It's pretty important to me. The thing is, I highly doubt that ODF is naturally slower than MS's format. They're both XML, right? How can one take that much longer to parse?
In fact, the study cited doesn't even refer to "the speed of ODF". It's about OO.o's speed only.
Presentation is important, but there's such a thing as overkill. If you feel the need to display so many graphics that today's image formats don't cut it, then a web page may not be your medium. Even porn, which you might call graphically intensive, seems to do all right. If glitz is your thing then Flash might be a good option, but there's a reason that so many people hate flash pages. Flash does flashy well, but flashy isn't always (or even usually) best.
"...color and graphics, style and presentation, choice of images, all contribute to the tone and meaning and emotion...." Yes, but quantity != quality. A few well chosen graphics will probably go a lot farther than an extravaganza of flashing lights and 24 frame per second animations. One could argue that the blink tag and marquees provide a similar kind of flexibility of expression, but good old italics seem to be a bit more popular than either of those.
Better image compression is always good, but if your prime reason for wanting it is to add more! more! more! then your priorities may need to be reevaluated.
That would be horrible for the next generation of web sites. There is absolutely no reason for most pages to be filled with that kind of cruft, since most of us communicate via text, and not with pictograms or something. A few header graphics and lots of body text is all that most sites need. The last thing we need is any easy way for web designers to spiral [even more] out of control.
Flash memory and RAM aren't the same thing though. As far as I know, RAM doesn't have a limited number of writes, but flash is only guaranteed for a million or so.
As I recall, the driver architecture is different. I think that's a good thing overall, since it's supposed to prevent shitty drivers from crashing the system, but it may take a little while for the drivers to show up.
Apples and oranges. Vista is an all-new system, and it's closed source and proprietary on top of that. Dapper isn't a huge change from Breezy, from a driver standpoint, and devs had access to all the code involved all along anyway. Vista is introducing a whole new driver model. Besides, even if the drivers are written, why would hardware manufacturers be realeasing drivers for an OS that's not even finished, much less released? I'm not a big fan of Microsoft, but it doesn't make any sense to criticise them for this.
If the goal is to use computers to communicate effectively then the most basic thing they have to know is how to communicate in the first place. Many people will never need to know more than how to use a word processor or send an email, but they will need to know how to write in those programs. It's not computer specific, but I think writing skill is the most important part of effective computer-based communication.
Security training is also pretty important. Users need to know when their actions are likely to compromise their computers, and they need to know why.
After that, I think it would be valuable if everyone were taught basic stuff like installing printers and how to work a command line. A little programming would be nice. I wouldn't try to teach this at anything lower than a college level though. Younger students will just get their geeky friends to do it for them, because they won't care to learn it.
My thought as well. I hear people complaining about how Apple has adopted a random mix of its brushed metal skin and that other one, or how their KDE apps don't look right in Gnome (or vice versa). It's about time Microsoft got with the program. Come to think of it, they're doing pretty well. The control panel in XP looks like nothing else on the system, tray icons have those funny little speech bubbles that don't appear elsewhere, Windows Media Player has its own interface, Office is bizarre and unique, and who knows what else is coming in Vista. I don't know if it all means that consistent UIs are over-rated or that everyone is horrible at interface design.
It would be nice if people would check for a link to an all-on-one-page printer friendly version and include that too when they submit articles to Slashdot. Not because I want to print it, but because I don't want to click through to read the whole thing.
I don't know if you've tried the Filterset.g updater extension, but I've found it to be a real time saver. It updates Adblock with a list of ad servers so you don't have to. The only ads I've seen since installing it have been quirky ones that are actually served by the domain I'm visiting.
You didn't RTFA either, did you? The ads won't play unless the user activates them. They won't catch anyone's eye unless they are actually clicked on by the consumer. Meaning they'll take just as much clicking as ever before.
It matters to anyone who was hoping for useful limited user accounts in Vista, because if they have to use them then there's a chance that they'll actually work.
I'd be surprised if the video was loaded before clicking the play button. It seems like an enormous waste of bandwidth to download something that won't get watched.
I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean it's easier because it's often at the top of the screen? I tend to over- or undershoot when it's not. Yes, I guess it would be easier at the top. I think I'll just build it and try it out for myself, because I'm not sure how well I understand the system.
Re:Aw, you gave up way too soon
on
Acme for Windows
·
· Score: 1
This software only needs one thing -- a good way to trick unsuspecting people into trying to use it!
Hey, what if we wrote it up and put it on Slashdot?
Actually, I'm pretty good at the dragging part. It's getting to the word in the first place that trips me up. Still, I guess it might be a little easier, horizontally speaking.
I don't know about this...
on
Acme for Windows
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I just don't get the idea of a text editor that relies heavily on the mouse. Keyboard shortcuts seem like a much better idea, since your hands are already on the keyboard when you type. Plus, I find it difficult to quickly click on text with the mouse, since it consists of a bunch of tiny little rows and letters. I tried Sam (another mouse-centric text editor) for a while, and while I thought mouse chording was a really neat idea (one I'd like to see applied more often, although it's not really possible with my touchpad), I never did get to like mouse-based text selection. Does anyone who has got the hang of it want to enlighten me? Whenever I click on text I end up way off, but in the general area, and have to slowly move in on it. Do you get much more precise with practice?
I agree, although I wasn't actually arguing about whether CGI actors can be exactly the same as a human actor (at least I don't think I was), but more about whether they can emote as well. Actually, I think that the exaggerations possible with a CGI or traditionally animated character offer great oppurtunities for conveying expression. That's not to say that I think real actors will become obsolete or that animated characters are better, but I expect to see some great stuff when CGI can look real (in a material, shape, and lighting way), but break with reality in other ways.
Slashdot Mirror
It's pretty important to me. The thing is, I highly doubt that ODF is naturally slower than MS's format. They're both XML, right? How can one take that much longer to parse?
In fact, the study cited doesn't even refer to "the speed of ODF". It's about OO.o's speed only.
Yet again, MS is blaming the format for OO.o's failings. Hell, I don't like OO.o much myself. I like ODF though.
Ugh. Yes, the textgifs popped right into my head.
I wonder if his messed up numbers come from his mistaken belief that a millisecond is three orders of magnitude smaller than it is.
Presentation is important, but there's such a thing as overkill. If you feel the need to display so many graphics that today's image formats don't cut it, then a web page may not be your medium. Even porn, which you might call graphically intensive, seems to do all right. If glitz is your thing then Flash might be a good option, but there's a reason that so many people hate flash pages. Flash does flashy well, but flashy isn't always (or even usually) best.
"...color and graphics, style and presentation, choice of images, all contribute to the tone and meaning and emotion...." Yes, but quantity != quality. A few well chosen graphics will probably go a lot farther than an extravaganza of flashing lights and 24 frame per second animations. One could argue that the blink tag and marquees provide a similar kind of flexibility of expression, but good old italics seem to be a bit more popular than either of those.
Better image compression is always good, but if your prime reason for wanting it is to add more! more! more! then your priorities may need to be reevaluated.
That would be horrible for the next generation of web sites. There is absolutely no reason for most pages to be filled with that kind of cruft, since most of us communicate via text, and not with pictograms or something. A few header graphics and lots of body text is all that most sites need. The last thing we need is any easy way for web designers to spiral [even more] out of control.
Oh, and you're wrong about what a solid state drive is. It's lots and lots of flash memory, with no battery, since it doesn't need one.
Flash memory and RAM aren't the same thing though. As far as I know, RAM doesn't have a limited number of writes, but flash is only guaranteed for a million or so.
There's a magnetic field you've been missing.
As I recall, the driver architecture is different. I think that's a good thing overall, since it's supposed to prevent shitty drivers from crashing the system, but it may take a little while for the drivers to show up.
Apples and oranges. Vista is an all-new system, and it's closed source and proprietary on top of that. Dapper isn't a huge change from Breezy, from a driver standpoint, and devs had access to all the code involved all along anyway. Vista is introducing a whole new driver model. Besides, even if the drivers are written, why would hardware manufacturers be realeasing drivers for an OS that's not even finished, much less released? I'm not a big fan of Microsoft, but it doesn't make any sense to criticise them for this.
If the goal is to use computers to communicate effectively then the most basic thing they have to know is how to communicate in the first place. Many people will never need to know more than how to use a word processor or send an email, but they will need to know how to write in those programs. It's not computer specific, but I think writing skill is the most important part of effective computer-based communication.
Security training is also pretty important. Users need to know when their actions are likely to compromise their computers, and they need to know why.
After that, I think it would be valuable if everyone were taught basic stuff like installing printers and how to work a command line. A little programming would be nice. I wouldn't try to teach this at anything lower than a college level though. Younger students will just get their geeky friends to do it for them, because they won't care to learn it.
My thought as well. I hear people complaining about how Apple has adopted a random mix of its brushed metal skin and that other one, or how their KDE apps don't look right in Gnome (or vice versa). It's about time Microsoft got with the program. Come to think of it, they're doing pretty well. The control panel in XP looks like nothing else on the system, tray icons have those funny little speech bubbles that don't appear elsewhere, Windows Media Player has its own interface, Office is bizarre and unique, and who knows what else is coming in Vista. I don't know if it all means that consistent UIs are over-rated or that everyone is horrible at interface design.
It would be nice if people would check for a link to an all-on-one-page printer friendly version and include that too when they submit articles to Slashdot. Not because I want to print it, but because I don't want to click through to read the whole thing.
I don't know if you've tried the Filterset.g updater extension, but I've found it to be a real time saver. It updates Adblock with a list of ad servers so you don't have to. The only ads I've seen since installing it have been quirky ones that are actually served by the domain I'm visiting.
You didn't RTFA either, did you? The ads won't play unless the user activates them. They won't catch anyone's eye unless they are actually clicked on by the consumer. Meaning they'll take just as much clicking as ever before.
Why don't you just block the ads then?
It matters to anyone who was hoping for useful limited user accounts in Vista, because if they have to use them then there's a chance that they'll actually work.
I'd be surprised if the video was loaded before clicking the play button. It seems like an enormous waste of bandwidth to download something that won't get watched.
I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean it's easier because it's often at the top of the screen? I tend to over- or undershoot when it's not. Yes, I guess it would be easier at the top. I think I'll just build it and try it out for myself, because I'm not sure how well I understand the system.
This software only needs one thing -- a good way to trick unsuspecting people into trying to use it!
Hey, what if we wrote it up and put it on Slashdot?
It's not remotely similar. See http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/acme.html for details.
Actually, I'm pretty good at the dragging part. It's getting to the word in the first place that trips me up. Still, I guess it might be a little easier, horizontally speaking.
I just don't get the idea of a text editor that relies heavily on the mouse. Keyboard shortcuts seem like a much better idea, since your hands are already on the keyboard when you type. Plus, I find it difficult to quickly click on text with the mouse, since it consists of a bunch of tiny little rows and letters. I tried Sam (another mouse-centric text editor) for a while, and while I thought mouse chording was a really neat idea (one I'd like to see applied more often, although it's not really possible with my touchpad), I never did get to like mouse-based text selection. Does anyone who has got the hang of it want to enlighten me? Whenever I click on text I end up way off, but in the general area, and have to slowly move in on it. Do you get much more precise with practice?
I agree, although I wasn't actually arguing about whether CGI actors can be exactly the same as a human actor (at least I don't think I was), but more about whether they can emote as well. Actually, I think that the exaggerations possible with a CGI or traditionally animated character offer great oppurtunities for conveying expression. That's not to say that I think real actors will become obsolete or that animated characters are better, but I expect to see some great stuff when CGI can look real (in a material, shape, and lighting way), but break with reality in other ways.