I code on 2560x1024. I don't know how people get their work done with only 1 monitor. After having 2, you don't ever want to go back. I often wish that I had 3 monitors.
That would require that most of the people working on these systems not to be complete idiots. Having worked in the government sector, and knowing some people who work in different government agencies, I can estimate that about 80% of people working in the government have absolutely no idea what they're doing.
Yes, many government agencies rename themselves every 3 years in order to get an extra budget bonus to change all their stuff over to the new name. This includes business cards, websites, and a bunch of other stuff. I worked for one organization that seriously changed names not because they took on any more or less responsibility, but just because they thought the new name sounded better and they needed something to do.
There is major problems going from strings to dates. The system settings on windows affect all dates even when programming in.Net. So if you have one server set up with mm/dd/yyyy, and another set up as dd/mm/yyyy and convert a string to a date, you get different results. Myself, I always push for dates in the ISO standard format YYYY-MM-DD, which actually makes sense, as the units go from largest to smallest, and it makes the dates easily sortable. I've never understood either of the dd/mm/yy or mm/dd/yy formats. I always get them mixed up. Maybe i'll start writing time as mm:ss:hh and see if people can actually figure that one out.
Yeah, so now those 25x20 pixel icons will measure about 1/16 of an inch square. This makes me think of those people who run 1600x1200 15 inch screens. Everything becomes too small to see, but they claim they have much more usable space. Myself, I like to run my 17 inch monitor at 1280x1024, which is the same resolution I run on my 19 inch monitor.
I'd like to see you try to squeeze ms word on there. After the 3 rows of icons, the rulers, the status bar, the menu, the window frame and all the other junk, you don't have much space left to see the document on that screen. Same goes for most other windows applications. They are not made to be viewed on such a small screen. I think that for a computer of this size to be useful, the applications must be written to take advantage of the size of the screen, otherwise you will have serious usability problems. While I think it's good to be able to run any windows program, I wouldn't want to be using regular windows programs most of the time.
The difference is that there currently is no laptop-sized computer that weighs only 1.5 lbs. Most laptops weigh at least 5 lbs, with most I see weighing more than 7.
For that price, you could just get a PDA with keyboard and a laptop. I really don't see what this offers over a good PDA. It seems quite expensive for something that's basically a PDA. One point on the keyboard though. Most people I know, many people who use computers every day, even some developers, can't type properly, and use the hunt and peck method. I don't see this device slowing most people down.
Would running the water pump be louder than running the fans? I have some computers with fans that you can hardly hear. If only they had fans with seal bearings, so that they wouldn't start to make so much noise once they got filled with dust.
He still put out a bunch of music that sold pretty well after his TV career. He seems to have at least one hit song with each movie he puts out, like Wild Wild West, and Men In Black. Not my style of music, but it makes the top 30, so somebody must be listening.
Still, there's a lot of people who installed it, decided we liked it, and never used it again. It only says how many people installed it, not how many people are actively using it. I'm sure there's quite a few people who heard all this stuff about how good fedora is, that they went and installed it. But that doesn't really mean that they liked it.
I had been using Linux for about 2 years, and I recently only switched back to windows. The reason? Couldn't get my TV Tuner working properly under Linux. An Hauppauge PVR 150. It's supposed to work, and even though I tried a million things, I couldn't get it to work. It wasn't even a driver issue, because cat/dev/video0 > video.mpg worked fine. And it worked fine in mplayer, with reading from/dev/video0. The problem? couldn't find a program that actually could act as a good TV watching program that supported my card. XawTV, KDETV, MythTV, Freevo, and I think a couple others. None of them worked. I don't think I actually got MythTV to work. Installing a MySQL database is not something I should have to do to watch TV. Even with KnoppMyth, I couldn't get it to work.
I just went to windows. Bought SageTV, and I've had no problems since. Windows does have it's problems, and I still use VMWare for programs like Digikam, and Amarok, which I can't find a suitable replacement for in windows. But for the most part, I'm happier on Windows.
You've never seen the code of most windows apps have you? People do stupid things like assume the program is located in C:\Program Files. If it's not, the application doesn't work. Programmers, especially on platforms like.Net, don't understand things like different platforms. I'm sure a lot of apps out there would require major rewrites to work under Mono.
My games are fast enough. What I really want is fast video processing. Ever try converting from DVD to XVID? It takes forever. Even some of the filters in GIMP take forever to run. For most stuff current PCs have been fast enough for a while, but there's still some things that are really slow. Games are made to work on current hardware, and hence, are never that slow.
I use VMWare at home, although I'm sure somebody else will recommend QEMU, as it's also pretty good from what I hear, and it's open source. VMWare has a free version now, so there's no cost advantage here. as far as speed goes, well, you can't play DOOM3, but as far as testing web apps, you shouldn't notice any slowdowns, unless you're doing some heavy JS Processing. Most modern computers can handle this stuff quite well. If you have a 2 GHz machine, it probably runs at least as fast as a 1 GHz machine. So if you notice any slow downs, it' probably due to inefficiencies in your web application, and not in the VM.
The problem is that there's a lot of other stuff that has to understand the CPU for the computer to work properly. You'd need to be able to snap in different chipsets so that the CPU could actually work. You'd probably want to be able to plug in new ram too. As processors get faster and faster, they require more pins. No more 80 pin CPUS for us. If they designed a universal CPU slot today, it would either have twice as many pins as we needed, or we'd run out of pins within 2 years.
Is there any employer that wouldn't hire you because you couldn't list the rendering differences between IE and Safari? Couldn't you just use Linux with Konquerer in a VM to test on a Safari-like browser. Sure it's not exactly the same, but it's close enough. At least as close as any other two versions of Safari. If you're running a business, then surely you can afford a mac or two for testing. Get a Mac Mini, open up 4 users in Fast-User-Switching, each with their own VNC Server, and you immediately have 4 mac Terminals. It's not blazingly fast, but you're just testing a web app. If you don't run a business, don't fret, nobody cares if you don't know all the specific browser quirks of safari, just that you understand HTML and JS enough to fix browser quirks when they appear.
This is something I've never really gotten about modern web development environments. Why do they try to veer away from having the code output the HTML? Ruby on Rails has the Model View Controller idea in which the HTML is hard coded, and varibles are filled in..Net has well, drag and drop to design your webpage and put some code to control it in the back end. These are great for quick little apps, but fail when you need to customize the HTML, when different users need to see different things. Maybe I'm different because I'm used to the old ASP, and PHP, but I think it's much easier to do web apps when the code controls the output. Things seem to be a lot easier to customize when the code controls the HTML, rather than the other way around.
What i'm saying is that you should get it approved. It's not hard to make a business case if you can show that it will save you money, while costing the company absolutely nothing.
I think that manufacturers brought the warranty down to 1 year, but consumers started to get really mad, so they started to raise the warranties again. Here's some drives with 5 year warranties.
Doesn't the laws of physics prevent this? Wouldn't a shift of some of the molecules of air to one corner cause a partial vacuum (to some degree) in the rest of the room, causing the room to even itself out. Think of an empty room, with no openings, there'd be very little wind of any kind, apart from heat from the outside causing a little bit of air movement. How is it possible that this could happen?
So download and install Netbeans and the Java SDK, or get SharpDevelop if you prefer.Net. I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to make a business case of I can save 20+ hours a month, all for the low cost of $0.
Although as a web developer, I would love to just drop IE6, I think that a lot of businesses can't let it go by the wayside. There's a lot of people still using IE6, either because they don't want to upgrade, or can't upgrade (running win98/NT4/2000). There's a lot of companies that don't want to upgrade because they think it will break their apps that depend on ActiveX. 90% of the time, when I'm looking for a bug in a specific browser, it's with IE. I could save a lot of time if I just ignored problems in IE, but that would cut out a lot of people who visit sites I develop for.
I've never understood why companies base so many important applications off stuff like MS Office, or IE, or other apps that they don't have any control over. Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to design applications in an environment that isn't as likely to stop working? I hear this complaint all the time. We can't change to OO.o, because we have a critical business app written in Excel. Why do companies continually use office suites and specific web browsers as development platforms? This never ends up being a good idea. I can understand web apps, but there should never be a reason to make the require something in IE or NS or any other browser. Just code them to work with standard HTML/CSS/JS and you won't have all these upgrade problems.
Slashdot Mirror
I code on 2560x1024. I don't know how people get their work done with only 1 monitor. After having 2, you don't ever want to go back. I often wish that I had 3 monitors.
That would require that most of the people working on these systems not to be complete idiots. Having worked in the government sector, and knowing some people who work in different government agencies, I can estimate that about 80% of people working in the government have absolutely no idea what they're doing.
Yes, many government agencies rename themselves every 3 years in order to get an extra budget bonus to change all their stuff over to the new name. This includes business cards, websites, and a bunch of other stuff. I worked for one organization that seriously changed names not because they took on any more or less responsibility, but just because they thought the new name sounded better and they needed something to do.
There is major problems going from strings to dates. The system settings on windows affect all dates even when programming in .Net. So if you have one server set up with mm/dd/yyyy, and another set up as dd/mm/yyyy and convert a string to a date, you get different results. Myself, I always push for dates in the ISO standard format YYYY-MM-DD, which actually makes sense, as the units go from largest to smallest, and it makes the dates easily sortable. I've never understood either of the dd/mm/yy or mm/dd/yy formats. I always get them mixed up. Maybe i'll start writing time as mm:ss:hh and see if people can actually figure that one out.
Yeah, so now those 25x20 pixel icons will measure about 1/16 of an inch square. This makes me think of those people who run 1600x1200 15 inch screens. Everything becomes too small to see, but they claim they have much more usable space. Myself, I like to run my 17 inch monitor at 1280x1024, which is the same resolution I run on my 19 inch monitor.
I'd like to see you try to squeeze ms word on there. After the 3 rows of icons, the rulers, the status bar, the menu, the window frame and all the other junk, you don't have much space left to see the document on that screen. Same goes for most other windows applications. They are not made to be viewed on such a small screen. I think that for a computer of this size to be useful, the applications must be written to take advantage of the size of the screen, otherwise you will have serious usability problems. While I think it's good to be able to run any windows program, I wouldn't want to be using regular windows programs most of the time.
The difference is that there currently is no laptop-sized computer that weighs only 1.5 lbs. Most laptops weigh at least 5 lbs, with most I see weighing more than 7.
For that price, you could just get a PDA with keyboard and a laptop. I really don't see what this offers over a good PDA. It seems quite expensive for something that's basically a PDA. One point on the keyboard though. Most people I know, many people who use computers every day, even some developers, can't type properly, and use the hunt and peck method. I don't see this device slowing most people down.
Would running the water pump be louder than running the fans? I have some computers with fans that you can hardly hear. If only they had fans with seal bearings, so that they wouldn't start to make so much noise once they got filled with dust.
Oil on the other hand is a great insulator, and works quite well for cooling a computer.
He still put out a bunch of music that sold pretty well after his TV career. He seems to have at least one hit song with each movie he puts out, like Wild Wild West, and Men In Black. Not my style of music, but it makes the top 30, so somebody must be listening.
Still, there's a lot of people who installed it, decided we liked it, and never used it again. It only says how many people installed it, not how many people are actively using it. I'm sure there's quite a few people who heard all this stuff about how good fedora is, that they went and installed it. But that doesn't really mean that they liked it.
I had been using Linux for about 2 years, and I recently only switched back to windows. The reason? Couldn't get my TV Tuner working properly under Linux. An Hauppauge PVR 150. It's supposed to work, and even though I tried a million things, I couldn't get it to work. It wasn't even a driver issue, because cat /dev/video0 > video.mpg worked fine. And it worked fine in mplayer, with reading from /dev/video0. The problem? couldn't find a program that actually could act as a good TV watching program that supported my card. XawTV, KDETV, MythTV, Freevo, and I think a couple others. None of them worked. I don't think I actually got MythTV to work. Installing a MySQL database is not something I should have to do to watch TV. Even with KnoppMyth, I couldn't get it to work.
I just went to windows. Bought SageTV, and I've had no problems since. Windows does have it's problems, and I still use VMWare for programs like Digikam, and Amarok, which I can't find a suitable replacement for in windows. But for the most part, I'm happier on Windows.
You've never seen the code of most windows apps have you? People do stupid things like assume the program is located in C:\Program Files. If it's not, the application doesn't work. Programmers, especially on platforms like .Net, don't understand things like different platforms. I'm sure a lot of apps out there would require major rewrites to work under Mono.
My games are fast enough. What I really want is fast video processing. Ever try converting from DVD to XVID? It takes forever. Even some of the filters in GIMP take forever to run. For most stuff current PCs have been fast enough for a while, but there's still some things that are really slow. Games are made to work on current hardware, and hence, are never that slow.
I use VMWare at home, although I'm sure somebody else will recommend QEMU, as it's also pretty good from what I hear, and it's open source. VMWare has a free version now, so there's no cost advantage here. as far as speed goes, well, you can't play DOOM3, but as far as testing web apps, you shouldn't notice any slowdowns, unless you're doing some heavy JS Processing. Most modern computers can handle this stuff quite well. If you have a 2 GHz machine, it probably runs at least as fast as a 1 GHz machine. So if you notice any slow downs, it' probably due to inefficiencies in your web application, and not in the VM.
The problem is that there's a lot of other stuff that has to understand the CPU for the computer to work properly. You'd need to be able to snap in different chipsets so that the CPU could actually work. You'd probably want to be able to plug in new ram too. As processors get faster and faster, they require more pins. No more 80 pin CPUS for us. If they designed a universal CPU slot today, it would either have twice as many pins as we needed, or we'd run out of pins within 2 years.
Is there any employer that wouldn't hire you because you couldn't list the rendering differences between IE and Safari? Couldn't you just use Linux with Konquerer in a VM to test on a Safari-like browser. Sure it's not exactly the same, but it's close enough. At least as close as any other two versions of Safari. If you're running a business, then surely you can afford a mac or two for testing. Get a Mac Mini, open up 4 users in Fast-User-Switching, each with their own VNC Server, and you immediately have 4 mac Terminals. It's not blazingly fast, but you're just testing a web app. If you don't run a business, don't fret, nobody cares if you don't know all the specific browser quirks of safari, just that you understand HTML and JS enough to fix browser quirks when they appear.
This is something I've never really gotten about modern web development environments. Why do they try to veer away from having the code output the HTML? Ruby on Rails has the Model View Controller idea in which the HTML is hard coded, and varibles are filled in. .Net has well, drag and drop to design your webpage and put some code to control it in the back end. These are great for quick little apps, but fail when you need to customize the HTML, when different users need to see different things. Maybe I'm different because I'm used to the old ASP, and PHP, but I think it's much easier to do web apps when the code controls the output. Things seem to be a lot easier to customize when the code controls the HTML, rather than the other way around.
What i'm saying is that you should get it approved. It's not hard to make a business case if you can show that it will save you money, while costing the company absolutely nothing.
I think that manufacturers brought the warranty down to 1 year, but consumers started to get really mad, so they started to raise the warranties again. Here's some drives with 5 year warranties.
Doesn't the laws of physics prevent this? Wouldn't a shift of some of the molecules of air to one corner cause a partial vacuum (to some degree) in the rest of the room, causing the room to even itself out. Think of an empty room, with no openings, there'd be very little wind of any kind, apart from heat from the outside causing a little bit of air movement. How is it possible that this could happen?
So download and install Netbeans and the Java SDK, or get SharpDevelop if you prefer .Net. I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to make a business case of I can save 20+ hours a month, all for the low cost of $0.
Although as a web developer, I would love to just drop IE6, I think that a lot of businesses can't let it go by the wayside. There's a lot of people still using IE6, either because they don't want to upgrade, or can't upgrade (running win98/NT4/2000). There's a lot of companies that don't want to upgrade because they think it will break their apps that depend on ActiveX. 90% of the time, when I'm looking for a bug in a specific browser, it's with IE. I could save a lot of time if I just ignored problems in IE, but that would cut out a lot of people who visit sites I develop for.
I've never understood why companies base so many important applications off stuff like MS Office, or IE, or other apps that they don't have any control over. Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to design applications in an environment that isn't as likely to stop working? I hear this complaint all the time. We can't change to OO.o, because we have a critical business app written in Excel. Why do companies continually use office suites and specific web browsers as development platforms? This never ends up being a good idea. I can understand web apps, but there should never be a reason to make the require something in IE or NS or any other browser. Just code them to work with standard HTML/CSS/JS and you won't have all these upgrade problems.