I think it boils down to the core concept that "users do not want to use a computer". From this leads designers to think of ways of alleviating redundancies and mundanity and in its place add comfort and features. The Mac UI really was a significant milestone for computers when it was first introduced. The GUI concept was a long time in coming and the Mac was so far ahead of the rest that it is only the lack of business acumen of the folks at Apple that hampered such a revolutionary product.
Even today the interface is still significantly different and better than the alternatives. The concept of only a single window frame with a single menu bar at the top of the screen is easy for new users to grok. The reduction of mouse buttons to one makes such things as "Press the right-click... nono the button on the right... no, don't double click it, only click it once... no, press Control-Z to undo that... no, just stop touching the computer until I can come over, mom" a thing of the past. Who would have thought that a seemingly backwards step as the single mouse button would be such a revolutionary step forward for computing?
It's almost like Apple has sucked all the brainpower out of Silicon Valley and packed it all into their Macintosh line. I have never owned a Mac, but I have many friends who do and who constantly rave about how much they love it. And I believe deep down that the reason they love it so much is because fundamentally they hate computers, but their Mac behaves unlike any other computer out there. It does its job and gets out of the way, unlike other operating systems which force you to spend half your time fiddling with screen refresh rates and Config menus just to get down to your real business.
Why should anyone be surprised that a company that makes its money off of proprietary designs should be at odds with a movement to wrest control away from proprietary vendors?
Isn't this why Stallman insists on running only Free software?
I'm working on a project that will use broadband services to deliver digital cable TV and internet services. In fact, I'm trying to wrap my head around the TS packet structure for the transform filter.
Back a few years ago, these speed increases really meant something. It meant the difference between waiting for the OS to finish some task and being able to use the computer without much noticeable latency. These days, the difference just isn't as staggering.
I will admit, though, that if you use KDE/Linux there are some things that could definitely use a speed-up like switching between apps and loading the GUI shell. However, beyond that, modern operating systems work just fine with today's processors.
The argument to this is always "what if you're doing serious number crunching or graphical rendering?", but the answer to that is that there are dedicated DSPs out there that can perform those computations much more efficiently than the CPU. Relying on the CPU to give good Quake framerates is like relying on your auto-body shop to soup up your ricer. Yes, there are some increases in performance, but the real horsepower behind these things lies in the video card and engine, not in the CPU and rice spoiler.
I'm all for improvements in chip technology, but software lags so far behind the capabilities of modern CPUs that it's preposterous to climb on the upgrade cycle, regardless of the circumstances.
It's like as soon as GWB came into office, the folks at NASA have really come into their own as space farers. We've had successful mission upon successful mission for the past 3 years. At the same time other countries are struggling to do the same things and failing, for the most part.
He's got one shot left (four if rumors are to be believed), but I don't see why this is so. Any other director would have been laughed out on his ass for ruining a film series as epic as Star Wars, yet Lucas fucks it up again and again.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it boils down to the core concept that "users do not want to use a computer". From this leads designers to think of ways of alleviating redundancies and mundanity and in its place add comfort and features. The Mac UI really was a significant milestone for computers when it was first introduced. The GUI concept was a long time in coming and the Mac was so far ahead of the rest that it is only the lack of business acumen of the folks at Apple that hampered such a revolutionary product.
Even today the interface is still significantly different and better than the alternatives. The concept of only a single window frame with a single menu bar at the top of the screen is easy for new users to grok. The reduction of mouse buttons to one makes such things as "Press the right-click... nono the button on the right... no, don't double click it, only click it once... no, press Control-Z to undo that... no, just stop touching the computer until I can come over, mom" a thing of the past. Who would have thought that a seemingly backwards step as the single mouse button would be such a revolutionary step forward for computing?
It's almost like Apple has sucked all the brainpower out of Silicon Valley and packed it all into their Macintosh line. I have never owned a Mac, but I have many friends who do and who constantly rave about how much they love it. And I believe deep down that the reason they love it so much is because fundamentally they hate computers, but their Mac behaves unlike any other computer out there. It does its job and gets out of the way, unlike other operating systems which force you to spend half your time fiddling with screen refresh rates and Config menus just to get down to your real business.
The Japanese who, like the rest of the modern world, switched to metric years ago?
Or the American designers who couldn't even do simple multiplication in order to convert from English to Metric?
Why should anyone be surprised that a company that makes its money off of proprietary designs should be at odds with a movement to wrest control away from proprietary vendors?
Isn't this why Stallman insists on running only Free software?
(typing this on a Centrino-based WinXP laptop)
I'm working on a project that will use broadband services to deliver digital cable TV and internet services. In fact, I'm trying to wrap my head around the TS packet structure for the transform filter.
Back a few years ago, these speed increases really meant something. It meant the difference between waiting for the OS to finish some task and being able to use the computer without much noticeable latency. These days, the difference just isn't as staggering.
I will admit, though, that if you use KDE/Linux there are some things that could definitely use a speed-up like switching between apps and loading the GUI shell. However, beyond that, modern operating systems work just fine with today's processors.
The argument to this is always "what if you're doing serious number crunching or graphical rendering?", but the answer to that is that there are dedicated DSPs out there that can perform those computations much more efficiently than the CPU. Relying on the CPU to give good Quake framerates is like relying on your auto-body shop to soup up your ricer. Yes, there are some increases in performance, but the real horsepower behind these things lies in the video card and engine, not in the CPU and rice spoiler.
I'm all for improvements in chip technology, but software lags so far behind the capabilities of modern CPUs that it's preposterous to climb on the upgrade cycle, regardless of the circumstances.
It's like as soon as GWB came into office, the folks at NASA have really come into their own as space farers. We've had successful mission upon successful mission for the past 3 years. At the same time other countries are struggling to do the same things and failing, for the most part.
He let us down with ROTK.
All was forgiven and he let us down with TPM.
All was forgiven and he let us down with AOTC.
He's got one shot left (four if rumors are to be believed), but I don't see why this is so. Any other director would have been laughed out on his ass for ruining a film series as epic as Star Wars, yet Lucas fucks it up again and again.
I'm saving my money this time.
Reminds me of my days back as a junior QA kid.
Fails on test machines
But works when Dev visits me
Can we ship the Dev?
The topic is Perl
What's the deal with Perl? Is it
good or is it whack?
If I win can I
get a job at Activestate
and weed in BC?
One 'l' in Randal
Like there's one 'l' in Larry
RTFM, Newb.
Hash, pound, bang, and slash
Why does Perl sound so angry?
The Parrot will die.
Perl Haikus are easy
Just think of those condescen-
ding UNIX users.
I wrote a program
Load it with mod_perl... what the.?
Why doesn't it work?
Wrote a script in May
The damn program broke today
Can't grok my own code
Is it just me or
do HERE docs make any sense?
sprintf for me
In constant time with
Quantum::Superpositions
Cops seek Damian
Let us rewrite Perl.
Years pass, Topaz does not shine,
but Perl 5 still works
Sand in an oyster
makes pearls. Idea in Lar-
ry's head makes this crap.
We went to Hooters
The cute waitress sold her shirt
One more wings plate, please.
Purl Gurl, Gozilla
Same person behind the name
Uri, do you care?
"Perl" not "PERL", bozo
Capital P E R L
not acceptable
Damn CLPM
I just wanted to know how
to run CGI
So we establish "standard procedures" to deal with a standard gamut of attacks. That's great.
Are we so naive to believe that following such advice will make us secure?