I'm with you on this one - so many people say "well then just don't buy products from XYZ and they'll stop!!&!" But it's never that easy and it doesn't stop anyone.
Boycotts don't work! Wish so many brainless people would stop thinking they do.
They could make the claim but if you never signed up, you'd never be presented their member "EULA" thus shouldn't be bound to it.
Of course, they probably have some fine print somewhere that says "if you even look at this web site, you must agree to the EULA, click HERE to view it."
The problem with per-cpu licensing is that because gaining so much performance in CPU upgradea is going to start to be more difficult in the forseeable future. That's why multi-core is so important; you can't move up anymore so you move horizontally.
The per-cpu licensing scheme has always been flawed.
If they really want to charge based on machine performance, then they should do just that. Calculate how many MIPS the processors can do. Add them together, come up with some metric, and charge based on that. That way, it doesn't matter how many cores or processors you have.
"Different tools for different tasks, and for computer gaming, like it or not, Windows is where it's at right now. "
Wow, stating the obvious.
NO KIDDING it's "where it's at" right now, but Linug gaming has improved, slowly, like everything else.
We have better distributions, better hardware support, easier to use linux systems. Each day it gets a little better.
Whenever someone says "Linux is getting better!" there's a guy like you that says something like "FACE IT Windows is better and Linux will NEVER GET BETTER!!!"
This company is making a system that can catalog the ID's in music files, and allow you to ask for songs based on genre, title, artist, etc.
While voice recognition has existed for awhile, this is not the same as the system you mentioned. Sure, it's not a big break away in technology, but who said it was.
The GPL has always been a hot topic. If you don't want to hear about it you're in the wrong place. Slashdot folks love to read about and talk about OSS and the GPL.
ATT has a lot of customers. If they buy ATT they inherit all these customers.
They can ditch all the ATT baggage they don't want, keep the profit centers, and make lots of money. Meanwhile, costing thousands of people their jobs.
Big corporations are a danger to the job market. Every time one of these mergers happens, thousands of employees are standing in the unemployment line. If we end up with one bank, one phone company, and one TV provider, we're fucked. And the current administration will let it all happen.
"Thanks for understanding that I wasn't trying to flame you."
Likewise.
It's hard posting something here on Slashdot (or any other online forum) and have people be civilized. Suddenly because it's anonymous, people feel that they can just be assholes to everyone. Makes you wonder where we're going in the future.
My signature definately holds true this past few days. Everytime there's a Mac article, all the Mac zealots come out and defend every little thing. Like Apple can do no wrong. Closed Source OS? It's fine only if it's apple. Vendor lock-in? It's cool when it's Apple doing it. DRM on iTunes? But we love Apple, so that's fine too. It's really funny. I got modded down a lot this weekend!
A lot of people actually defended the one button mouse by saying "You can buy a multi button mouse, you cheap bastard." Yea, that's a good solution..
Truthfully, I've found that the context menus in Mac apps are adequit. The Adobe stuff will all be fine because Adobe's been doing this stuff for years, and there's PC versions of all their stuff (which is more popular then the mac stuff, no a days) so they surely keep the UI's pretty syncronized. A lot of the other stuff is ok too, but I just don't feel as though I'm getting enough in the context menus. I believe it's because Macs only come with one button mice and most people don't use context menus.
Scroll wheels are great. I don't know how I lived without them, now that I used them all the time. For a long time I resisted and just used normal two button mice. Eventually, most computers have them now so I started using one, and I love it. Open a web page and just scroll fast across all the content. Open a word doc and scroll around fast. Smooth scrolling has made the experience even better by making it easier to follow the documents.
I'm not sure why some people think they'll get carpel tunnel from them because you barely have to move your finger to use one, hardly more then just clicking a button on the thing.
I've done my share of technical support. Honestly, although there were a few people that couldn't figure out the mouse buttons, it was a very small minotiry. And these same people couldn't find the start button, or even know what a button was. Figuring out the mouse buttons was the least of the concerns.
Lastly, since Apple has supported multiple button mice for a few years now, I just can't understand why they don't start including them in the box.
The reason we're talking about the mouse button is because that's what the slashdot article is about.
History has unfortunately shown that having the ability to do something doesn't matter when "out of the box" you can't do it. Because so many people buy things and never upgrade them, we're left with a very small minority of people that have multiple button mice.
Because of this, the applications don't have as comprehensive context menus because - why bother putting money into a feature that most people won't use.
Yes, I use Macs. And I still get frustrated whenever I have to sit at one with only one button. And I'm also frustrated that many options can only be reached by rolling the mouse to the top bar to perform functions in many apps, whereas on a Windows system the context menus usually have most of the functions right there.
For many people, one button is fine. Some people will argue that "most people" don't even use the scroll wheel. I think that's ignorant. Anyone I know uses the hell out of the wheel, and once you tell them "Right click stuff, there's a lot of great shortcuts there" they do that too. The reason one button is okay for a Mac is because the whole UI is designed around it.
It's not rocket surgery and I think it's really demeaning how a lot of the nerds here on Slashdot think all the "stupid users" can't figure a damned two button mouse with a wheel.
I work for an insurance company where the 25-year lot is large, and full.
We run all Windows workstations and there's never been one single user in the 5,800 user company to call help desk because they couldn't figure out how to right-click.
Notebook computers are fast too; they have fast Macintosh notebooks and fast x86 Notebooks; you can get Athlon 64 notebooks now.
And nevermind the hogwash about "more surface area to cool" like someone else mentioned; a notebook has a lot less height for all the components, and instead of putting the CD-Rom on top of the guts, they put them on the side. I don't see how the cd-rom and battery compartments are going to help cool the unit.
Call me crazy, but I prefer usability over "ease of learning."
While sure, it's not a bad idea to make the core OS as simple as possible, I've always felt that you need to learn to use a computer just like you have to learn to use anything else.
Why handicap the system to tailor to new users? Most of the big windows apps are just as straight forward as Mac apps to use, but take usability even further by comprehensive context menus to accelerate productivity.
Plus, unless a program is horribly designed (in which case context menus don't matter) I've not found right-click menus to be confusing at all, nor "hunt-and-peck" like you claim. A badly designed UI is going to be bad on the Mac, too.
So instead of your "hunt-and-peck" like you seem to think is so common, you have to open menu after menu on the top bar to find the function you need. All the while, a nice context menu could show you all the common functions of the particular target you're on. What's the problem what that?
Show me a feature on a Windows app where you can't find the option in a menu item easily. I dare you find one app where you can't do something unless you open a context menu.
I'm not saying Macs are bad, that Windows is better, whatever. I like Macs. I don't like Mac users that defend every aspect of the system just because it's a Mac. I feel as though Apple is holding onto the one-button mouse just because it's their trademark.
And what's wrong with scroll wheels? They're great! And I'd say it makes the web more accessable to more people because it's so easy to scroll a page without having to point to the small bar on the side and drag it around. Especially when it's a long online form.
You don't have to cram everything into the top menus on the menu bar if you're using context menus. You can embed some of those item-specific options into sub-menus to keep things neat, but make them top-level options in context menus.
This is the case in many Windows applications and I find it to be very usable with less mouse-rolling then is required on a Mac.
Not to mention you can access all functions in Windows systems with the Keyboard, which you cannot do on a Mac.
Millions of people use scroll wheels. Where have you been?
Ohh. Your "one button Mac" world. I'm the one that's sorry; sorry that you can't see the benefit of a scroll wheel in a world where web pages that you *scroll* are a part of every day computer life.
Scroll wheels and right mouse buttons are invaluable to navigating the user interface. Notice that so many mac zealots around here are defending the one-button mouse with "You can just go buy a better mouse and use that"?
You shouldn't have to buy extra equipment to get the basic functionality like a scroll wheel.
Because most macs won't have a multi button mouse, developers won't put the amount of effort into context menus that they do on a Windows system.
Your mac mini arguement is stupid.
Context menus are great and all the apps I use make great use of them. Instead of flooding the main menu bar's drop-downs with crap, they can move some of those item-specific options into sub-menus to keep it clean, meanwhile making them top option in context menus.
Defending the one-button mouse is like defending the Iraq war. It's an exercise in futility.
Show me an example of some application somewhere that ONLY has an option in a context menu and nowhere else.
What happens on a mac, is that the menus on the top bar get cluttered to hell with option because most people won't ever see context menus. So you can look at it either way.
"Apple's got the right idea. Ship a single button mouse to make sure that developers don't start hiding things in the contextual menu, but support multiple button mice out of the box with no need for drivers. "
Because most people don't have multi-button mice on Macs, developers don't put as much effort into right-clicking then they would if it were standard equipment.
So you end up with a system where you just don't have as much flexibility with the mouse as you would with a Windows or Linux GUI. Why put all the effort into making proper context menus when most people won't even see them?
"However, I'm sure some people will still complain about the single button mouse. Some people are just looking for nits to pick, and they're looking for excuses to deride Macs, though not necessarily reasons."
That's crap. It's not just a "nitpick" it's a valid complaint. Because Apple has this quest to "be different" it just lowers the usability of their system.
You can't blame users, that's too easy. Mass boycots on anything just don't work.
You can't blame the users for using Windows XP with the monopoly that Microsoft holds. Most people aquired XP with a new PC, others got it at work, and a few people actually purchased the upgrade. Unless you're into the technology, you just don't know what the online product activation represents. I can't fault people for it.
You have to approach the problem a different way. What that way is, I don't know. Maybe Linux will bring the answer, maybe it will be something else. We'll know it when it comes.
But all software is going this way-blame Microsoft
on
Steam Users Steamed
·
· Score: 1
While some forms of "authentication" systems have been in place for years - like dongles on the printer port and newer USB keys - Microsoft started this trend of online authentication with Windows XP.
Before XP hit the shelves, I can't think of one software package that required online activation before allowing you to use it. Maybe it would have happened eventually anyways, maybe not. But Microsoft sure did accelerate the process.
Some game publishers have taken this to an extreme; requiring repeat authentication for each time you run the software.
Copy protection has never stopped pirate software, and it likely never will. While some software doesn't make any sense to pirate, such as an MMORPG, all other software is available in cracked form. So, all this copy protection ever does is make "legal" use of the software a pain in the ass.
While the people that have actually purchased this software now have to run through all this registration crap, the Windows XP activation whenever you change out your motherboard, not even being able to play a single player game when some internet server goes down, etc.. the people that downloaded a cracked version are running just fine. So is the way it always has been and always will be.
Stop copy protection bullshit! It never works! It didn't work for old floppy disk protection, it didn't work for CD protection, it doesn't work for online authentications, and it didn't work for DVD's either. It doesn't even work for Apple with their critically acclaimed iTunes music files.
And all this DRM buzz is just a fancy name for good old useless copy protection that only prevents legal users from accessing their paid-for stuff the way they want to.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm with you on this one - so many people say "well then just don't buy products from XYZ and they'll stop!!&!" But it's never that easy and it doesn't stop anyone.
Boycotts don't work! Wish so many brainless people would stop thinking they do.
They could make the claim but if you never signed up, you'd never be presented their member "EULA" thus shouldn't be bound to it.
Of course, they probably have some fine print somewhere that says "if you even look at this web site, you must agree to the EULA, click HERE to view it."
The problem with per-cpu licensing is that because gaining so much performance in CPU upgradea is going to start to be more difficult in the forseeable future. That's why multi-core is so important; you can't move up anymore so you move horizontally.
The per-cpu licensing scheme has always been flawed.
If they really want to charge based on machine performance, then they should do just that. Calculate how many MIPS the processors can do. Add them together, come up with some metric, and charge based on that. That way, it doesn't matter how many cores or processors you have.
"Different tools for different tasks, and for computer gaming, like it or not, Windows is where it's at right now. "
Wow, stating the obvious.
NO KIDDING it's "where it's at" right now, but Linug gaming has improved, slowly, like everything else.
We have better distributions, better hardware support, easier to use linux systems. Each day it gets a little better.
Whenever someone says "Linux is getting better!" there's a guy like you that says something like "FACE IT Windows is better and Linux will NEVER GET BETTER!!!"
Give it up. Let us have our time.
On the very page the parent linked, it has instructions on how to add Yahoo to this context menu.
Nothing's been said about commercial skipping, the article pointed to hurting DVD sales of TV shows.
Which I think is stupid anyways. A DVD box set is going to be much better quality then some MythTV recording.
Whatever dude.
This company is making a system that can catalog the ID's in music files, and allow you to ask for songs based on genre, title, artist, etc.
While voice recognition has existed for awhile, this is not the same as the system you mentioned. Sure, it's not a big break away in technology, but who said it was.
The GPL has always been a hot topic. If you don't want to hear about it you're in the wrong place. Slashdot folks love to read about and talk about OSS and the GPL.
Nobody is forcing you to click the article.
"Ummmmm"
Just by watching the channel, you're the customer. You watch the ads. That's how broadcast TV has always worked.
ATT has a lot of customers. If they buy ATT they inherit all these customers.
They can ditch all the ATT baggage they don't want, keep the profit centers, and make lots of money. Meanwhile, costing thousands of people their jobs.
Big corporations are a danger to the job market. Every time one of these mergers happens, thousands of employees are standing in the unemployment line. If we end up with one bank, one phone company, and one TV provider, we're fucked. And the current administration will let it all happen.
"Thanks for understanding that I wasn't trying to flame you."
Likewise.
It's hard posting something here on Slashdot (or any other online forum) and have people be civilized. Suddenly because it's anonymous, people feel that they can just be assholes to everyone. Makes you wonder where we're going in the future.
My signature definately holds true this past few days. Everytime there's a Mac article, all the Mac zealots come out and defend every little thing. Like Apple can do no wrong. Closed Source OS? It's fine only if it's apple. Vendor lock-in? It's cool when it's Apple doing it. DRM on iTunes? But we love Apple, so that's fine too. It's really funny. I got modded down a lot this weekend!
A lot of people actually defended the one button mouse by saying "You can buy a multi button mouse, you cheap bastard." Yea, that's a good solution..
Truthfully, I've found that the context menus in Mac apps are adequit. The Adobe stuff will all be fine because Adobe's been doing this stuff for years, and there's PC versions of all their stuff (which is more popular then the mac stuff, no a days) so they surely keep the UI's pretty syncronized. A lot of the other stuff is ok too, but I just don't feel as though I'm getting enough in the context menus. I believe it's because Macs only come with one button mice and most people don't use context menus.
Scroll wheels are great. I don't know how I lived without them, now that I used them all the time. For a long time I resisted and just used normal two button mice. Eventually, most computers have them now so I started using one, and I love it. Open a web page and just scroll fast across all the content. Open a word doc and scroll around fast. Smooth scrolling has made the experience even better by making it easier to follow the documents.
I'm not sure why some people think they'll get carpel tunnel from them because you barely have to move your finger to use one, hardly more then just clicking a button on the thing.
I've done my share of technical support. Honestly, although there were a few people that couldn't figure out the mouse buttons, it was a very small minotiry. And these same people couldn't find the start button, or even know what a button was. Figuring out the mouse buttons was the least of the concerns.
Lastly, since Apple has supported multiple button mice for a few years now, I just can't understand why they don't start including them in the box.
Anyways, good discussions =)
The reason we're talking about the mouse button is because that's what the slashdot article is about.
History has unfortunately shown that having the ability to do something doesn't matter when "out of the box" you can't do it. Because so many people buy things and never upgrade them, we're left with a very small minority of people that have multiple button mice.
Because of this, the applications don't have as comprehensive context menus because - why bother putting money into a feature that most people won't use.
Yes, I use Macs. And I still get frustrated whenever I have to sit at one with only one button. And I'm also frustrated that many options can only be reached by rolling the mouse to the top bar to perform functions in many apps, whereas on a Windows system the context menus usually have most of the functions right there.
For many people, one button is fine. Some people will argue that "most people" don't even use the scroll wheel. I think that's ignorant. Anyone I know uses the hell out of the wheel, and once you tell them "Right click stuff, there's a lot of great shortcuts there" they do that too. The reason one button is okay for a Mac is because the whole UI is designed around it.
It's not rocket surgery and I think it's really demeaning how a lot of the nerds here on Slashdot think all the "stupid users" can't figure a damned two button mouse with a wheel.
I work for an insurance company where the 25-year lot is large, and full.
We run all Windows workstations and there's never been one single user in the 5,800 user company to call help desk because they couldn't figure out how to right-click.
Notebook computers are fast too; they have fast Macintosh notebooks and fast x86 Notebooks; you can get Athlon 64 notebooks now.
And nevermind the hogwash about "more surface area to cool" like someone else mentioned; a notebook has a lot less height for all the components, and instead of putting the CD-Rom on top of the guts, they put them on the side. I don't see how the cd-rom and battery compartments are going to help cool the unit.
What function?
Call me crazy, but I prefer usability over "ease of learning."
While sure, it's not a bad idea to make the core OS as simple as possible, I've always felt that you need to learn to use a computer just like you have to learn to use anything else.
Why handicap the system to tailor to new users? Most of the big windows apps are just as straight forward as Mac apps to use, but take usability even further by comprehensive context menus to accelerate productivity.
Plus, unless a program is horribly designed (in which case context menus don't matter) I've not found right-click menus to be confusing at all, nor "hunt-and-peck" like you claim. A badly designed UI is going to be bad on the Mac, too.
So instead of your "hunt-and-peck" like you seem to think is so common, you have to open menu after menu on the top bar to find the function you need. All the while, a nice context menu could show you all the common functions of the particular target you're on. What's the problem what that?
Show me a feature on a Windows app where you can't find the option in a menu item easily. I dare you find one app where you can't do something unless you open a context menu.
I'm not saying Macs are bad, that Windows is better, whatever. I like Macs. I don't like Mac users that defend every aspect of the system just because it's a Mac. I feel as though Apple is holding onto the one-button mouse just because it's their trademark.
And what's wrong with scroll wheels? They're great! And I'd say it makes the web more accessable to more people because it's so easy to scroll a page without having to point to the small bar on the side and drag it around. Especially when it's a long online form.
No. You can access all layer functions via the "Layer" menu on the menu bar.
I thought I did.
You don't have to cram everything into the top menus on the menu bar if you're using context menus. You can embed some of those item-specific options into sub-menus to keep things neat, but make them top-level options in context menus.
This is the case in many Windows applications and I find it to be very usable with less mouse-rolling then is required on a Mac.
Not to mention you can access all functions in Windows systems with the Keyboard, which you cannot do on a Mac.
" I am sorry. People use scroll wheels ?"
Millions of people use scroll wheels. Where have you been?
Ohh. Your "one button Mac" world. I'm the one that's sorry; sorry that you can't see the benefit of a scroll wheel in a world where web pages that you *scroll* are a part of every day computer life.
Scroll wheels and right mouse buttons are invaluable to navigating the user interface. Notice that so many mac zealots around here are defending the one-button mouse with "You can just go buy a better mouse and use that"?
You shouldn't have to buy extra equipment to get the basic functionality like a scroll wheel.
Because most macs won't have a multi button mouse, developers won't put the amount of effort into context menus that they do on a Windows system.
Your mac mini arguement is stupid.
Context menus are great and all the apps I use make great use of them. Instead of flooding the main menu bar's drop-downs with crap, they can move some of those item-specific options into sub-menus to keep it clean, meanwhile making them top option in context menus.
Defending the one-button mouse is like defending the Iraq war. It's an exercise in futility.
Show me an example of some application somewhere that ONLY has an option in a context menu and nowhere else.
What happens on a mac, is that the menus on the top bar get cluttered to hell with option because most people won't ever see context menus. So you can look at it either way.
Where you are required to use a right-button in Windows or Gnome or KDE?
"Apple's got the right idea. Ship a single button mouse to make sure that developers don't start hiding things in the contextual menu, but support multiple button mice out of the box with no need for drivers. "
Because most people don't have multi-button mice on Macs, developers don't put as much effort into right-clicking then they would if it were standard equipment.
So you end up with a system where you just don't have as much flexibility with the mouse as you would with a Windows or Linux GUI. Why put all the effort into making proper context menus when most people won't even see them?
"However, I'm sure some people will still complain about the single button mouse. Some people are just looking for nits to pick, and they're looking for excuses to deride Macs, though not necessarily reasons."
That's crap. It's not just a "nitpick" it's a valid complaint. Because Apple has this quest to "be different" it just lowers the usability of their system.
You can't blame users, that's too easy. Mass boycots on anything just don't work.
You can't blame the users for using Windows XP with the monopoly that Microsoft holds. Most people aquired XP with a new PC, others got it at work, and a few people actually purchased the upgrade. Unless you're into the technology, you just don't know what the online product activation represents. I can't fault people for it.
You have to approach the problem a different way. What that way is, I don't know. Maybe Linux will bring the answer, maybe it will be something else. We'll know it when it comes.
While some forms of "authentication" systems have been in place for years - like dongles on the printer port and newer USB keys - Microsoft started this trend of online authentication with Windows XP.
Before XP hit the shelves, I can't think of one software package that required online activation before allowing you to use it. Maybe it would have happened eventually anyways, maybe not. But Microsoft sure did accelerate the process.
Some game publishers have taken this to an extreme; requiring repeat authentication for each time you run the software.
Copy protection has never stopped pirate software, and it likely never will. While some software doesn't make any sense to pirate, such as an MMORPG, all other software is available in cracked form. So, all this copy protection ever does is make "legal" use of the software a pain in the ass.
While the people that have actually purchased this software now have to run through all this registration crap, the Windows XP activation whenever you change out your motherboard, not even being able to play a single player game when some internet server goes down, etc.. the people that downloaded a cracked version are running just fine. So is the way it always has been and always will be.
Stop copy protection bullshit! It never works! It didn't work for old floppy disk protection, it didn't work for CD protection, it doesn't work for online authentications, and it didn't work for DVD's either. It doesn't even work for Apple with their critically acclaimed iTunes music files.
And all this DRM buzz is just a fancy name for good old useless copy protection that only prevents legal users from accessing their paid-for stuff the way they want to.