Except that the guys at Opera didn't "do the tabbed thing first": they did an MDI interface. It's incorrect to assume these are equivalent: MS Word '97 had an MDI too, but I don't see anyone claiming that was a tabbed interface.
It's not entirely clear to me from the Wikipedia article just exactly who did implement the first real tabbed interface in a browser, but it's quite clear that it wasn't Opera. Or Firefox. Or IE7. Which, I think, is the point Hachamovich was trying to make in the first place: the question of whether IE7 or Firefox had a tabbed interface first and who "ripped off" whom is largely irrelevant -- if anything, both are "ripping off" an entire series of earlier innovators.
That's somewhat akin to claiming that there's no real difference between X and the CLI because both allow you to invoke multiple programs concurrently. It's true as far as it goes, but there's a world of difference in user experience and workflow.
As I pointed out in another comment above, MDI != TDI. (Safari with tabs disabled is a good example of an MDI browser.)
Your quoting strategy seems somewhat over-selective. Scan down another line, and you'll see this:
"These pioneers were followed by a number of others like IBrowse in 1999, Opera in 2000 (with the release of version 4), Mozilla in 2001 (through the MultiZilla extension in April of 2001 and a built-in tabbed browsing mode added to Mozilla 0.9.5 in October of 2001), Konqueror 3.1 in January 2003, and Safari in 2003."
I'm afraid your reading comprehension is a little weak -- the wiki page doesn't say what you claim it does.
Yes, Opera released an MDI-based browser in 1996, a year before NetCaptor released the first tabbed MDI (or 'TDI') browser. MDI doesn't mean 'tabbed interface'. TDIs are a particular implementation/representation of the Multiple Document Interface (or MDI) paradigm: all TDIs are MDIs, but not all MDIs are TDIs.
Re: "Point A": I wouldn't necessarily make that assumption -- in fact, if evidence like this is to be believed, VBR AAC will in some, if not most, cases be larger than CBR at the same bitrate settings. Speculation that Apple's "VBR" is in fact a variant of the comparatively-inefficient class of ABR algorithms is also worth noting, though I can't speak to its veracity.
A) You didn't specify VBR AAC -- you claimed it was a 160Kbps AAC, implying CBR. B) Even if both were VBR, the comparison is strained, if not completely meaningless, due to differences between MP3 and AAC VBR algorithms. You can claim that 160Kbps VBR AAC sounds better than 160Kbps MP3 (I won't comment on that assertion), but you can't claim that it's "smaller" than MP3: by definition an instantaneous bitrate of 160Kbps is going to occupy the exact same amount of diskspace for AAC, MP3, or any other codec.
Plus, a massive PR boon to the US offshore garment industry.
"Oh, those -- those aren't sewing machines; they're OLPC trainers."
Re:Apparently you don't know anything about WinFS
on
WinFS Gets the Axe
·
· Score: 1
Aside from disagreeing with my speculation on the intended scope of WinFS, I don't see where you think you're contradicting me; certainly not to the point where you could claim that I "don't know anything about WinFS." You can pls put your internet dick away now, thx.
I'd say that's a pretty specious argument in this context, given that Spotlight didn't innovate in any respect -- it provided the exact same functionality offered months earlier by Google Desktop Search and other similar tools under Windows. Given the variety of existing design patterns they had available to refine and improve upon, I'm honestly surprised they made as poor a showing as they did with Spotlight.
So, having done a little more research, it turns out you're partially correct in asserting the existence of complex query syntax under Spotlight; how partially depends on how loosely you want to define "complex". Yes, you can specify additional keywords in addition to text content, but the permissible keywords only seem to address bog-standard file type and creation time metadata. In order to get anything even approaching the sophistication of Vista's metadata search, you need a third-party extension (like, e.g., SpotMeta).
I've used it, and that's not entirely accurate -- the leftmost pane is actually virtual folders/search. In early betas, Documents, Music, etc., were virtual folders by default, which would explain why those shortcuts existed there. (It's possible you're also conflating it with the "find file" dialogs in XP, which feature similar left-side shortcuts to common folders/locations like "My Computer", "My Documents", et al.)
Spotlight may allow for complex query syntax, but Vista's query builder is considerably more intuitive to use, and better integrated into Explorer. By contrast, Spotlight isn't directly integrated into the Finder at all -- in fact, in actual use, it seems more comparable to Vista's re-take on the Start menu. Furthermore, it seems possible to attach a far wider variety of searchable metadata to files in Vista than in Panther, from what I've seen so far. Admittedly I haven't dug very deeply into Panther's metadata facilities, so I could be wrong -- but that just goes back to my earlier point re: superior UI design: in Vista, you don't have to dig for it at all.
As for who had it first -- well, let's just note that MS demoed the functionality, from all accounts, a full year before Apple even announced they were working on Spotlight.
Allow me to correct myself: apparently 10.4's "smart folders" (a feature I haven't fully explored yet) function similarly to Vista's virtual folders. Still, I have to say I like Vista's UI for the feature better, as a matter of personal taste (I also prefer the Explorer to the Finder, so there you go).
Or maybe it's because, now that they've successfully grafted the most pertinent user interface features promised by WinFS -- namely, rich file metadata and virtual folders -- on to NTFS under Vista, accomplishing them on a filesystem level is no longer a top priority. Nor, perhaps, should it be: from a strategic perspective, it makes good sense to get users and developers comfortable with the benefits of a relational filesystem while still permitting them access to the familiar hierarchical filesystem, rather than switching them "cold turkey" to WinFS.
Given that they've clearly committed themselves to relational filesystem paradigms on a UI level in Vista (it's still there, even in Beta 2, and given how integral it is to the UI design, I don't see how they could possibly back out of it at this point), I suspect that WinFS or something like it must still be in the offing, if only for the performance benefits it would offer over NTFS in supporting that paradigm.
The reason drugs are outlawed isn't because they're bad for you, it's because of all the crime connected to selling them and using them.
...
The scary thing is, I think you're actually serious.
People like you truly amaze and frighten me -- how is it possible to have such an appallingly weak grasp of logic and still function day to day in the real world?
Slashdot Mirror
Except that the guys at Opera didn't "do the tabbed thing first": they did an MDI interface. It's incorrect to assume these are equivalent: MS Word '97 had an MDI too, but I don't see anyone claiming that was a tabbed interface.
It's not entirely clear to me from the Wikipedia article just exactly who did implement the first real tabbed interface in a browser, but it's quite clear that it wasn't Opera. Or Firefox. Or IE7. Which, I think, is the point Hachamovich was trying to make in the first place: the question of whether IE7 or Firefox had a tabbed interface first and who "ripped off" whom is largely irrelevant -- if anything, both are "ripping off" an entire series of earlier innovators.
That's somewhat akin to claiming that there's no real difference between X and the CLI because both allow you to invoke multiple programs concurrently. It's true as far as it goes, but there's a world of difference in user experience and workflow.
Your quoting strategy seems somewhat over-selective. Scan down another line, and you'll see this:
I'm afraid your reading comprehension is a little weak -- the wiki page doesn't say what you claim it does.
Yes, Opera released an MDI-based browser in 1996, a year before NetCaptor released the first tabbed MDI (or 'TDI') browser. MDI doesn't mean 'tabbed interface'. TDIs are a particular implementation/representation of the Multiple Document Interface (or MDI) paradigm: all TDIs are MDIs, but not all MDIs are TDIs.
...Attempt to provoke reaction with a stupid question, easily satisfied by a quick Google search, get modded "Interesting".
Call a troll a troll, get modded "Troll".
Slashlogic at its finest.
Only for the last five or six years.
Welcome to the table, troll.
Those damned, dirty apes!
Re: "Point A": I wouldn't necessarily make that assumption -- in fact, if evidence like this is to be believed, VBR AAC will in some, if not most, cases be larger than CBR at the same bitrate settings. Speculation that Apple's "VBR" is in fact a variant of the comparatively-inefficient class of ABR algorithms is also worth noting, though I can't speak to its veracity.
A) You didn't specify VBR AAC -- you claimed it was a 160Kbps AAC, implying CBR.
B) Even if both were VBR, the comparison is strained, if not completely meaningless, due to differences between MP3 and AAC VBR algorithms. You can claim that 160Kbps VBR AAC sounds better than 160Kbps MP3 (I won't comment on that assertion), but you can't claim that it's "smaller" than MP3: by definition an instantaneous bitrate of 160Kbps is going to occupy the exact same amount of diskspace for AAC, MP3, or any other codec.
Clearly you don't understand what 'VBR' stands for, or you wouldn't be making that idiotic comparison.
For enterprise desktop deployment? Easy. ImageX/WIM.
An extremely faithful Enigma simulator: http://users.telenet.be/d.rijmenants/en/enigmasim. htm
Yeah, I can't wait to pay for the privelege of downloading music from artists so indie they can't even get signed to a boutique label.
Wait, when did either of those examples ever become problems, let alone overblown?
Plus, a massive PR boon to the US offshore garment industry.
"Oh, those -- those aren't sewing machines; they're OLPC trainers."
Aside from disagreeing with my speculation on the intended scope of WinFS, I don't see where you think you're contradicting me; certainly not to the point where you could claim that I "don't know anything about WinFS." You can pls put your internet dick away now, thx.
I'd say that's a pretty specious argument in this context, given that Spotlight didn't innovate in any respect -- it provided the exact same functionality offered months earlier by Google Desktop Search and other similar tools under Windows. Given the variety of existing design patterns they had available to refine and improve upon, I'm honestly surprised they made as poor a showing as they did with Spotlight.
And in what sense does the existence of a third-party tool address the deficiencies of Apple's UI design, dipstick?
So, having done a little more research, it turns out you're partially correct in asserting the existence of complex query syntax under Spotlight; how partially depends on how loosely you want to define "complex". Yes, you can specify additional keywords in addition to text content, but the permissible keywords only seem to address bog-standard file type and creation time metadata. In order to get anything even approaching the sophistication of Vista's metadata search, you need a third-party extension (like, e.g., SpotMeta).
I've used it, and that's not entirely accurate -- the leftmost pane is actually virtual folders/search. In early betas, Documents, Music, etc., were virtual folders by default, which would explain why those shortcuts existed there. (It's possible you're also conflating it with the "find file" dialogs in XP, which feature similar left-side shortcuts to common folders/locations like "My Computer", "My Documents", et al.)
Spotlight may allow for complex query syntax, but Vista's query builder is considerably more intuitive to use, and better integrated into Explorer. By contrast, Spotlight isn't directly integrated into the Finder at all -- in fact, in actual use, it seems more comparable to Vista's re-take on the Start menu. Furthermore, it seems possible to attach a far wider variety of searchable metadata to files in Vista than in Panther, from what I've seen so far. Admittedly I haven't dug very deeply into Panther's metadata facilities, so I could be wrong -- but that just goes back to my earlier point re: superior UI design: in Vista, you don't have to dig for it at all.
As for who had it first -- well, let's just note that MS demoed the functionality, from all accounts, a full year before Apple even announced they were working on Spotlight.
Yes -- see my own response to my comment, above.
Allow me to correct myself: apparently 10.4's "smart folders" (a feature I haven't fully explored yet) function similarly to Vista's virtual folders. Still, I have to say I like Vista's UI for the feature better, as a matter of personal taste (I also prefer the Explorer to the Finder, so there you go).
Why is this funny? It's pretty much exactly what they have done, only, astonishingly, they implemented it better than Spotlight.
I've used Spotlight, and it's handy, but please -- wake me when it allows complex queries and the ability to save those queries as virtual folders.
Or maybe it's because, now that they've successfully grafted the most pertinent user interface features promised by WinFS -- namely, rich file metadata and virtual folders -- on to NTFS under Vista, accomplishing them on a filesystem level is no longer a top priority. Nor, perhaps, should it be: from a strategic perspective, it makes good sense to get users and developers comfortable with the benefits of a relational filesystem while still permitting them access to the familiar hierarchical filesystem, rather than switching them "cold turkey" to WinFS.
Given that they've clearly committed themselves to relational filesystem paradigms on a UI level in Vista (it's still there, even in Beta 2, and given how integral it is to the UI design, I don't see how they could possibly back out of it at this point), I suspect that WinFS or something like it must still be in the offing, if only for the performance benefits it would offer over NTFS in supporting that paradigm.
The reason drugs are outlawed isn't because they're bad for you, it's because of all the crime connected to selling them and using them.
...
The scary thing is, I think you're actually serious.
People like you truly amaze and frighten me -- how is it possible to have such an appallingly weak grasp of logic and still function day to day in the real world?