In fact, I still can't seem to switch between HTML and plaintext email composition without changing my overall composition preferences, which is buried at least four or five clicks away from the composition window.
I'm not using the new version, but i can't even figure out how to change 'my overall composition preferences'. Is there some way i can set it to ALWAYS, BY DEFAULT, use plain text? Because it always uses HTML until i tell it not to for me.:/
Or has this been fixed (if applicable) in the new version?
Ahh, thanks. Unfortunately i wasn't paying attention to the whole NeXT debacle and OS X development stage, so i must've missed a lot of this stuff.
To the poster below, i have to say that i hate that side-scrolling thing. It makes sense visually, but scrolling side-to-side, for some reason, is not a good interface move. It's really really annoying.:(
Hrm, i must be confused about the term 'spatial'. Steve Jobs thinks it makes users janitors, but... i always thought the whole spatial concept was invented by Apple. The whole the-directory-is-a-folder-on-your-screen thing...? Am i confused, or has Jobs changed his tune, or what?:/
Well, being the curious person i am, i would've installed it myself by now (it just barely meets the requirements)... except that my CD-ROM drive is broken and i haven't got the resources to replace it.:(
And here i thought this whole time that UI's access to technology was sub-par. Thought they were mostly a medical school. Shows what i know about my state.:/
... Are you kidding? Seriously, the Karma is the ugliest audio device i have ever seen in my life. It has absolutely fantastic features, but it's horrid-looking.:(
You will feel this way about anything, given time.
After 5 or 6 years of the same - exact - thing with Windows, you better believe i was excited about Luna. It was absolutely the most beautiful thing i'd ever seen, and i used it for almost a year. Then i discovered that third parties had better interface design to offer, and i ditched it, and now it's horribly ugly to me. I felt the same way about Aqua -- it was the most fantastic interface-design change since the original Macintosh GUI. Now? No, Aqua is retarded, and if i had a Mac that could run OS X (stupid second-generation iMac...), i would definitely be using a third-party skin.
At least, this is how i feel, and it's how most of the people who even bother to worry about what their computers look like feel. Almost everybody else i know couldn't care less what their computer looks like -- they go with however it was set when they got it.... But, there are a few that i know that absolutely can not change, too.:/
Well... this is another problem i have with you guys. It just absolutely boggles my mind how such intelligent computer-savvy people can not use Windows. You guys can do things on Linux and BSD that put even the best Windows experts to shame... but you can't figure out how to use Windows. I mean, honestly, i can expect that some of you will have genuine problems with Windows, due to hardware incompatibilities, special software needs, and so forth, but every single time i suggest that Windows might be better than Linux at something, i get twenty people replying to me saying that Windows doesn't work and it's slow and it always crashes and la la la. I find that extremely hard to believe, unless (a) you haven't used Windows since Windows 98 (which was bad, yes) or (b) you tried Windows for 10 minutes and you were too lazy/zealous to try to solve your problem. But... i'm just ranting now.:)
In any case, i guess we just don't have any luck with each other's OS of choice, because (unless you're talking about Windows 98) i don't really know what you're talking about. I have never once had my entire computer lock up because one program was doing something. Photoshop, gigantic beast that it is, can spend 30 seconds loading up on my computer, and i will be completely free to do anything else that i want while it is. My Windows machine boots up just as fast as, if not faster than, any Linux machine i've ever used. As far as image previews in Explorer, i do agree with you there -- images do take a few seconds to load in that. However, this could be a configuration problem, i dunno. (I know that i have caching of thumb-nails disabled on my machine because i don't often need to see the previews, so maybe that's it.) And i've never had to wait for the 'Open With' dialogue on my machine, either. It opens as soon as i dismiss that retarded 'wuld u liek windose 2 serch for ur program on teh intarweb??/' thing (which i hate, by the way).
And, um, yeah. KDE isn't an OS.:/
I like how i get modded a troll because i said something bad about Linux, by the way. Over-rated, i can understand, because what i said wasn't terribly fantastic, but come on. Suggesting that there's something Linux might suck at is not trolling.
I love Window Maker -- it's great, and i prefer it to GNOME or KDE any day.
However, i've used three (or four, depending on how you count it) x86 distributions with Window Maker -- Red Hat 7-ish, MDK 9, MDK 9.1 (which was actually considerably faster than 9 for me), and SuSE 9 -- and none of them were ever as snappy as Windows (XP, 2000, or otherwise). I've never understood what Linux people are talking about when they say that Linux 'runs faster' than Windows. I've never experienced that in my life, and i consider myself to be pretty computer literate (enough to know if i've got some crazy circumstance going on that makes that the case, anyway).
I don't know, maybe X and the various environments that run on top of it were faster during the period where Windows 95 and earlier versions were in use. But since Windows 98 came out? Never.:/
I don't know, maybe i'm missing out on a key piece of the puzzle, here, but why do you guys care so much? Honestly, i don't understand why you're getting worked up by what this idiot has to say.:/
The main reason i like -'ise' is the whole consistency thing. I'd rather have two or three words ('size', 'apprize', 'prize', and so forth) that are exceptions to the rule than have two-dozen (everything you mentioned). British English, on the whole, seems to have fewer exceptions than American English. (British has more consistent use of -'re', more consistent use of ligatures, more consistent use of -'ogue', more consistent doubling of consonants at the end of vowels, &c.)
There are lots of places in America that call it 'pop'. Mostly the use of 'soda' is limited to the east and west coasts. 'Pop' is preferred in the northern half, while most Southerners just call it all 'Coke'. -_-
Actually, America didn't have the chance to 'hold over' the use of -'ise' in verbs. When America was still a colony (colonies, if you prefer), the British actually used -'ize', which was the original form. It wasn't until the 1800s, when they decided to emulate spelling changes in the language of their neighbours across the channel, that they changed to -'ise'. The Americans, of course, had already mostly established their language (and their country), and didn't have the influence of the French like the British did, so they left theirs -'ize'.
Coincidentally, even some British schools of grammar continue to use -'ize'. (Oxford, for example -- the traitors.)
The interface on the iRiver is simple, although not as effective for scrolling through large libraries, but what matters most IMO is sound quality.
Well... it's not really a mystery, i mean, number one, iPod is aimed at the masses, and it's advertised to the masses. iRiver have almost no advertising to speak of. So, you can kind of see why it'd be more popular for that reason. Number two, you might be familiar with how much 'the masses' know about sound quality...? (Hint: Not a lot.)
stupid example because mp3 and aac arent huge ineficient trucks, ogg is as it sucks more processing/battery power. Your example tells us not to use ogg.
I guess you could see it that way, but that isn't what i was getting at. AAC and MP3 are the trucks because, while they get the job done, there are more desirable ways of getting the job done. Vorbis is the other one because it's... less available.... I guess.
I said it was a stupid example. What more do you want from me?;_;
So, OK, there are two car manufacturers in the world. You live in Canada. One company makes cars that run on fuel that you can only find in Asia. The other makes cars gigantic trucks that run on regular fuel but get extremely poor mileage. Instead of wanting a better alternative, do you just buy the truck?
Stupid example, but come on, what's the difficulty?:/
On another subject, i'm kind of lost. I thought the iPod depended on a separate hardware MP3 decoder for playing MP3s. If the iPod can't play MP3s without that special decoder, how is it going to play a format that requires more resources? That doesn't make sense to me. It's like saying 'NEWS FLASH: PEOPLE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO FLY BY FLAPPING THEIR ARMS'....
Well, it doesn't have a media library like iTunes does, but it does have a database, which is pretty close. (As soon as you add a song to a play list, foobar will add it to the database, and from then on you can just add the song from the database instead of finding it on your computer.)
But... i do wish it could auto-update to adjust for changes in your music folder. And i wish it could do smart play lists (by far the best thing about iTunes, i think).
It may be trivial, but just because you have money to spare doesn't mean you should go out and by a car with low mileage. If i can do something with program y just as good as (or better than) i can with program x, all the while using less memory, why not do it?:9
QuickTime and iTunes are OK on the Mac, but on Windows they are both horrible programs, both in interface and in responsiveness. They consume more memory than their alternatives, they're horribly slow (because they don't use native interface APIs, i assume), and Apple had the incredibly brilliant idea to make them look like Mac programs. Uh, hi, i'm not using a Mac?
I'm not going to criticise you for using iTunes or anything (it's got some decent features, slow and ugly as it is), but your use of different media players is just kind of silly, i think. You can use a single media player to play all of those video formats. Instead of installing the stupid QuickTime player, you could download the QuickTime Alternative codecs, which will allow you to play QuickTime files in any media player you want. I recommend Media Player Classic, but regular WMP will work just fine if you like.:)
As far as music goes, i'll again have to point out foobar2000. Very fast, lots and lots of features/plug-ins, and (i think) it's the best-looking music player for any platform. (my foobar <3)
Lesser Microsoft guy: 'hay, every1 on these windoze forumz has mpc and bsplayer an stuff ok hers an idea lets make six boxes around every window and give them all different-coloured gradeints'
Greater Microsoft guy: 'ok gogoo gog ogogogoogoo gogo'
Thanks for getting my attention. I surely wouldn't have noticed your post elsewise!
Notice, jack-ass, that i suggested three times that Linksys routers aren't complete replacements for Cisco routers. The first time, i said a cheap alternative for some -- as in, expecting cheap consumer routers to make a big dent in Cisco's sales is ridiculous. The second time, i noted that it's far-fetched to expect a Linksys router to match up to a Cisco one. The third time, i said medium-sized office. This depends on your interpretation of 'medium', but i obviously wasn't talking about networking anything huge, and, what's more, i never mentioned anything about WANs.
I'm not talking about coming anywhere near Cisco's big routers, the thousand-dollar ones. I'm talking about having a similar interface and maybe a few of the same features (not anywhere near all of them by any stretch of the imagination) as a 'consumer' Cisco router (the few-hundred-dollar ones). And, again, this may hinge on these cheap routers getting some hardware upgrades (more RAM, more flash, maybe a better processor, i don't know).
Slashdot Mirror
Coincidentally, the guy who (for the most part) made Delphi actually left Borland and went to Microsoft, and he's now the lead architect of... C#. :o
In fact, I still can't seem to switch between HTML and plaintext email composition without changing my overall composition preferences, which is buried at least four or five clicks away from the composition window.
I'm not using the new version, but i can't even figure out how to change 'my overall composition preferences'. Is there some way i can set it to ALWAYS, BY DEFAULT, use plain text? Because it always uses HTML until i tell it not to for me. :/
Or has this been fixed (if applicable) in the new version?
I saw this earlier. That's got to be the biggest eBay page evar:
1507 font tags
258 nested tables
339 img tags
y helo thar~
Ahh, thanks. Unfortunately i wasn't paying attention to the whole NeXT debacle and OS X development stage, so i must've missed a lot of this stuff.
To the poster below, i have to say that i hate that side-scrolling thing. It makes sense visually, but scrolling side-to-side, for some reason, is not a good interface move. It's really really annoying. :(
Hrm, i must be confused about the term 'spatial'. Steve Jobs thinks it makes users janitors, but... i always thought the whole spatial concept was invented by Apple. The whole the-directory-is-a-folder-on-your-screen thing...? Am i confused, or has Jobs changed his tune, or what? :/
Well, being the curious person i am, i would've installed it myself by now (it just barely meets the requirements)... except that my CD-ROM drive is broken and i haven't got the resources to replace it. :(
And here i thought this whole time that UI's access to technology was sub-par. Thought they were mostly a medical school. Shows what i know about my state. :/
... Are you kidding? Seriously, the Karma is the ugliest audio device i have ever seen in my life. It has absolutely fantastic features, but it's horrid-looking. :(
You will feel this way about anything, given time.
After 5 or 6 years of the same - exact - thing with Windows, you better believe i was excited about Luna. It was absolutely the most beautiful thing i'd ever seen, and i used it for almost a year. Then i discovered that third parties had better interface design to offer, and i ditched it, and now it's horribly ugly to me. I felt the same way about Aqua -- it was the most fantastic interface-design change since the original Macintosh GUI. Now? No, Aqua is retarded, and if i had a Mac that could run OS X (stupid second-generation iMac...), i would definitely be using a third-party skin.
At least, this is how i feel, and it's how most of the people who even bother to worry about what their computers look like feel. Almost everybody else i know couldn't care less what their computer looks like -- they go with however it was set when they got it. ... But, there are a few that i know that absolutely can not change, too. :/
Windows has log files, sir. They're conveniently located in the Control Panel, under 'Event Viewer'. :)
Well... this is another problem i have with you guys. It just absolutely boggles my mind how such intelligent computer-savvy people can not use Windows. You guys can do things on Linux and BSD that put even the best Windows experts to shame... but you can't figure out how to use Windows. I mean, honestly, i can expect that some of you will have genuine problems with Windows, due to hardware incompatibilities, special software needs, and so forth, but every single time i suggest that Windows might be better than Linux at something, i get twenty people replying to me saying that Windows doesn't work and it's slow and it always crashes and la la la. I find that extremely hard to believe, unless (a) you haven't used Windows since Windows 98 (which was bad, yes) or (b) you tried Windows for 10 minutes and you were too lazy/zealous to try to solve your problem. But... i'm just ranting now. :)
In any case, i guess we just don't have any luck with each other's OS of choice, because (unless you're talking about Windows 98) i don't really know what you're talking about. I have never once had my entire computer lock up because one program was doing something. Photoshop, gigantic beast that it is, can spend 30 seconds loading up on my computer, and i will be completely free to do anything else that i want while it is. My Windows machine boots up just as fast as, if not faster than, any Linux machine i've ever used. As far as image previews in Explorer, i do agree with you there -- images do take a few seconds to load in that. However, this could be a configuration problem, i dunno. (I know that i have caching of thumb-nails disabled on my machine because i don't often need to see the previews, so maybe that's it.) And i've never had to wait for the 'Open With' dialogue on my machine, either. It opens as soon as i dismiss that retarded 'wuld u liek windose 2 serch for ur program on teh intarweb??/' thing (which i hate, by the way).
And, um, yeah. KDE isn't an OS. :/
I like how i get modded a troll because i said something bad about Linux, by the way. Over-rated, i can understand, because what i said wasn't terribly fantastic, but come on. Suggesting that there's something Linux might suck at is not trolling.
I love Window Maker -- it's great, and i prefer it to GNOME or KDE any day.
However, i've used three (or four, depending on how you count it) x86 distributions with Window Maker -- Red Hat 7-ish, MDK 9, MDK 9.1 (which was actually considerably faster than 9 for me), and SuSE 9 -- and none of them were ever as snappy as Windows (XP, 2000, or otherwise). I've never understood what Linux people are talking about when they say that Linux 'runs faster' than Windows. I've never experienced that in my life, and i consider myself to be pretty computer literate (enough to know if i've got some crazy circumstance going on that makes that the case, anyway).
I don't know, maybe X and the various environments that run on top of it were faster during the period where Windows 95 and earlier versions were in use. But since Windows 98 came out? Never. :/
I don't know, maybe i'm missing out on a key piece of the puzzle, here, but why do you guys care so much? Honestly, i don't understand why you're getting worked up by what this idiot has to say. :/
The main reason i like -'ise' is the whole consistency thing. I'd rather have two or three words ('size', 'apprize', 'prize', and so forth) that are exceptions to the rule than have two-dozen (everything you mentioned). British English, on the whole, seems to have fewer exceptions than American English. (British has more consistent use of -'re', more consistent use of ligatures, more consistent use of -'ogue', more consistent doubling of consonants at the end of vowels, &c.)
There are lots of places in America that call it 'pop'. Mostly the use of 'soda' is limited to the east and west coasts. 'Pop' is preferred in the northern half, while most Southerners just call it all 'Coke'. -_-
Actually, America didn't have the chance to 'hold over' the use of -'ise' in verbs. When America was still a colony (colonies, if you prefer), the British actually used -'ize', which was the original form. It wasn't until the 1800s, when they decided to emulate spelling changes in the language of their neighbours across the channel, that they changed to -'ise'. The Americans, of course, had already mostly established their language (and their country), and didn't have the influence of the French like the British did, so they left theirs -'ize'.
Coincidentally, even some British schools of grammar continue to use -'ize'. (Oxford, for example -- the traitors.)
I thought that said '50 years' for both of them.
Which would've been really mean, but funnier. ;_;
I'll reply to both of you, i guess.
The interface on the iRiver is simple, although not as effective for scrolling through large libraries, but what matters most IMO is sound quality.
Well... it's not really a mystery, i mean, number one, iPod is aimed at the masses, and it's advertised to the masses. iRiver have almost no advertising to speak of. So, you can kind of see why it'd be more popular for that reason. Number two, you might be familiar with how much 'the masses' know about sound quality...? (Hint: Not a lot.)
stupid example because mp3 and aac arent huge ineficient trucks, ogg is as it sucks more processing/battery power. Your example tells us not to use ogg.
I guess you could see it that way, but that isn't what i was getting at. AAC and MP3 are the trucks because, while they get the job done, there are more desirable ways of getting the job done. Vorbis is the other one because it's... less available. ... I guess.
I said it was a stupid example. What more do you want from me? ;_;
So, OK, there are two car manufacturers in the world. You live in Canada. One company makes cars that run on fuel that you can only find in Asia. The other makes cars gigantic trucks that run on regular fuel but get extremely poor mileage. Instead of wanting a better alternative, do you just buy the truck?
Stupid example, but come on, what's the difficulty? :/
On another subject, i'm kind of lost. I thought the iPod depended on a separate hardware MP3 decoder for playing MP3s. If the iPod can't play MP3s without that special decoder, how is it going to play a format that requires more resources? That doesn't make sense to me. It's like saying 'NEWS FLASH: PEOPLE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO FLY BY FLAPPING THEIR ARMS'....
But... i do wish it could auto-update to adjust for changes in your music folder. And i wish it could do smart play lists (by far the best thing about iTunes, i think).
It may be trivial, but just because you have money to spare doesn't mean you should go out and by a car with low mileage. If i can do something with program y just as good as (or better than) i can with program x, all the while using less memory, why not do it? :9
I'm not going to criticise you for using iTunes or anything (it's got some decent features, slow and ugly as it is), but your use of different media players is just kind of silly, i think. You can use a single media player to play all of those video formats. Instead of installing the stupid QuickTime player, you could download the QuickTime Alternative codecs, which will allow you to play QuickTime files in any media player you want. I recommend Media Player Classic, but regular WMP will work just fine if you like. :)
As far as music goes, i'll again have to point out foobar2000. Very fast, lots and lots of features/plug-ins, and (i think) it's the best-looking music player for any platform. (my foobar <3)
Lesser Microsoft guy: 'hay, every1 on these windoze forumz has mpc and bsplayer an stuff ok hers an idea lets make six boxes around every window and give them all different-coloured gradeints'
Greater Microsoft guy: 'ok gogoo gog ogogogoogoo gogo'
Routing? :/
Notice, jack-ass, that i suggested three times that Linksys routers aren't complete replacements for Cisco routers. The first time, i said a cheap alternative for some -- as in, expecting cheap consumer routers to make a big dent in Cisco's sales is ridiculous. The second time, i noted that it's far-fetched to expect a Linksys router to match up to a Cisco one. The third time, i said medium-sized office. This depends on your interpretation of 'medium', but i obviously wasn't talking about networking anything huge, and, what's more, i never mentioned anything about WANs.
I'm not talking about coming anywhere near Cisco's big routers, the thousand-dollar ones. I'm talking about having a similar interface and maybe a few of the same features (not anywhere near all of them by any stretch of the imagination) as a 'consumer' Cisco router (the few-hundred-dollar ones). And, again, this may hinge on these cheap routers getting some hardware upgrades (more RAM, more flash, maybe a better processor, i don't know).