I'm a fan of Java Web Start too. The best thing about it is that it was supposed to break the horrible applet cycle which browsers got into a while back. Netbanks could use a standalone app instead of forcing users to deal with a whole-page applet (sadly, this never happened, and said netbanks still use their shitty applets.)
But actually, in recent days, I've seen people bitch about the size of the JRE download. Add to that the size of the app download itself and you have a problem for people on thin pipes.
AJAX apps might not save bandwidth over the WebStart approach... Overall, you probably still end up using more bandwidth than the guy who downloaded all the code up-front. But the important thing is that you can start using the app now, not in an hour's time.
And AJAX does use a lot less bandwidth than your traditional pull-the-whole-page web application. So it's a reasonably good middle-ground.
Of course, nothing stops you using Java on the client-side as well, to plug some of the holes where the browsers aren't as compatible. JavaScript can call Java and Java can call JavaScript back or manipulate the page DOM itself.:-)
Yeah, I'm sure it had to be there somewhere, but the rule with user interfaces is that if you can't figure out how to do something in five seconds, the thing isn't worth using.
I guess it was because FPS figures are completely useless unless you only intend to play one game for the entire life of the graphics card. If Doom 3 runs faster, that especially doesn't bare any relation to other games, unless they happen to be using exactly the same rendering techniques (which most games do not.)
Nope. "On-demand" updating normally means that applications update when the application is run. You can also have applications install themselves when they're run, but I've seen Debian do that trick before so I'll leave that scenario out of it.
At around that point, consumers should be within their legal right to punch the UPS arsehole in the face, then kick them in the nuts and take the package.
Well, you always have technology like Java WebStart in the middle of it all (apps download off the server on the Intranet but still run as normal applications.) Zero Install tries to do the same thing for all applications instead of just Java ones.
If Microsoft wanted to challenge webapps, then they could probably graft a framework like Zero Install onto the existing Microsoft Installer feature set. If they really wanted to challenge webapps, they could allow non-Microsoft applications access to the deployment mechanism. That way you could have a single OS which auto-updates every application on-demand, which would be worth its weight in gold^Wcode.
So Windows can connect devices by just plugging them in. My Linux machine seems to be able to do that as well. But at least with Linux, the device doesn't magically stop working overnight and make me pull it out and put it back in again just to get that pretty little bubble.
They should have implemented Direct3D in OpenGL. That would have made more sense. Then they could also start selling emulation layers for their games under Mac and Linux and kill off the market for Cedega.:-)
I wonder if anybody's tested that. XLink does use some pretty nasty tricks like packet capture, but assuming FreeBSD can emulate enough of it, it might actually work.
I do the same thing as an extra measure to prevent throttling. But the underlying problem is that we have three computers owned by different people which all want BitTorrent, so either we all cap ourselves down to about a quarter of our total bandwidth (and then get penalised if only one of us happens to be using it) or we all cap ourselves higher (and then get penalised if all three of us are using it.)
That being said, merely allowing UDP to get priority would fix the "Games/VOIP vs BitTorrent" problem, and probably a fair few other cases.
Suppose I want to set BitTorrent to a lower priority, which is what I've done on my router, for obvious reasons that BitTorrent can really hose a connection.
What I want to know is simply, how does the router know it's BitTorrent?
If it determines it purely based off the port, then it's a joke. Many trackers these days refuse my connection if I use the standard ports, so I'm forced to change them. However, if it actually does it by watching the start of the protocol, it might be able to detect applications based on the magic numbers in the protocol.
I've just always wondered which it is, because they never seem to explain things like "Application Priority" in the manual.
Wow. Now, all I need is for this to be available in the right time and place for my next holiday. Imagine how much less painful things would be if you could take a full historic tour of any given place without putting up with the rest of the tour group. Being an introvert really sucks when you want to cover a lot of a given area in a small amount of time.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a fan of Java Web Start too. The best thing about it is that it was supposed to break the horrible applet cycle which browsers got into a while back. Netbanks could use a standalone app instead of forcing users to deal with a whole-page applet (sadly, this never happened, and said netbanks still use their shitty applets.)
But actually, in recent days, I've seen people bitch about the size of the JRE download. Add to that the size of the app download itself and you have a problem for people on thin pipes.
AJAX apps might not save bandwidth over the WebStart approach... Overall, you probably still end up using more bandwidth than the guy who downloaded all the code up-front. But the important thing is that you can start using the app now, not in an hour's time.
And AJAX does use a lot less bandwidth than your traditional pull-the-whole-page web application. So it's a reasonably good middle-ground.
Of course, nothing stops you using Java on the client-side as well, to plug some of the holes where the browsers aren't as compatible. JavaScript can call Java and Java can call JavaScript back or manipulate the page DOM itself. :-)
Yeah, I'm sure it had to be there somewhere, but the rule with user interfaces is that if you can't figure out how to do something in five seconds, the thing isn't worth using.
I guess it was because FPS figures are completely useless unless you only intend to play one game for the entire life of the graphics card. If Doom 3 runs faster, that especially doesn't bare any relation to other games, unless they happen to be using exactly the same rendering techniques (which most games do not.)
It might help, if the entire page weren't ATI cards.
You mean warparkers, right?
I thought the guy was commenting about the "to" which was missing from the title.
It's not rape if she's begging for it. And a real otaku would program her to beg for it.
I'm not sure I care if they use IE. It's not me who suffers if they don't see the page rendered correctly.
Who still uses StarOffice? The rest of us switched to OpenOffice years ago.
Maybe they finally realised the obvious fact that no copy of Wine is an illegal copy of Windows.
Nope. "On-demand" updating normally means that applications update when the application is run. You can also have applications install themselves when they're run, but I've seen Debian do that trick before so I'll leave that scenario out of it.
At around that point, consumers should be within their legal right to punch the UPS arsehole in the face, then kick them in the nuts and take the package.
It's comments like these that cause me to wonder if people have even seen Wayne's World.
It seems you're having trouble understanding the meaning of "on-demand".
Well, you always have technology like Java WebStart in the middle of it all (apps download off the server on the Intranet but still run as normal applications.) Zero Install tries to do the same thing for all applications instead of just Java ones.
If Microsoft wanted to challenge webapps, then they could probably graft a framework like Zero Install onto the existing Microsoft Installer feature set. If they really wanted to challenge webapps, they could allow non-Microsoft applications access to the deployment mechanism. That way you could have a single OS which auto-updates every application on-demand, which would be worth its weight in gold^Wcode.
So Windows can connect devices by just plugging them in. My Linux machine seems to be able to do that as well. But at least with Linux, the device doesn't magically stop working overnight and make me pull it out and put it back in again just to get that pretty little bubble.
Yeah, making a page to add one term to the search query is revolutionary stuff. I wish my job were that easy.
They should have implemented Direct3D in OpenGL. That would have made more sense. Then they could also start selling emulation layers for their games under Mac and Linux and kill off the market for Cedega. :-)
What you say is pretty funny. Substance abuse is pretty common, especially after work, and often even at lunch on Fridays! :-)
I wonder if anybody's tested that. XLink does use some pretty nasty tricks like packet capture, but assuming FreeBSD can emulate enough of it, it might actually work.
The problem is, the router doesn't allow you to specify it by port. It allows you to specify it by "application".
I do the same thing as an extra measure to prevent throttling. But the underlying problem is that we have three computers owned by different people which all want BitTorrent, so either we all cap ourselves down to about a quarter of our total bandwidth (and then get penalised if only one of us happens to be using it) or we all cap ourselves higher (and then get penalised if all three of us are using it.)
That being said, merely allowing UDP to get priority would fix the "Games/VOIP vs BitTorrent" problem, and probably a fair few other cases.
Suppose I want to set BitTorrent to a lower priority, which is what I've done on my router, for obvious reasons that BitTorrent can really hose a connection.
What I want to know is simply, how does the router know it's BitTorrent?
If it determines it purely based off the port, then it's a joke. Many trackers these days refuse my connection if I use the standard ports, so I'm forced to change them. However, if it actually does it by watching the start of the protocol, it might be able to detect applications based on the magic numbers in the protocol.
I've just always wondered which it is, because they never seem to explain things like "Application Priority" in the manual.
It seems like no "gaming router" would be complete without the ability to run an XLink Kai server.
Unfortunately, XLink Kai won't run on FreeBSD...
Wow. Now, all I need is for this to be available in the right time and place for my next holiday. Imagine how much less painful things would be if you could take a full historic tour of any given place without putting up with the rest of the tour group. Being an introvert really sucks when you want to cover a lot of a given area in a small amount of time. :-)