I still have a bunch of old FrameMaker documents that occasionally need to be printed, if not edited. But my copy of FrameMaker died a long time ago with my Windoze machine, and I'm not crazy about the idea of buying another one. Anybody know of a decent Frame->XML (or even ->HTML) converter? Preferably open source?
I think you dislike Cruise just because he's Cruise and not necessarily for any specific acting reason. As much as people tag him as an "action" hero, he's actually not. How many "action" pictures has he actually been in? Most of his films are deeper than that. The Last Samurai was an excellent film.
Right on. "Mission Impossible" (1 and 2), for example, were fantastically deep films, with downright Mamet-like plots, and Cruise was fantastic in them! They greatly exceeded the quality of the TV show!
Likewise with "Minority Report." What a wonderful triumph of cinematic art that was! Why, if PKD were alive I'm sure it would have brought a tear to his eye.
I was really thinking Cruise had far too much gravitas and depth for WoW. I really believe the part should go to someone with a lighter touch, who could be more believable in the role. Like Pauly Shore or maybe Rob Schneider.
People who say "boycott Samsung" are missing the point. Samsung doesn't care about you. They care about selling computers to corporate America, who will love this. It will better enable them to control what their employees are doing on company-owned computers, and as such, Samsung will sell zillions of the things. If Joe Schmoe doesn't buy one, it won't matter a whit.
The way to really fight this is to refuse to work for a company that issues you one of these things. How many of you are willing to do that?
How many times do I have to sing the song? "Oh, if it's supposed to be possessive, it's just I-T-S, if it's supposed to be a contraction it's I-T-apostrophy-S! Scallywags!"
You're right of course. And seeing as how we're deep into nitpick territory anyhow, I might as well point out that those words are spelled "scalawag" and "apostrophe."
Of course there are definately no spelling errors in this post.
Will your homeowners association/condo complex/apartment complex let you install a dish?
It is illegal in most cases for a homeowners association to prohibit you from installing a satellite TV antenna of the type used by DirecTV or Dish Network.
...And neither are the people whose jobs she just vaporized. What idiot, short-term thinkers like Carly don't understand is that for every job they outsource, many high-tech companies (like HP) are very likely losing a customer. Who buys HP products? Mostly college-educated, white-collar service workers, who, gee whiz, are exactly the ones getting outsourced right and left. If they don't have jobs, they don't buy products. When thousands of American companies start doing this--putting their workers on the street--they may just find that their customer base evaporates too. You don't stay in business long if you keep firing your customers.
Most of Microsoft's R&D budget seems to be geared
not toward producing innovative Microsoft products but to paying the salaries of a lot of world class computer scientists just so they won't go to work for MS's competitors. It's incongruous that with such a large research budget and with such incredibly innovative people working for them, their products remain so consistently mediocre. Although a large number of fun-sounding research projects seem to be going on at Microsoft, how many of them have actually made it--in some form--into Microsoft products? Now ask the same question about IBM research. I suspect (but am willing to be corrected) that the number is much higher at IBM.
I'm certain that the number is much higher at Apple.
Another explanation could be that Microsoft really is interested in the fruits of this research but is banking them as part of a careful business strategy, so they can pull "innovations" out only when they're needed to shore up a sagging bottom line and no earlier.
This is why I think Monsanto is hands-down the most evil corporation on the planet. Only Monsanto, through their technology and their policies, has the ability to essentially sterilize a good fraction of the planet's food-producing capacity and thereby cause billions to die of starvation.
Microsoft is merely a clueless wanna-be when it comes to this degree of evil.
Yes. Good analogy. It also reminds me of that passage in The Diamond Age that describes how humans have to breathe through handkerchiefs because the air is full of the swirling dusty detritus of a trillion warring nanites killing each other.
In 1982 I told some friends that what the world needed was a small one-square-inch nonvolatile memory chip that could hold an hour's worth of high-quality music you could pop in a player and carry with you.
Well that happened. A little late maybe, but it happened. The iPod even exceeded it.
But I'd never have guessed we'd still be using a shitty 1960s era operating system (Unix) as our reference standard. And even worse, that it would still be way better than all the commonly-available alternatives (unless you count BeOS as "commonly-available"). Nor would I have predicted that software would still be developed in death-march sweatshops led by clueless pinhead bosses, to end up being just as buggy and fragile as it ever was. Nor that we'd be rehashing crap like virtual machine interpreters and reference count garbage collectors, dressing them up with new chrome nameplates and trying to pass them off as anything but the old, tired, failed ideas they always were. About the only thing good about software today is that at least nobody uses Ada any more.
Electrical engineering has advanced by leaps and bounds in the last 20 years. Computer science pretty much stopped dead in 1985. It's easy to blame this on Microsoft, but that's overly simplistic. Microsoft, the ubiquity of commodity (lowest-common denominator) computing, and the overarching need for backward compatibility were certainly big factors. But we also need more Feynman-type thinkers to continually remind us when we have our heads up our asses, so new computer scientists won't think the pablum they're taught is as good as it gets. Dijkstra was the best we had at this, but he's dead now. At least we still have Tufte, Gabriel, and these guys.
Will it run Starcraft, Diablo II, Heroes of Might and Magic I, II, III, and IV, Master of Orion II, all of my Nintendo, SuperNintendo, N64, gameboy, gameboy color, gameboy advance emulators?
Many games run on the Mac, but not as many as on the PC. If you want to play games, buy a PC. They're cheap. Get two.
From my understanding, Adobe Photoshop, Quark Express, and other software which was once the only real reason that many mac users didn't switch to PC's is now offered for the PC and some software developeres are considering dropping their Mac versions. I could be wrong, but that's what I've heard.
Know what I've heard? I've heard there's a nifty new data compression algorithm that'll compress random data of any length down to just two bits by repeatedly running it through the compressor. That's what I've heard.
All of my friends who once used Macs say they'll never buy another one... some because they didn't like not being able to upgrade the machine as easily...
Yep. Macs are tough to upgrade. No question about it. Maybe they'll finally fix this in 1986.
What is it that the mac offers for the price that's so compelling to mac users??? It can't be the fruity colors, the wierd form factors, or the candy colored menu options.
You're absolutely, 100% right. It's the one-button mouse.
I don't understand why Apple doesn't compete with MS directly by porting to Intel/AMD hardware.
Me neither! This is a really, REALLY good idea. I wish I'd thought of it first.
It seems to me that Apple would at least do better by creating a MacOS that runs on top of linux instead of Darwin.
Definitely right. I'm sure RMS would agree with you too.
I'm not bashing, trolling, or flaming.
Then this posting is not a reply to a troll. Right?
Most people visit websites because they want to be informed. Most clueless website designers, on the other hand, think their website exists to impress. And the ones that do have a clue are still forced to impress the VP of Marketing, who is beyond clueless but who signs their paychecks.
Hence Flash. Hence most "official" sites for movies, cars, etc. are useless without Flash and Javajunk.
Explain to me again how a school buying more expensive hardware that isn't generally used in the real world is going to help my kid get a better education?
Because your kids need to know how to dream. Because they need to understand they don't have to settle for second best. Because your kids are going to be the ones who finally invent a computer better than the Mac, if anybody does, and they need to understand the current benchmark.
When you fly somewhere on a business trip and rent a car, are you completely flummoxed when the car they give you is not identical to the car you own? Of course not. You drive a BMW or Volvo at home, and you rent a POS Chevy Lumina. Do you have to pore over the owner's manual or take a "training course" before you drive the thing off the lot? Well your kids are that way about computers. They can switch computers as easily as you can switch cars. And if they are experienced at driving a great computer, at least then they'll bitch to the maker of the crappy one they're forced to drive later and maybe improve it.
We've got a roomba, and it's been nothing but good. It works as good as something it's size, with it's physical limitations possibly could, in my opinion. We've got two cats and it's a real boon.
I agree. We have wood laminate floors and cats and the Roomba does an amazingly good job. The difference between good engineers and great engineers is the thoroughness of their use case analysis, and the iRobot engineers did an excellent job of UCA on the Roomba. It cleans well, doesn't fall down stairs, and usually is smart enough to find its way out of "lobster trap" situations. My only complaints are minor: I wish it had a little bit more wheel drive power to get up over thicker area rugs, and that its "wall wiper" brush was a little stouter.
My wife loves the Roomba as much as I love the TiVo.
The solution for this kind of nonsense is to figure out how to make the Internet finally live up to its promise of making governments obsolete. Or at least to make many of the functions now relegated to governments obsolete.
We have to get beyond governments, toward the scale of a planetwide democracy.
The American revolutionaries invented a new kind of democracy when they created the United States. It's time the Internet community did the same thing on a global scale.
We can start with copyright. If we could come up with an alternative system for creating and enforcing copyright that was under the auspices of the Internet-using community rather than individual governments, and if that system could not be gamed by big-moneyed interests, it would be a step in the right direction. Oh sure, governments could still do their little copyright thing. But if content creators suspected they would be better off using "pan-Terran copyright" for example, they wouldn't even bother to use the government-mandated copyright schemes.
That's the rub, of course. How do you engineer a copyright system that rewards content creators in at least as beneficial a manner as the original US copyright law did before it was hijacked by the fat cats? How do you ensure that the fat cats can't hijack it again? Even if you solve these problems,
lots of other details would have to be worked out. Like who gets to set the policy, how does the policy get changed, how does the policy get enforced, how do violations of the policy get decided and punished, etc.
Oh sure, we have copyleft now. But I don't think it's a complete answer. Not many people other than RMS use it for their books, so it's probably not quite good enough to convince authors it's better for them than classic copyright.
This kind of thing has been done before, of course, at least with respect to a corporate hegemony. Bill Gates was well on his way to being crowned corporate king of the world until some Finnish kid came out of the woodwork and catalyzed a whole bunch of stuff that RMS started. Microsoft today is certainly not irrelevant, but they're a lot less relevant than Bill had hoped they'd be by now.
At least people now have a viable alternative, and many of
them are choosing it.
Now we just have to do the same thing with respect to governments, and we can start with copyrights. I propose RMS to play the role of RMS and Lessig to play the role of the Finnish kid. Eisner can put in a cameo as Bill.
...I want to mention how impressed I was with your appearance on TSS
Seconded. Many of the guest hosts that you'd think would be great, like Steve Wozniak, seem to get reduced to piles of squirming awkward dorkitude when placed in front of a live TV camera. But Wil was damn near as good as Leo. Kudos.
I used to hate to run OSX because after I'd been using it a while, whenever I'd occasionally boot back into OS9 it felt like lead weights had just been removed from my ankles. In other words, OS9 felt faster than OSX but I didn't notice it much when I was in OSX.
That's less of a problem with Jaguar, but it's still true to some extent, mainly because response time to mouse clicks is much longer on OSX than it was in OS9. In OS9, the time between the mouse button going down and some noticeable change happening on the screen was just a few milliseconds. In OSX, it seems more like several tens of milliseconds. It's a very noticeable difference. To see this, click your mouse fairly quickly, taking note of the "ka-chunk" that occurs where "ka" is down and "chunk" is up. Now click and hold on a menu in OSX. Notice that the menu drops down at roughly the same time that "chunk" would happen if you had released the mouse button. There's an obvious "beat" between the time the mouse goes down and the time the menu drops down. Now boot into OS9 (not Classic) and do the same test. The time lag between the mouse going down and the menu dropping is so short it's virtually undetectable.
On the other hand, preemptive multitasking kind of makes up for it; in OS9 I was used to the entire machine locking up when the mouse was down or certain dialog boxes (like printing) were in progress. But in OSX, almost nothing ever locks up the entire machine. Operations that would monopolize the processor in OS9 (like Acrobat when it's searching for a string in a long document) have no such effect in OSX--you're always free to switch to another application to continue to get work done. Those CPU-hogging operations are now very obvious and annoying when I occasionally boot into OS9.
Most operations that don't involve
the user interface seem faster in OSX than in OS9. To me, the
file system seems faster, network operations seem
faster, and CPU-intensive operations seem faster. Whether this is a true speedup or merely the result of preemptive timeslicing I don't know.
The Finder is still the biggest problem in Jaguar. The OS9 Finder was a well-honed jewel of user interface mastery, having been originally designed by user interface experts and successively refined over a decade and a half. The OS9 Finder was a subtle beast: novices had no trouble with it and never noticed its deeper layers, while power users found that it was supremely useful at doing industrial-strength operations without getting in your way. In the OS9 Finder I rarely touched the mouse, so facile was the system at being controlled by the keyboard.
In OSX the situation is different. The Finder in OSX is pretty and it's reasonably functional for novices. But it clearly was not designed by user interface experts and it's not capable of handling what power users need. "Of course," you say, "that's what the Terminal is for." But in OS9, there was no Terminal, and the Finder there was designed well enough that you almost never wished you had one. In OSX, perhaps because there is a Terminal, the Finder's designers have not taken any great pains to make the thing usable to power users. For example, Labels were very useful to power users and they're gone now. The Open and Save dialog boxes cannot be navigated with the keyboard any more, like they could in OS9. (This problem was slightly addressed in Jaguar, in that you can now use arrow keys in this dialog, but you
still cannot navigate the dialog alphabetically like you could in OS9). Window opening and refreshing in the OSX Finder is much slower than it was in OS9, and the OSX Finder is dirt slow when you use it to perform an operation on hundreds of files at once. Wanna see the rainbow cursor? Open your browser cache folder when it's got over 1000 files, select all, then hit cmd-Delete to throw them in the trash. The OS9 Finder was somewhat slow when it dealt with thousands of files too, but the situation seems worse in OSX. You'd think it would be better.
All in all, I think I'm just about as productive in Jaguar as I was in OS9. But I'd be more so if the Finder didn't suck so much.
More like Gargantua vs. Monster Zero. Godzilla is a hero you can root for, but I don't give a rat's ass about those other two. Just like Wal-Mart and Microsoft.
Interesting analogy. I agree that Star Wars has no business being on this list, but that's because I've always considered Star Wars more of a western than science fiction.
Think Blazing Saddles moved to outer space and without all the farting. Which means that in Spaceballs, Mel Brooks spoofed his own movie:-)
Slashdot Mirror
I still have a bunch of old FrameMaker documents that occasionally need to be printed, if not edited. But my copy of FrameMaker died a long time ago with my Windoze machine, and I'm not crazy about the idea of buying another one. Anybody know of a decent Frame->XML (or even ->HTML) converter? Preferably open source?
Right on. "Mission Impossible" (1 and 2), for example, were fantastically deep films, with downright Mamet-like plots, and Cruise was fantastic in them! They greatly exceeded the quality of the TV show!
Likewise with "Minority Report." What a wonderful triumph of cinematic art that was! Why, if PKD were alive I'm sure it would have brought a tear to his eye.
I was really thinking Cruise had far too much gravitas and depth for WoW. I really believe the part should go to someone with a lighter touch, who could be more believable in the role. Like Pauly Shore or maybe Rob Schneider.
Not.
The way to really fight this is to refuse to work for a company that issues you one of these things. How many of you are willing to do that?
You're right of course. And seeing as how we're deep into nitpick territory anyhow, I might as well point out that those words are spelled "scalawag" and "apostrophe."
Of course there are definately no spelling errors in this post.
So it's now official. Yahoo has jumped the shark.
It is illegal in most cases for a homeowners association to prohibit you from installing a satellite TV antenna of the type used by DirecTV or Dish Network.
...And neither are the people whose jobs she just vaporized. What idiot, short-term thinkers like Carly don't understand is that for every job they outsource, many high-tech companies (like HP) are very likely losing a customer. Who buys HP products? Mostly college-educated, white-collar service workers, who, gee whiz, are exactly the ones getting outsourced right and left. If they don't have jobs, they don't buy products. When thousands of American companies start doing this--putting their workers on the street--they may just find that their customer base evaporates too. You don't stay in business long if you keep firing your customers.
Another explanation could be that Microsoft really is interested in the fruits of this research but is banking them as part of a careful business strategy, so they can pull "innovations" out only when they're needed to shore up a sagging bottom line and no earlier.
And here's one called ParkTimes that features defunct rides and the history of Six Flags Over Texas (the original Six Flags park).
All hail the mighty Monsanto!
Good point. People's hands are filthy--usually much filthier than floors. That's is the main reason this stuff seems to keep happening.
Yes. Good analogy. It also reminds me of that passage in The Diamond Age that describes how humans have to breathe through handkerchiefs because the air is full of the swirling dusty detritus of a trillion warring nanites killing each other.
Well that happened. A little late maybe, but it happened. The iPod even exceeded it.
But I'd never have guessed we'd still be using a shitty 1960s era operating system (Unix) as our reference standard. And even worse, that it would still be way better than all the commonly-available alternatives (unless you count BeOS as "commonly-available"). Nor would I have predicted that software would still be developed in death-march sweatshops led by clueless pinhead bosses, to end up being just as buggy and fragile as it ever was. Nor that we'd be rehashing crap like virtual machine interpreters and reference count garbage collectors, dressing them up with new chrome nameplates and trying to pass them off as anything but the old, tired, failed ideas they always were. About the only thing good about software today is that at least nobody uses Ada any more.
Electrical engineering has advanced by leaps and bounds in the last 20 years. Computer science pretty much stopped dead in 1985. It's easy to blame this on Microsoft, but that's overly simplistic. Microsoft, the ubiquity of commodity (lowest-common denominator) computing, and the overarching need for backward compatibility were certainly big factors. But we also need more Feynman-type thinkers to continually remind us when we have our heads up our asses, so new computer scientists won't think the pablum they're taught is as good as it gets. Dijkstra was the best we had at this, but he's dead now. At least we still have Tufte, Gabriel, and these guys.
Many games run on the Mac, but not as many as on the PC. If you want to play games, buy a PC. They're cheap. Get two.
From my understanding, Adobe Photoshop, Quark Express, and other software which was once the only real reason that many mac users didn't switch to PC's is now offered for the PC and some software developeres are considering dropping their Mac versions. I could be wrong, but that's what I've heard.
Know what I've heard? I've heard there's a nifty new data compression algorithm that'll compress random data of any length down to just two bits by repeatedly running it through the compressor. That's what I've heard.
All of my friends who once used Macs say they'll never buy another one... some because they didn't like not being able to upgrade the machine as easily...
Yep. Macs are tough to upgrade. No question about it. Maybe they'll finally fix this in 1986.
What is it that the mac offers for the price that's so compelling to mac users??? It can't be the fruity colors, the wierd form factors, or the candy colored menu options.
You're absolutely, 100% right. It's the one-button mouse.
I don't understand why Apple doesn't compete with MS directly by porting to Intel/AMD hardware.
Me neither! This is a really, REALLY good idea. I wish I'd thought of it first.
It seems to me that Apple would at least do better by creating a MacOS that runs on top of linux instead of Darwin.
Definitely right. I'm sure RMS would agree with you too.
I'm not bashing, trolling, or flaming.
Then this posting is not a reply to a troll. Right?
Hence Flash. Hence most "official" sites for movies, cars, etc. are useless without Flash and Javajunk.
Because your kids need to know how to dream. Because they need to understand they don't have to settle for second best. Because your kids are going to be the ones who finally invent a computer better than the Mac, if anybody does, and they need to understand the current benchmark.
When you fly somewhere on a business trip and rent a car, are you completely flummoxed when the car they give you is not identical to the car you own? Of course not. You drive a BMW or Volvo at home, and you rent a POS Chevy Lumina. Do you have to pore over the owner's manual or take a "training course" before you drive the thing off the lot? Well your kids are that way about computers. They can switch computers as easily as you can switch cars. And if they are experienced at driving a great computer, at least then they'll bitch to the maker of the crappy one they're forced to drive later and maybe improve it.
I agree. We have wood laminate floors and cats and the Roomba does an amazingly good job. The difference between good engineers and great engineers is the thoroughness of their use case analysis, and the iRobot engineers did an excellent job of UCA on the Roomba. It cleans well, doesn't fall down stairs, and usually is smart enough to find its way out of "lobster trap" situations. My only complaints are minor: I wish it had a little bit more wheel drive power to get up over thicker area rugs, and that its "wall wiper" brush was a little stouter.
My wife loves the Roomba as much as I love the TiVo.
We have to get beyond governments, toward the scale of a planetwide democracy. The American revolutionaries invented a new kind of democracy when they created the United States. It's time the Internet community did the same thing on a global scale.
We can start with copyright. If we could come up with an alternative system for creating and enforcing copyright that was under the auspices of the Internet-using community rather than individual governments, and if that system could not be gamed by big-moneyed interests, it would be a step in the right direction. Oh sure, governments could still do their little copyright thing. But if content creators suspected they would be better off using "pan-Terran copyright" for example, they wouldn't even bother to use the government-mandated copyright schemes.
That's the rub, of course. How do you engineer a copyright system that rewards content creators in at least as beneficial a manner as the original US copyright law did before it was hijacked by the fat cats? How do you ensure that the fat cats can't hijack it again? Even if you solve these problems, lots of other details would have to be worked out. Like who gets to set the policy, how does the policy get changed, how does the policy get enforced, how do violations of the policy get decided and punished, etc.
Oh sure, we have copyleft now. But I don't think it's a complete answer. Not many people other than RMS use it for their books, so it's probably not quite good enough to convince authors it's better for them than classic copyright.
This kind of thing has been done before, of course, at least with respect to a corporate hegemony. Bill Gates was well on his way to being crowned corporate king of the world until some Finnish kid came out of the woodwork and catalyzed a whole bunch of stuff that RMS started. Microsoft today is certainly not irrelevant, but they're a lot less relevant than Bill had hoped they'd be by now. At least people now have a viable alternative, and many of them are choosing it.
Now we just have to do the same thing with respect to governments, and we can start with copyrights. I propose RMS to play the role of RMS and Lessig to play the role of the Finnish kid. Eisner can put in a cameo as Bill.
Here is a page describing how to use the DSB-R100 to timeshift radio in OSX.
The article header is wrong. The subject is about rocket fuel, which is a very different substance than jet fuel.
Seconded. Many of the guest hosts that you'd think would be great, like Steve Wozniak, seem to get reduced to piles of squirming awkward dorkitude when placed in front of a live TV camera. But Wil was damn near as good as Leo. Kudos.
That's less of a problem with Jaguar, but it's still true to some extent, mainly because response time to mouse clicks is much longer on OSX than it was in OS9. In OS9, the time between the mouse button going down and some noticeable change happening on the screen was just a few milliseconds. In OSX, it seems more like several tens of milliseconds. It's a very noticeable difference. To see this, click your mouse fairly quickly, taking note of the "ka-chunk" that occurs where "ka" is down and "chunk" is up. Now click and hold on a menu in OSX. Notice that the menu drops down at roughly the same time that "chunk" would happen if you had released the mouse button. There's an obvious "beat" between the time the mouse goes down and the time the menu drops down. Now boot into OS9 (not Classic) and do the same test. The time lag between the mouse going down and the menu dropping is so short it's virtually undetectable.
On the other hand, preemptive multitasking kind of makes up for it; in OS9 I was used to the entire machine locking up when the mouse was down or certain dialog boxes (like printing) were in progress. But in OSX, almost nothing ever locks up the entire machine. Operations that would monopolize the processor in OS9 (like Acrobat when it's searching for a string in a long document) have no such effect in OSX--you're always free to switch to another application to continue to get work done. Those CPU-hogging operations are now very obvious and annoying when I occasionally boot into OS9.
Most operations that don't involve the user interface seem faster in OSX than in OS9. To me, the file system seems faster, network operations seem faster, and CPU-intensive operations seem faster. Whether this is a true speedup or merely the result of preemptive timeslicing I don't know.
The Finder is still the biggest problem in Jaguar. The OS9 Finder was a well-honed jewel of user interface mastery, having been originally designed by user interface experts and successively refined over a decade and a half. The OS9 Finder was a subtle beast: novices had no trouble with it and never noticed its deeper layers, while power users found that it was supremely useful at doing industrial-strength operations without getting in your way. In the OS9 Finder I rarely touched the mouse, so facile was the system at being controlled by the keyboard.
In OSX the situation is different. The Finder in OSX is pretty and it's reasonably functional for novices. But it clearly was not designed by user interface experts and it's not capable of handling what power users need. "Of course," you say, "that's what the Terminal is for." But in OS9, there was no Terminal, and the Finder there was designed well enough that you almost never wished you had one. In OSX, perhaps because there is a Terminal, the Finder's designers have not taken any great pains to make the thing usable to power users. For example, Labels were very useful to power users and they're gone now. The Open and Save dialog boxes cannot be navigated with the keyboard any more, like they could in OS9. (This problem was slightly addressed in Jaguar, in that you can now use arrow keys in this dialog, but you still cannot navigate the dialog alphabetically like you could in OS9). Window opening and refreshing in the OSX Finder is much slower than it was in OS9, and the OSX Finder is dirt slow when you use it to perform an operation on hundreds of files at once. Wanna see the rainbow cursor? Open your browser cache folder when it's got over 1000 files, select all, then hit cmd-Delete to throw them in the trash. The OS9 Finder was somewhat slow when it dealt with thousands of files too, but the situation seems worse in OSX. You'd think it would be better.
All in all, I think I'm just about as productive in Jaguar as I was in OS9. But I'd be more so if the Finder didn't suck so much.
It's like Godzilla vs. Mothra.
More like Gargantua vs. Monster Zero. Godzilla is a hero you can root for, but I don't give a rat's ass about those other two. Just like Wal-Mart and Microsoft.
- At least a GB of nonvolatile memory (why is it that my digital camera can accept a microdrive but most PDAs can't?)
- 802.11
- Firewire
- MP3 player
- Color screen with MPEG-4 player
- Microphone for voice recording to MP3, preferably with voice recognition but could be downloaded to desktop PC for VR later.
- Wireless short text messaging/email with ability to use its wireless modem from a computer when I need a bigger screen
- Microsloth-free
I guess what I'm looking for is the bastard child of a Newton and an iPod with a few extra bells and whistles.Interesting analogy. I agree that Star Wars has no business being on this list, but that's because I've always considered Star Wars more of a western than science fiction. Think Blazing Saddles moved to outer space and without all the farting. Which means that in Spaceballs, Mel Brooks spoofed his own movie :-)