What is so strange about it? Cassettes and CD-R's are relatively cheap so you could record music onto one and give it to someone or sell it.
Now think about doing the same thing with an iPod.
They are more concerned with "distribution" of music illegally than downloading. That is why downloading music is not an issue here in Canada but uploading is.
Maybe you should ask a Canadian like me who actually bought something with a levy applied before commenting?
The levies were applied at the time of "sale" on top of the sale price. It was essentially like another sales tax we "consumers" had to pay at the time of sale above the "purchase price".
The reason why you normally do no hear corporate offices being referred to a "campus is because they are usually not situated in a field apart from other companies.
MSFT's Redmond headquarters is yet another example of a "Campus".
I speak as someone who was a registered user of Konfabulator on the mac since before 10.3 came out.
Konfabulator has a really slow javascript engine which is based on spidermonkey from the Mozilla project. It also is quite resource intensive.
The decision to use XML instead of HTML is also holding them back since they offer no development environment and you cannot use a browser to test your widgets out.
I still have Konfabulator on mac but never use whereas I use Dashboard on a daily basis on my mac. You don't use dashboard and that is your choice but to say that it will fade into obscurity is hyperbole at its best.
Take a look at the amount of dashboard widgets available from third parties like the ones here or here. Now consider how long these sites have been around compared with konfabulator.com.
For a while, after dashboard came out, there were very few contributions being added to the konfabulator widget gallery. Don't get me wrong, I think it's great and wish them all the best but I don't have a compelling reason to use it on a daily basis now that I have Dashboard.
I definately plan on using it work on my windows box for sure.
Nice troll *golf clap*. I did try out BeOS when I had a PC. Although I was impressed by it from a technical point of view, it suffered from two things which did Amiga in: lack of commercial software support and a lack of scalability of the OS.
Unfortunately, Linux also suffers from the former (lack of commercial desktop software).
The way I see it, OS X was was starting to pickup steam and marketshare when I jumped after the release of Jaguar. I may have stayed with Amiga longer than I should have but there were no viable alternatives until windows 95 shipped as Windows 3.1 was an absolute joke but OS X is on the way to achieving significant marketshare.
Your analogy between Amiga and Apple is dead wrong. Commodore never was able to crack the corporate market and government markets and those are precisely the markets which MSFT first used to get where it is today. Look at the Xserve and XRaid, they are the trojan horses Apple is using to break into those market segments.
PS. Enjoy your VAX machines and I'll enjoy my day job as a windows application developer.
They need it to search the HD for the map incase they get lost.
I remember being an Amigan but I'm now a Mac user
on
Happy Birthday, Amiga
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
My first Amiga was an Amiga 500 which I bought in 1989 after selling my Sanyo XT Turbo. I have fond memories of AmigaOS and remember how "easy" it was for me to pickup Unix in college because so much of the syntax was similar. It was funny to watch DOS/Windows guys trying to wrap their heads around it.
Sometimes I wish that I had kept at least one of my Amigas but I threw away Amiga 2000HD a year and a half ago and gave my CD32 to a local thrift store.
My progression in computers went from MSDOS->AmigaDOS 1.3-3.1->Windows 95-XP->OS 10.2-10.4.
The Amiga platform is dead but I will always have a warm place in my heart for those days.
No, I'm afraid that you are the one who does not "get it". Context menus are "power user" features which are not necessary and they do not add to usability. You just happen to be used to context menu.
I've used the following GUIs at home and work: Amiga Workbench 1.3-3.x, Windows 3.1 through XP and Mac OS 6.x through Tiger and BeOS 5.x. Get back to me when you've tried a bunch of different interfaces. Using just windows and unix just does not cut it because X-windows based interfaces are just cheap copies of windows.
You seem to be using unix and windows 3.1 as examples of "good" usability. I find that laughable.
You suggestion that that context menus are lacking is a tired troll. It is counter intuitive to expect there to be a context menus on a flat surface of an application interface were there is no object context to interact with. Someone mentioned Quicktime player. It is a media player for crying out loud. There is no need for a context menu where other people are screaming for one.
You are so bloody windows centric that you cannot see the big picture.
You just don't get it. Just because people can get used to a particular interface, it does not mean that it is intuitive or a good one. Newbies are precisely the people you should be targeting when desiging an interface in the first place.
There is nothing wrong with offering a context menus as an alternative as long as you provide easy access to those functions from the main menu.
Sometimes it makes more usabiity sense to use context sensitive tool palettes (inspectors) to expose functionality because it is readily visible on screen as opposed to context menus which are hidden until you right click.
Take a look a the success of the iPod as a "consumer" device. Part of the reason why it is successful is because it is designed to be as simple as possible and usable by the "average" consumer. It is not a "geek" toy nor does it include a lot of superfluous/niche functionality.
There are plenty of context menus through out OS X and OS X apps. What you will notice is that all functionality in those context menus are also readily available through other means. What you will not see is superfluous right click menus, only menus where it makes sense within the context of the object you are over top or have selected.
I think it is horrible design to rely on context menus for functionality and it is also horrible to include core functionality of an application's main menus within a context menus. It should only contain items relevent to the object you are interacting with.
OS X and OS X apps largely respect that ideal. If you have a problem with that, tough.
You sir, are a troll. I have a logitec two button mouse+scroll connected to my pbook at home and it makes use of the right mouse button for context menus all over the place.
The only place where there is no context menus is in places where it does not make sense to have one.
Obviously, there is no need for a context menus for Quicktime player for example since the main menu is always accessible at the top of the screen.
The same goes for parts of the iTunes interface. When you are not interacting with song, there is no context menus. Do you understand what the term context means? Context menus are only appear when the content underneath the cursor should.
I've seem several cases where you either had superfluous context menus in programs or the programmer decided to "hide" functionality exclusively in a context menu. The latter case causes a usability nightmare.
Wrong Wrong Wrong. It is not a usability flaw. You have it backwards. Relying heavily on right clicks is a usability flaw. Does the web interface use right clicks? No, of course not.
Look at any study with "new" computer users and you will see that most of them have a lot of trouble adjusting to a "right click". Have you ever worked in technical support? I have and I can tell you that I had to explain what "right click" meant many times to users.
There is never a "need" for a context menus. If you "need" a context menus, then you have made a bad interface.
If you intended on creating desktop applications, do us all a favour and work as a web developer for a few years before you touch any desktop applications. You will learn how to develop simple and "usable" interfaces that way.
I speak and someone who was an ecommerce developer for a number of years and now works on desktop applications. Web development taught me how to design interfaces from a "user's" perspective.
Yes, and that causes a great deal of confusion for new computer users when using windows. Just because you can, it does not mean you should.
Context menus which offer different options which are not easily accessible through other means is counterintuitive.
If people really wanted the same functionality, there is an entire api for adding context menus addons view CM Plugins for the finder through the input manager folder.
Most universities are "degree" mills. I really believe there should be different programs available for CS degrees. One of the options they should offer should be to include courses on business management and courses teaching proper analysis and design techniques.
As for an EE degree, I would never ever hire an EE graduate to develop business software. I don't see how EE and software development are related to each other and cannot see how someone with such a degree would be any more qualified to develop software than any untrained average joe off the street.
You may turn your nose up at places like DeVry but they are turning out some qualified developers and offer opportunities for "real world" experience "before" you graduate through co-op programs.
You will find that many employers in the corporate world are looking for people who are eager to learn rather than grads who "think" they know everything.
The sad truth is that a DeVry graduate can probably be trained faster to fit into the corporate IT culture than a university graduate. Universities often instil bad habits which must be overcome before that individual can be an effective team player.
Given that you even mention EE degrees makes me think that you think the entire IT industry is focused on embedded development.
Uh, IT and software development should be considered related. One of the problems with a lot of software development today is that developer fail to consider non-functional requirements such as performance, robustness, availability and usability.
The typical infrastructure your software will require should be considered in the design process. You do perform analysis and design/prototyping before you code don't you?
It helps for a developer to have a background in IT.
I believe Comp Sci has it's place but people should not go into the field if they expect to work at a non-software related company with an IT department.
Those types of companies are looking for developers with business acumen, people skills and creativity rather than research scientists.
Would you have learned about run-time analysis of programs on your own?
Yes. It's called reading a book and trial and error with a pinch of common sense. Be sure to stir in some determination and motivation.
Do you think run-time analysis of programs is useful?
Yes, unit testing is useful. What is your point exactly?
You seem to be forgetting that aptitude cannot be found in a book or lecture hall. You are also forgetting that the notables of science past did not have the luxury of an extensive education many people enjoy and yet they accomplished a great many things because they were motivated and had a natural aptitude.
A degree does not make the man.
Think about taking courses outside of Comp Sci to increase your chances of success in the corporate world.
You sir, are a troll. A CS degree does not provide one with a superior intellect, creativity or business acumen. Those qualities are achieved by other mean or are inherent in the individual.
If the CS graduates want jobs in Corporate America, they have to broaden their horizons a bit and develop a bit of humility. Some people fresh out of college expect a job just because they have a degree.
The vast majority of software development does not require a "computer science" degree. I see software development as more of a creative writing process or an engineering discipline than a field of science.
I do not have any degree of any sort and I'm a guy in his early 30's working for a major multinational organization.
Some of my colleagues do have degrees in Comp Sci or Engineering but i believe that I have earned the respect of my peers through my creative solutions and accomplishments.
Business are looking for "out of the box" thinkers with real world experience and business acumen.
I would go as far to say that if you want to work as a developer in the corporate world, get a degree in Business and take courses on development "and" analysis/design. It seams as though there is a sore lacking of programmer analysts these days I also think there are way too many "software developers" with Comp Sci degrees with no clue about business or how to "design" software or elicit requirements from end users.
It might not hurt to take some psychology courses either as you may be able to better deal with difficult people and mediate conflicts between groups of users.
Slashdot Mirror
Now think about doing the same thing with an iPod.
They are more concerned with "distribution" of music illegally than downloading. That is why downloading music is not an issue here in Canada but uploading is.
I personally get my music these days from iTMS.
The levies were applied at the time of "sale" on top of the sale price. It was essentially like another sales tax we "consumers" had to pay at the time of sale above the "purchase price".
Because it was not the importer or manufacturer that paid the levy. It was the consumer who was charged the levy at the time of sale.
So you are suggesting that they go from one supplier with problems delivering to another. Where are their mobile chips?
A campus is a collection of related buildings within a field set appart from the rest of a village,town or city.
Campus is Latin for "field" or "open space".
What about this?
The reason why you normally do no hear corporate offices being referred to a "campus is because they are usually not situated in a field apart from other companies.
MSFT's Redmond headquarters is yet another example of a "Campus".
I speak as someone who was a registered user of Konfabulator on the mac since before 10.3 came out.
Konfabulator has a really slow javascript engine which is based on spidermonkey from the Mozilla project. It also is quite resource intensive.
The decision to use XML instead of HTML is also holding them back since they offer no development environment and you cannot use a browser to test your widgets out.
I still have Konfabulator on mac but never use whereas I use Dashboard on a daily basis on my mac. You don't use dashboard and that is your choice but to say that it will fade into obscurity is hyperbole at its best.
Take a look at the amount of dashboard widgets available from third parties like the ones here or here. Now consider how long these sites have been around compared with konfabulator.com.
For a while, after dashboard came out, there were very few contributions being added to the konfabulator widget gallery. Don't get me wrong, I think it's great and wish them all the best but I don't have a compelling reason to use it on a daily basis now that I have Dashboard.
I definately plan on using it work on my windows box for sure.
Unfortunately, Linux also suffers from the former (lack of commercial desktop software).
The way I see it, OS X was was starting to pickup steam and marketshare when I jumped after the release of Jaguar. I may have stayed with Amiga longer than I should have but there were no viable alternatives until windows 95 shipped as Windows 3.1 was an absolute joke but OS X is on the way to achieving significant marketshare.
Your analogy between Amiga and Apple is dead wrong. Commodore never was able to crack the corporate market and government markets and those are precisely the markets which MSFT first used to get where it is today. Look at the Xserve and XRaid, they are the trojan horses Apple is using to break into those market segments.
PS. Enjoy your VAX machines and I'll enjoy my day job as a windows application developer.
They need it to search the HD for the map incase they get lost.
Sometimes I wish that I had kept at least one of my Amigas but I threw away Amiga 2000HD a year and a half ago and gave my CD32 to a local thrift store.
My progression in computers went from MSDOS->AmigaDOS 1.3-3.1->Windows 95-XP->OS 10.2-10.4.
The Amiga platform is dead but I will always have a warm place in my heart for those days.
I often connect to head office with my mac pbook with the MSFT supplied Remote Desktop Client.
I've used the following GUIs at home and work: Amiga Workbench 1.3-3.x, Windows 3.1 through XP and Mac OS 6.x through Tiger and BeOS 5.x. Get back to me when you've tried a bunch of different interfaces. Using just windows and unix just does not cut it because X-windows based interfaces are just cheap copies of windows.
You seem to be using unix and windows 3.1 as examples of "good" usability. I find that laughable.
You suggestion that that context menus are lacking is a tired troll. It is counter intuitive to expect there to be a context menus on a flat surface of an application interface were there is no object context to interact with. Someone mentioned Quicktime player. It is a media player for crying out loud. There is no need for a context menu where other people are screaming for one.
You are so bloody windows centric that you cannot see the big picture.
There is nothing wrong with offering a context menus as an alternative as long as you provide easy access to those functions from the main menu.
Sometimes it makes more usabiity sense to use context sensitive tool palettes (inspectors) to expose functionality because it is readily visible on screen as opposed to context menus which are hidden until you right click.
Take a look a the success of the iPod as a "consumer" device. Part of the reason why it is successful is because it is designed to be as simple as possible and usable by the "average" consumer. It is not a "geek" toy nor does it include a lot of superfluous/niche functionality.
There are plenty of context menus through out OS X and OS X apps. What you will notice is that all functionality in those context menus are also readily available through other means. What you will not see is superfluous right click menus, only menus where it makes sense within the context of the object you are over top or have selected.
I think it is horrible design to rely on context menus for functionality and it is also horrible to include core functionality of an application's main menus within a context menus. It should only contain items relevent to the object you are interacting with.
OS X and OS X apps largely respect that ideal. If you have a problem with that, tough.
The only place where there is no context menus is in places where it does not make sense to have one.
Obviously, there is no need for a context menus for Quicktime player for example since the main menu is always accessible at the top of the screen.
The same goes for parts of the iTunes interface. When you are not interacting with song, there is no context menus. Do you understand what the term context means? Context menus are only appear when the content underneath the cursor should.
I've seem several cases where you either had superfluous context menus in programs or the programmer decided to "hide" functionality exclusively in a context menu. The latter case causes a usability nightmare.
Look at any study with "new" computer users and you will see that most of them have a lot of trouble adjusting to a "right click". Have you ever worked in technical support? I have and I can tell you that I had to explain what "right click" meant many times to users.
There is never a "need" for a context menus. If you "need" a context menus, then you have made a bad interface.
If you intended on creating desktop applications, do us all a favour and work as a web developer for a few years before you touch any desktop applications. You will learn how to develop simple and "usable" interfaces that way.
I speak and someone who was an ecommerce developer for a number of years and now works on desktop applications. Web development taught me how to design interfaces from a "user's" perspective.
Context menus which offer different options which are not easily accessible through other means is counterintuitive.
If people really wanted the same functionality, there is an entire api for adding context menus addons view CM Plugins for the finder through the input manager folder.
As for an EE degree, I would never ever hire an EE graduate to develop business software. I don't see how EE and software development are related to each other and cannot see how someone with such a degree would be any more qualified to develop software than any untrained average joe off the street.
You may turn your nose up at places like DeVry but they are turning out some qualified developers and offer opportunities for "real world" experience "before" you graduate through co-op programs.
You will find that many employers in the corporate world are looking for people who are eager to learn rather than grads who "think" they know everything.
The sad truth is that a DeVry graduate can probably be trained faster to fit into the corporate IT culture than a university graduate. Universities often instil bad habits which must be overcome before that individual can be an effective team player.
Given that you even mention EE degrees makes me think that you think the entire IT industry is focused on embedded development.
Which is completely useless for most business applications. The complexity of an algorithm is irrelevant.
The typical infrastructure your software will require should be considered in the design process. You do perform analysis and design/prototyping before you code don't you?
It helps for a developer to have a background in IT.
I believe Comp Sci has it's place but people should not go into the field if they expect to work at a non-software related company with an IT department.
Those types of companies are looking for developers with business acumen, people skills and creativity rather than research scientists.
Did you manage to pick up perl on your own?
Yes.
Would you have learned about run-time analysis of programs on your own?
Yes. It's called reading a book and trial and error with a pinch of common sense. Be sure to stir in some determination and motivation.
Do you think run-time analysis of programs is useful?
Yes, unit testing is useful. What is your point exactly?
You seem to be forgetting that aptitude cannot be found in a book or lecture hall. You are also forgetting that the notables of science past did not have the luxury of an extensive education many people enjoy and yet they accomplished a great many things because they were motivated and had a natural aptitude.
A degree does not make the man.
Think about taking courses outside of Comp Sci to increase your chances of success in the corporate world.
You are mistaken.
Data mining is not science either.
If the CS graduates want jobs in Corporate America, they have to broaden their horizons a bit and develop a bit of humility. Some people fresh out of college expect a job just because they have a degree.
I do not have any degree of any sort and I'm a guy in his early 30's working for a major multinational organization.
Some of my colleagues do have degrees in Comp Sci or Engineering but i believe that I have earned the respect of my peers through my creative solutions and accomplishments.
Business are looking for "out of the box" thinkers with real world experience and business acumen.
I would go as far to say that if you want to work as a developer in the corporate world, get a degree in Business and take courses on development "and" analysis/design. It seams as though there is a sore lacking of programmer analysts these days I also think there are way too many "software developers" with Comp Sci degrees with no clue about business or how to "design" software or elicit requirements from end users.
It might not hurt to take some psychology courses either as you may be able to better deal with difficult people and mediate conflicts between groups of users.
How the hell do you create links like that? The "help" on slashdot is rather lacking.