.