Well, I read the google cache and can't find any details, but there are three very obvious points to be made here.
1. This individual has read Dave Barrys' Guide to Guys one too many times.
2. He FULLY qualifies as a "Guy".
3. He is clearly not married.
Bill
Err, I can left click on a link, or right click and select to open the link in a new window. (Or I can hit ctrl-n for a brand new window) what are you getting at anyway?
I am getting at the point that you seem opposed to having a tabbed browser add menu options to the existing right click feature, yet you don't seem to mind having your OS add extra menus to your taskber buttons. Additionally, in linux, you don't have to right click and select from a menu to open a new browser window, you just middle click.
Err...it's better than a bunch of tiny little buttons, with the browser's icons scattered among other apps, none of which are big enough to read
Umm, precisely the benefit of tabbed browser chief and there is no need for me to open a taskbar menu and read through it to find my page of choice. All my web pages are easily selectable from the main browser window. No extra menus or crowded taskbars.
I guess my issue with your post is the double speak. You promote having to open an additional taskbar icon menu to see your compressed options as a feature of XP's taskbar. However, you seem to be repulsed at the idea of having right click menus add a few features like open in new tab (foreground/backdround)
So which is it? Is more clicks and menus better? Or is less clicks and menus better?
I prefer less clicks and menus to move around.
A tabbed browser eliminates the toolbar clutter, speeds page switching, eliminates desktop clutter. Ever had 25 web pages open at once? Kinda tough on the desktop useability with SDI browsers.
I was not trying to imply that you used the toy os thing. That line just came across wrong. It was a general comment with toy quoted as that has been applied to linux before and my opinion is that in many areas linux offers better useability than windows.
Bill
I don't see much of a benefit for MDI. (And I hope if it's "only an option", there's a way to hide it, so every time I right click a link I don't get an extra "open in new tab in this window" link along with the usual "open in new window" etc)
Oh, are you using an OS that makes you click more than once and select from a menu to open a new window?
With XP and its pretty darn clever taskbar management (group like windows on the taskbar, and then collapsing multiple windows into a single task bar entry and making a little minimenu off of that)
How exactly do you define clever? So let's see, you have 14 web pages open and before you can determine what they contain, you have to move to the OS toolbar and then click it to get a menu and then search the menu to find the doc you want and then click that? Gee, that really is clever!
Thanks, but no. I will stick with my "toy" OS that allows a single click to open new windows and with a 4 meg browser that does not compress all my open windows into one clever, hidden mass menu.
Two IDE drives cannot R/W at the same time on one channel. This has been explained like a million times. If Drive A is reading at a full 50MB/sec, it is using the Channel during that time period. The other drive is idle. For Drive B to R/W on that channel, Drive A has to stop R/W and let B use the channel. Two 50MB/sec IDE drives on one channel will NOT yield anything but 50 MB/sec xfer.
For proof of this particular shortcoming, try a large file copy between two IDE drives on one channel. Assuming two identical HD's, the xfer will take twice as long compared to those same drives on seperate channels.
The reason? ONLY ONE DRIVE CAN ACCESS THE CHANNEL AT ANY GIVEN TIME! If drive a is reading at 50MB/sec, it needs the channel for the entire second, drive B will not get a chance to transfer any data until Drive A is done.
In all reality, trying to read from two IDE drives on the same channel gives really bad performance due to the overhead of the drives actively taking control of the channel.
So two 50MB/sec drives being asked to read at the same time will not even yield 50MB/sec, but more like 30MB/sec as so much time is lost in switching which drive is talking on the bus.
"Not that I don't like MS or think they broke the law in this and many other cases, but AFAIK that BSD tcp stack thing is a myth"
I am no expert, but, fyodor@insecure.org, author of nmap seems to indicate that the IP stack in NT was that same as BSD.
BD
Sorry chief, if Sony owned ~90% of the toaster market and all toastable food came preformed to only fit their toaster and then they decided to add a special sony TV that only received Sony channels to the side of the toaster thereby making anyone who wants a toaster also ahve to purchase and use a SONY tv, thats an abuse of monopoly power and thereby ILLEGAL
If cable companys did not have to be so damned greedy and want EVERYTHING, they could have the best of both worlds.
If they took the stance of "We provide the wire, you provide our customers Internet", they could make a killing, never have to make capitol outlays, not provide support beyond what they already offer to their customer base.
The ISP's that want access have to pay the Wire Provider for their access and usage. Let the ISP's fight it out with price wars and Network problems like virus infections, hardware failures, etc.
It is nearly an investment free source of revenue. Yes, it would not be as profitable in the longterm, but it would provide a huge revenue stream nearly risk free.
Maybe it's just me, or maybe I a wrong on how they HAVE to provide access, but if I owned all the wire, I would lease it's usage and just provide TV. My customers get to choose their ISP and have broadband internet, they are happy. The ISP's get to fight it out for my customer base, they are happy with me. I get revenue, I am happy.
If he starts yapping about HURDS & HIRDS, opps, I mean GNU/HURDS & GNU/HIRDS, I am gonna lose what little mind I have left.
We really need a, ummm, living in the 90's, public spokesperson. I like these guys, but come on. They are freaky! Let's hope he does not read his example letter to someone that sends you an email with a.doc attachment. People will RIOT for his arrest.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I read the google cache and can't find any details, but there are three very obvious points to be made here. 1. This individual has read Dave Barrys' Guide to Guys one too many times. 2. He FULLY qualifies as a "Guy". 3. He is clearly not married. Bill
Err, I can left click on a link, or right click and select to open the link in a new window. (Or I can hit ctrl-n for a brand new window) what are you getting at anyway? I am getting at the point that you seem opposed to having a tabbed browser add menu options to the existing right click feature, yet you don't seem to mind having your OS add extra menus to your taskber buttons. Additionally, in linux, you don't have to right click and select from a menu to open a new browser window, you just middle click. Err...it's better than a bunch of tiny little buttons, with the browser's icons scattered among other apps, none of which are big enough to read Umm, precisely the benefit of tabbed browser chief and there is no need for me to open a taskbar menu and read through it to find my page of choice. All my web pages are easily selectable from the main browser window. No extra menus or crowded taskbars. I guess my issue with your post is the double speak. You promote having to open an additional taskbar icon menu to see your compressed options as a feature of XP's taskbar. However, you seem to be repulsed at the idea of having right click menus add a few features like open in new tab (foreground/backdround) So which is it? Is more clicks and menus better? Or is less clicks and menus better? I prefer less clicks and menus to move around. A tabbed browser eliminates the toolbar clutter, speeds page switching, eliminates desktop clutter. Ever had 25 web pages open at once? Kinda tough on the desktop useability with SDI browsers. I was not trying to imply that you used the toy os thing. That line just came across wrong. It was a general comment with toy quoted as that has been applied to linux before and my opinion is that in many areas linux offers better useability than windows. Bill
I don't see much of a benefit for MDI. (And I hope if it's "only an option", there's a way to hide it, so every time I right click a link I don't get an extra "open in new tab in this window" link along with the usual "open in new window" etc)
Oh, are you using an OS that makes you click more than once and select from a menu to open a new window?
With XP and its pretty darn clever taskbar management (group like windows on the taskbar, and then collapsing multiple windows into a single task bar entry and making a little minimenu off of that)
How exactly do you define clever? So let's see, you have 14 web pages open and before you can determine what they contain, you have to move to the OS toolbar and then click it to get a menu and then search the menu to find the doc you want and then click that? Gee, that really is clever!
Thanks, but no. I will stick with my "toy" OS that allows a single click to open new windows and with a 4 meg browser that does not compress all my open windows into one clever, hidden mass menu.
Bill
Wrong, Wrong and WRONG!!!
Two IDE drives cannot R/W at the same time on one channel. This has been explained like a million times. If Drive A is reading at a full 50MB/sec, it is using the Channel during that time period. The other drive is idle. For Drive B to R/W on that channel, Drive A has to stop R/W and let B use the channel. Two 50MB/sec IDE drives on one channel will NOT yield anything but 50 MB/sec xfer.
For proof of this particular shortcoming, try a large file copy between two IDE drives on one channel. Assuming two identical HD's, the xfer will take twice as long compared to those same drives on seperate channels.
The reason? ONLY ONE DRIVE CAN ACCESS THE CHANNEL AT ANY GIVEN TIME! If drive a is reading at 50MB/sec, it needs the channel for the entire second, drive B will not get a chance to transfer any data until Drive A is done.
In all reality, trying to read from two IDE drives on the same channel gives really bad performance due to the overhead of the drives actively taking control of the channel.
So two 50MB/sec drives being asked to read at the same time will not even yield 50MB/sec, but more like 30MB/sec as so much time is lost in switching which drive is talking on the bus.
Bill
"Not that I don't like MS or think they broke the law in this and many other cases, but AFAIK that BSD tcp stack thing is a myth" I am no expert, but, fyodor@insecure.org, author of nmap seems to indicate that the IP stack in NT was that same as BSD. BD
Sorry chief, if Sony owned ~90% of the toaster market and all toastable food came preformed to only fit their toaster and then they decided to add a special sony TV that only received Sony channels to the side of the toaster thereby making anyone who wants a toaster also ahve to purchase and use a SONY tv, thats an abuse of monopoly power and thereby ILLEGAL
What a stupid fucking arguement!!!!!
Are you a total potato head or what? How many OEM's have NO clue what OS is installed on a comptuer they sell?
Try this exchange with tech support and go back to downloading security patches for your candy ass windows machine!
"What MODEL did you buy?"
"Model 1234"
"Ok, that model came with Mozilla and Netscape. What is the problem you are having?"
If cable companys did not have to be so damned greedy and want EVERYTHING, they could have the best of both worlds.
If they took the stance of "We provide the wire, you provide our customers Internet", they could make a killing, never have to make capitol outlays, not provide support beyond what they already offer to their customer base.
The ISP's that want access have to pay the Wire Provider for their access and usage. Let the ISP's fight it out with price wars and Network problems like virus infections, hardware failures, etc.
It is nearly an investment free source of revenue. Yes, it would not be as profitable in the longterm, but it would provide a huge revenue stream nearly risk free.
Maybe it's just me, or maybe I a wrong on how they HAVE to provide access, but if I owned all the wire, I would lease it's usage and just provide TV. My customers get to choose their ISP and have broadband internet, they are happy. The ISP's get to fight it out for my customer base, they are happy with me. I get revenue, I am happy.
Bill
If he starts yapping about HURDS & HIRDS, opps, I mean GNU/HURDS & GNU/HIRDS, I am gonna lose what little mind I have left. We really need a, ummm, living in the 90's, public spokesperson. I like these guys, but come on. They are freaky! Let's hope he does not read his example letter to someone that sends you an email with a .doc attachment. People will RIOT for his arrest.