Infighting in Microsoft is why we didn't get clear-type for over 10 years after it was available... (Clear-type is the software that gives fonts 3 times the horizontal resolution on LCDs)
Maybe I'm misremembering, but hasn't Clear Type shipped in Windows since XP launched in 2001? So, you're saying that this technology was available in 1991 or earlier?
Apple get's things wrong too. It could be argued this is what happens when you try pushing the edge, but in reality it was probably an oversight due to other priorities getting in the way.
Before Steve Jobs was brought back to Apple, the company was quickly going down hill. Their arrogance cost them the market, and the OS had some serious stability issues. Rebuilding MacOS X on the foundation of OpenStep, and thus BSD, was a big help in changing the appealing, but unstable OS, into an appealing and stable OS. From what I have read Steve Jobs likes to keep a tight ship and the employees benefit and suffer at the same time. They benefit because they end up excelling at what they do and they suffer because the demands put on them are high.
Switching to OpenStep wasnt' a panacea. While I never used it, I heard OSX 10.0 was a real mess too, which is why 10.1 was quickly pushed out as a free update.
[1]: And people wonder why WoW is doing so well... perhaps if MMO designers actually released a finished product on opening day, they might have something that may keep interest more than the initial first week or two.
You didn't play WoW on opening day, did you? Completely unplayable.
WoW's servers couldn't handle the number of players that WoW attracted. It was common for some servers to go down for days at a time (and you'd get a credit on your account if you had characters on one of those servers).
Database servers were shared between realms, and lag between the game and DB servers would cause the game to pretend you were standing still while your client showed you moving around. This was referred to as Loot Lag, and it happened a LOT.
Sure, WoW is great now, but it had the same exact problems when it launched that you're griping that new MMOs have. In fact, Blizzard didn't even fix the bugs found in the last round of closed and open betas before the game launched because they didn't want to push back the release date.
I think for a shooter the Wii controller may be hamstrung because the one-handed controller is trying to provide the functionality for which a PC would use two hands, one on a mouse and the other on a keyboard. For that reason I can see why you would say the Xbox controller is better albeit less natural.
No, the problem with the Wiimote is that either the turn function has to be on the control stick, or on the pointer. If on the control stick, you're back to control stick limits for turn speed. If it's on the pointer, you're limited because it won't turn at all if the pointer goes off the screen. Either way, you lose the mouse's quick-turn advantage.
I've got a $200 video card that appears to run everything on the ultra settings, including the original Crysis. That being said, even the reviewers are forced to run the same 5-6 titles again and again because there are so few titles that really stress video cards anymore. So why pay $500-1500 for less than a half dozen titles?
You don't have to pay $500-1500... the low end cards in this generation sell for as low as $250. Those cards being the AMD Radeon HD 6950 and nVidia GTX 560 Ti.
Since there is competition however in the browser market, much will be done to improve rendering speed of complex and heavy HTML5 applications. This is in sharp contrast with Adobe, who as sole provider of the Flash plugin has no incentive at all to improve things.
Sure they do. If Adobe doesn't improve Flash, then there's no reason for Flash designers to buy new versions.
Considering that Flash Professional CS5 has a list price of $699 per copy on its own.
The US Department of Justice is going after the International Oraganisation for Standardization (ISO)'s Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG) Licensing Agency (LA)?
I find this section of the Deletion Review interesting:
Overturn. No relisting.. While AfD gives administrators a wide degree of latitude on interpreting the discussions - and I should know, having closed some corkers in my time - we should remain mindful that "interpreting the discussion" exists alongside the far older rough check guideline on deletion that it should only occur if 2/3 of the commenters or more are in favor of deletion. Interpreting a discussion in which an overwhelming majority of commenters are in favor of keeping the article as concluding in a consensus to debate is possible. But it requires extraordinary evidence that those arguing to keep are out of line with WIkipedia policy. The explanation presented by Lifebaka falls miles short of this bar. The article clearly does not prima faciae fail notability - it has numerous citations to reliable and independent sources. There is no evidence that the commenters on the original AfD were unaware of notability policy or of the content of the article, or that they were primarily blind meatpuppets gaming the system. Yes, the discussion attracted a lot of comments. That should probably tell us something, and that something should not be "Blimey, our readers really use articles like this, we'd better delete them." The contributors on the original AfD appear to have looked at both the policy and the article, and decided that the minimum bar for inclusion was cleared. End of discussion. There is just no way to reasonably argue that a consensus to delete was reached. I thus view Lifebaka's deletion as an abuse of his admin powers - interpreting a discussion in which an overwhelming majority of participants acknowledge your viewpoint and still disagree with you as supporting your viewpoint strains good faith to its breaking point. I further see no value in relisting - the discussion as it took place is a conclusive endorsement of the view that the article clears the minimum standards for inclusion. Barring a compelling new point about the article, any relisting would be a textbook example of the tendency to get articles deleted not out of actual policy grounds but just by asking enough other parents that eventually you get one to side with you. In other words, it's a shameless violation of WP:ADMINSHOP. Barring an actual new argument, attempts to relitigate the already settled discussion are disruptive. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
There was a war against anime, and it was won when the Crucifixion in Anime section was deleted from the Crucifixion page. I wrote up a summary of the event but I can't find it now:(
If you put the summary on Wikipedia, it was probably deleted.;)
Eric Wolpaw and Chet Faliszek have worked in the gaming industry, and the site itself is referenced in numerous interviews, articles, quotations, and even in games. All valid reasons for a Wikipedia entry, I'd think.
For reference, they both work for Valve now, and worked on things like Half-Life 2, Portal 1/2, and Left 4 Dead 1/2.
Not sure why you needed to argue that. What I am saying is Apples "App Store" will not be confused by anyone with another "App Store" unless they are complete moron since iPhones and iPads are tied to the service and have no other option.
OK, you just addressed two of the three device families that use the App Store.
What about OSX? Are you claiming there are no other Mac app stores? I can think of one without even trying.
You have to be kidding. Firefox is faster and kicks the other browsers asses. This whole speed thing must have something to do with non-GNU/Linux platforms cause I'm just not seeing it go slow. A browser shouldn't need additional cores to run fast. This sounds like "me too" thinking. While it might improve certain things I'm extremely sceptical. Video is already being accelerated and having 10 tabs open is not something that slows Firefox down. Maybe you are on MS Windows and that has something to do with it.
No, not really.
It's a well-known fact that current versions of Mozilla only run plugins on a separate process, and that was new in Mozilla 3.6.4... Mozilla claims that it's still working on this for web content and graphics.
In other words Firefox is a single-process, single-threaded application on all platforms, except when launching plugins.
Unfortunately, Intel's ultra-low power Sandy Bridge chips, the Core i5 2537M, Core i7 2617M, and Core i7 2657M, likely came out too late to be in this comparison.
Reportedly, they started shipping earlier this week.
One of the fundamentals of the Internet is its distributed, peer-based nature. Merely a method of exchanging packets. Surely, having a centralized authoritarian DNS system falls afoul of this basic premise?
No offense, but you're wrong.
The Internet is a collection of smaller networks with addressing assigned from a central authority to prevent address conflicts.
Note, that was referring to IP address assignments, but DNS is a natural extension of that.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe I'm misremembering, but hasn't Clear Type shipped in Windows since XP launched in 2001? So, you're saying that this technology was available in 1991 or earlier?
Switching to OpenStep wasnt' a panacea. While I never used it, I heard OSX 10.0 was a real mess too, which is why 10.1 was quickly pushed out as a free update.
You didn't play WoW on opening day, did you? Completely unplayable.
WoW's servers couldn't handle the number of players that WoW attracted. It was common for some servers to go down for days at a time (and you'd get a credit on your account if you had characters on one of those servers).
Database servers were shared between realms, and lag between the game and DB servers would cause the game to pretend you were standing still while your client showed you moving around. This was referred to as Loot Lag, and it happened a LOT.
Sure, WoW is great now, but it had the same exact problems when it launched that you're griping that new MMOs have. In fact, Blizzard didn't even fix the bugs found in the last round of closed and open betas before the game launched because they didn't want to push back the release date.
Should I assume you don't have a PS3 or Xbox 360?
No, the problem with the Wiimote is that either the turn function has to be on the control stick, or on the pointer. If on the control stick, you're back to control stick limits for turn speed. If it's on the pointer, you're limited because it won't turn at all if the pointer goes off the screen. Either way, you lose the mouse's quick-turn advantage.
You don't have to pay $500-1500... the low end cards in this generation sell for as low as $250. Those cards being the AMD Radeon HD 6950 and nVidia GTX 560 Ti.
Sure they do. If Adobe doesn't improve Flash, then there's no reason for Flash designers to buy new versions.
Considering that Flash Professional CS5 has a list price of $699 per copy on its own.
If VB and C were based on the same standard, you might have a point.
Recent versions of JavaScript and ActionScript are both (partial or complete) implementations of ECMAScript version 3.
UI tasks enjoyable? What drug is this blogger on?
A UI's purpose isn't to be enjoyable, it's to let the user do what he wants/needs to do and otherwise stay out of the way.
Case in point: Clicking a button is going to be a lot quicker and require me to do less thinking than dragging a window around.
Having said that, I like snap and would like to see several of its features included, but not as the primary replacement for the maximize button.
The US Department of Justice is going after the International Oraganisation for Standardization (ISO)'s Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG) Licensing Agency (LA)?
Am I the only person who sees a problem here?
I find this section of the Deletion Review interesting:
Overturn. No relisting.. While AfD gives administrators a wide degree of latitude on interpreting the discussions - and I should know, having closed some corkers in my time - we should remain mindful that "interpreting the discussion" exists alongside the far older rough check guideline on deletion that it should only occur if 2/3 of the commenters or more are in favor of deletion. Interpreting a discussion in which an overwhelming majority of commenters are in favor of keeping the article as concluding in a consensus to debate is possible. But it requires extraordinary evidence that those arguing to keep are out of line with WIkipedia policy. The explanation presented by Lifebaka falls miles short of this bar. The article clearly does not prima faciae fail notability - it has numerous citations to reliable and independent sources. There is no evidence that the commenters on the original AfD were unaware of notability policy or of the content of the article, or that they were primarily blind meatpuppets gaming the system. Yes, the discussion attracted a lot of comments. That should probably tell us something, and that something should not be "Blimey, our readers really use articles like this, we'd better delete them." The contributors on the original AfD appear to have looked at both the policy and the article, and decided that the minimum bar for inclusion was cleared. End of discussion. There is just no way to reasonably argue that a consensus to delete was reached. I thus view Lifebaka's deletion as an abuse of his admin powers - interpreting a discussion in which an overwhelming majority of participants acknowledge your viewpoint and still disagree with you as supporting your viewpoint strains good faith to its breaking point. I further see no value in relisting - the discussion as it took place is a conclusive endorsement of the view that the article clears the minimum standards for inclusion. Barring a compelling new point about the article, any relisting would be a textbook example of the tendency to get articles deleted not out of actual policy grounds but just by asking enough other parents that eventually you get one to side with you. In other words, it's a shameless violation of WP:ADMINSHOP. Barring an actual new argument, attempts to relitigate the already settled discussion are disruptive. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Phil Sandifer is a Wikipedia Administrator
If you put the summary on Wikipedia, it was probably deleted. ;)
Eric Wolpaw and Chet Faliszek have worked in the gaming industry, and the site itself is referenced in numerous interviews, articles, quotations, and even in games. All valid reasons for a Wikipedia entry, I'd think.
For reference, they both work for Valve now, and worked on things like Half-Life 2, Portal 1/2, and Left 4 Dead 1/2.
(For the people who hadn't heard of them)
And Windows Control Panel programs are also named Applets, and have been since 1990 (Windows 3.0) or earlier.
OK, you just addressed two of the three device families that use the App Store.
What about OSX? Are you claiming there are no other Mac app stores? I can think of one without even trying.
Mmm, forgetting an OS there?
Maybe you meant TAMPON: Tomcat, Apache, Mina, Postgres On NetBSD.
They can't sue the Linux Foundation? Why?
Oh, and in case you missed why I'm mentioning them, they are Linus Torvalds employer.
Yes, yes they do.
No, not really.
It's a well-known fact that current versions of Mozilla only run plugins on a separate process, and that was new in Mozilla 3.6.4... Mozilla claims that it's still working on this for web content and graphics.
In other words Firefox is a single-process, single-threaded application on all platforms, except when launching plugins.
In the immortal words of Arthur C. Clarke:
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Having used Netscape Communicator 4 and Internet Explorer 4, I can assure you he is quite serious.
Unfortunately, Intel's ultra-low power Sandy Bridge chips, the Core i5 2537M, Core i7 2617M, and Core i7 2657M, likely came out too late to be in this comparison.
Reportedly, they started shipping earlier this week.
No offense, but you're wrong.
The Internet is a collection of smaller networks with addressing assigned from a central authority to prevent address conflicts.
Note, that was referring to IP address assignments, but DNS is a natural extension of that.
So, Netscape 6.1 used the Mozilla 0.9.2.1 rendering engine.
For reference, Firefox (nee Phoenix) 0.1 used the Mozilla 1.1 rendering engine. Firefox 3.6.13 uses the Mozilla 1.9.2.13 rendering engine.
Needless to say, the commonly used version of Mozilla's rendering engine has been constantly updated, while IE6 still has market-share to this day.
So, not surprisingly, web site authors don't make sites for ancient Mozilla versions, while they do for ancient IE versions.
Why make it secure, when there is money to be made by having it INsecure. Trust Google...
Do not attribute to malice that which is more adequately explained by stupidity.
Do not attribute to stupidity that which is more adequately explained by greed.
-- Enron's razor