It's great that PC games keep pushing the hardware and the state of the art, but after decades of PC gaming, it's becoming harder and harder to keep justifying the hardware upgrade treadmill.
I know I could just play older games, and many people do. But then you miss out on some of the social aspects of game playing; e.g., discovering and playing new games at the same time as your friends and colleagues.
I'm sure there are good technical and financial reasons that so many games can't and won't play very well on modest PC hardware that's several years old, but I keep wishing they did.
PC game companies would sure make a lot more money off ME, at least, if they did...oh well.
Microsoft is actually the least oppressive console maker this generation. It's easiest to get indie games onto the platform (XNA) and they haven't taken away any functionality...
The Xbox 360 has a > 50% failure rate. That takes away all your functionality!
I'm old enough to remember when the Commodore 64 came out. I owned one. I had bunches of friends who owned one. We loved them.
The article says this:
Their most sacred relic: the Commodore 65, an improved version of the C64 that never made it past the prototype stage.
Um...no. The C65 is not a sacred relic. That's asinine. It was never even released. The mere mention of the C65 in the article is foolish. It was the Commodore 64 we loved and revered, not the vaporous C65.
I know it's not your department, but I can't pass up the opportunity of actually having the ear (eyes?) of an actual Googler.
Several weeks back, Google Group's digest emails feature stopped working for a few weeks, without explanation. More specifically, I get digest emails for comp.lang.java, comp.lang.javascript, and comp.unix.programmer, if that helps.
Any idea what happened during those two weeks? I know it impacted a bunch of users (I Googled around and several people had the same experience in the same time range). Google has been silent on the issue.
Any info appreciated! Thanks!
And to bring this on topic... The experience has certainly made me more suspicious about relying on software-as-a-service. I'm not mad or anything because, hey, it's free. The MIA service without any information or communication though, has definitely made me uncomfortable.
The thing people don't like is that Apple doesn't give you the choice.
Sure, and those people can buy Android tablets, WebOS tablets, or some other kind of tablet, when they become available (and they will become available).
As a geek, I look forward to them. As a consumer, I look forward to the competition. But I can also appreciate Apple trying to make devices that are very appealing to a certain segment of the market.
Sure, you're the protecting father who doesn't want little Sally installing viruses on her sparkly new iPad. That's great. They should give you parental controls.
Apple is selling a very specific experience to a very specific market. I don't think they want to muddy their marketing message.
Still, I'd be happy to see an alternative to the App Store or some compromise on their approval process.
As a father, the iPad looks appealing to me precisely because you can only get software for the iPad from the App Store.
Less worries about whether any individual app will work (I just had to return a game for my daughter because it would crash if the computer had too much memory - no lie!). One stop shopping...a very high guarantee of compatible apps...very convenient.
Also, my daughter wouldn't be able to accidentally install a virus or Trojan even if she wanted to. One less thing to worry about, which is really great when your time is limited (most parents will understand what I'm talking about). I don't want to baby-sit an anti-virus program or worry that every little click could lead to infection.
Besides being a father, I'm also a software developer, so I understand the whole geek angle pretty well. Maybe for myself, I'll get an Android tablet (some day), because I'll want to do geek-friendly stuff.
It seems to me there's room in the world both for Apple's approach and for alternative approaches (like Android). I like that they work different, because different people have different priorities.
A small group of friends and I played StarCraft every Friday night over the Internet for years.
Over the years, though, we finally got tired of the game, and now we only play the occasional LAN game. LAN games are still fun because of the social factor.
And now I have to tell them LAN games are dead. *sigh*
Well there's your problem. You've mistaken assumed that the title is in any way related to the summary, or that either of those are in any way related to the article.
Guess? You didn't say anything about the design of Google's Storage API. (Which is fine by me, since the basic premise of this thread is stupid. The storage API is designed to match the S3 API, and isn't targeting end-users in the first place.)
The headline is "Are Googlers Too Smart For Their Own Good?". My comment goes to the very heart of that, by suggesting above average developers can actually be a problem. It's entirely on topic!
Whoever moderated me -1, Offtopic is just plain wrong. It was an incorrect moderation.
I tend to put software developers into four groups:
1. Below average.
2. Average.
3. Above average.
4. Well above average.
Group #1 is obviously bad, but I also think group #3 is bad, and here's why.
Above average developers tend to create overly complex solutions, because hey...they're above average. They can understand it, no problem. They can maintain it, no problem. But their designs and code are difficult to maintain for below average and average developers, which make up the bulk of developers out there.
Well above average developers create designs and code with average developers in mind. They make sure their designs are as simple as they reasonably can be, so that it's easy to maintain and enhance later on.
Fear above average developers, because they create designs and code that only a small percentage of developers can reliably and comfortably maintain.
I haven't had an article accepted in over 10 years and I suspect it's because I read the link I am referring to and write an appropriate headline.
I gave up trying to submit articles after realizing my mistake: I was trying to do a good job, which slowed me down. The secret to getting your articles selected isn't doing a good job, the secret it submitting lots and lots of them.
I became especially discouraged since 1/2 my articles were later accepted, after someone else submitted them, with a much crappier write-up. *sigh*
Does anyone know if Google is starting to wind down Usenet support too?
I only ask because sometime early last week, I stopped getting digest emails to the Usenet groups I'm subscribed to via Google Groups. It happened without warning: no reports of dropping support for digest emails or Usenet, no reports of problems they are working on, etc. It seems quite a few people are having this problem as well...
The problem I have with it is that my PC is littered with update services. Apple, Adobe, Google, AV software, Windows itself all have updater services running in the background. It simply takes up system resources.
Yeah, that does stink. There really should be OS support for this kind of thing, so that one update service can keep any number of applications updated.
Why is it a problem if a program updates itself in the background while it's running?
I have non-technical relatives and friends with some pretty old equipment, and low bandwidth Internet connections. It produces an inferior experience for them to try to browse the web while downloads are happening in the background. It also puts them briefly at risk, because they'll be using an outdated browser while the update downloads and installs (perhaps the update plugs a serious security hole). It would be nice if they had an updated browser before they started browsing.
As always, though, I would prefer if silent updates were an option you could disable, so that everyone would be best served the way they like.
In an increasingly net-centric world, a browser is about as critical as it gets, especially as it's usually the update vector.
Well, here's the thing. I gave it some more thought, I don't really buy the whole, "I want to be able to reject browser updates" argument, because half the time, a new browser update is being pushed out to plug a security hole. I can't imagine it's ever a good idea to continue browsing with a browser version with a known security hole.
Therefore, I think 99% of the time, it would be foolish not to take a browser update. That being the case, why wouldn't you want silent updates turned on? I guess you might want to know when your browser is being updated, or might not want services running in the background taking up memory, or something, but those generally seem like pretty weak reasons to me.
I guess I can kind of buy the argument that you might want to roll back your version if an update breaks your access to an important intranet site at work or something, but at work, you're likely being forced to use IE anyway (ugh), and probably also at the mercy of your IT department pushing out updates.
I'm not sure a girlfriend is for OCD types like you!
That's probably for the best, as my wife would probably get pretty upset if I had a girlfriend!
Tip: if you're paranoid about this, carry sanitizing hand wipes (Purell).
If I had an iPad, I'd probably clean it regularly with wipes (or whatever), and I probably wouldn't share it (due to the greasy, oily fingerprints issue).
There's no reason to burden non-technical users (and even technical users) with applications that needlessly involve the user in routine maintenance tasks (like updating).
There is as long as things break randomly every fifth update. If they ran tests on my plugins, maybe...
I would definitely support being able to turn off silent updates. That way, technical users and power users can be sure their plug-ins will be compatible with newer versions before allowing the update. That being said, I think silent updates would be better for most average users.
Unfortunately auto updaters, while *awesome* in theory, are far less thrilling in practice.
I think this is largely because most software companies are too lazy to do it right.
Google Chrome's silent updater has been a huge hit with my non-technical relatives and friends. Less headaches, worries, and strange dialog boxes for them, less technical support phone calls for me.
Rarely with any soft of rollback feature at all either.
That's a good point, and for any critical software, a rollback feature would be a necessity.
Is the menu bar really that useful? Apart from using it as a way to get to Preferences, I can't think of a single option that I use the Firefox menu bar for.
It pains me to say anything nice about IE, but I do like the feature that hides the menu bar, displaying it only when you press the Alt key.
All the advantages of a cleaner UI (no menu cluttering up the screen and taking up precious screen real estate), but all the advantages of a menu bar as well (just an Alt key press away).
Unless the whole reason you're shutting it down, as is often the case for me, is that FF has been running so long that it's become an enormous memory hog and you need to shut it down then restart it so your system will speed back up. Or you're shutting it down in order to shut down or reboot your entire computer. I agree with the previous commenter, just give us the choice.
I'm hoping for a Google Chrome-like silent update feature myself.
I don't want to be distracted or delayed while starting up my browser, or while shutting down my browser, or at any other time, for that matter.
I want it to silently update itself in the background. Both for me, and my non-technical relatives and friends. I don't want them calling me because they're confused and worried about whether or not it's okay for Firefox to update itself.
Slashdot Mirror
It's great that PC games keep pushing the hardware and the state of the art, but after decades of PC gaming, it's becoming harder and harder to keep justifying the hardware upgrade treadmill.
I know I could just play older games, and many people do. But then you miss out on some of the social aspects of game playing; e.g., discovering and playing new games at the same time as your friends and colleagues.
I'm sure there are good technical and financial reasons that so many games can't and won't play very well on modest PC hardware that's several years old, but I keep wishing they did.
PC game companies would sure make a lot more money off ME, at least, if they did...oh well.
mod funny or troll?
The truth can sometimes be funny, but troll? Saying the truth is now a troll on Slashdot?
Microsoft is actually the least oppressive console maker this generation. It's easiest to get indie games onto the platform (XNA) and they haven't taken away any functionality...
The Xbox 360 has a > 50% failure rate. That takes away all your functionality!
People who use laser eye surgery to correct their vision can only do so a limited number of times. After that, a cornea would need to be replaced.
I think the majority of such surgeries are LASIK, which reshapes the lens by removing tissue, rather than the cornea.
I believe PRK is similar to LASIK except it reshapes the cornea by removing tissue. I'm not sure why LASIK is so much more popular than PRK.
Any eye surgeons out there care to shed some light on the subject?
I guess you didn't read the article. He does mention that it's a web framework.
That doesn't make Ruby on Rails a sibling of Ruby.
Unless you count the associative array library I wrote in C as a sibling of C?
No, of course not.
You are just jealous because you were stuck with the C64 while all the cool kids had a C65
The really cool and dedicated-to-the-cult kids upgraded to the C128.
(Did you even bother to read the article?)
Why, yes. I did.
I'm old enough to remember when the Commodore 64 came out. I owned one. I had bunches of friends who owned one. We loved them.
The article says this:
Their most sacred relic: the Commodore 65, an improved version of the C64 that never made it past the prototype stage.
Um...no. The C65 is not a sacred relic. That's asinine. It was never even released. The mere mention of the C65 in the article is foolish. It was the Commodore 64 we loved and revered, not the vaporous C65.
Another gem from the article:
Sacred relic: Commodore C65
Ah, yes, I fondly remember my C65...
Wait, what?
(Did they even bother to proofread their work? It has dozens of mistakes.
From the article:
"Programming language Ruby and its younger, sleeker sibling, Ruby on Rails..."
LOL
Such quality investigation and journalism!
So, full disclosure, I work on abuse at Google.
I know it's not your department, but I can't pass up the opportunity of actually having the ear (eyes?) of an actual Googler.
Several weeks back, Google Group's digest emails feature stopped working for a few weeks, without explanation. More specifically, I get digest emails for comp.lang.java, comp.lang.javascript, and comp.unix.programmer, if that helps.
Any idea what happened during those two weeks? I know it impacted a bunch of users (I Googled around and several people had the same experience in the same time range). Google has been silent on the issue.
Any info appreciated! Thanks!
And to bring this on topic... The experience has certainly made me more suspicious about relying on software-as-a-service. I'm not mad or anything because, hey, it's free. The MIA service without any information or communication though, has definitely made me uncomfortable.
The thing people don't like is that Apple doesn't give you the choice.
Sure, and those people can buy Android tablets, WebOS tablets, or some other kind of tablet, when they become available (and they will become available).
As a geek, I look forward to them. As a consumer, I look forward to the competition. But I can also appreciate Apple trying to make devices that are very appealing to a certain segment of the market.
Sure, you're the protecting father who doesn't want little Sally installing viruses on her sparkly new iPad. That's great. They should give you parental controls.
Apple is selling a very specific experience to a very specific market. I don't think they want to muddy their marketing message.
Still, I'd be happy to see an alternative to the App Store or some compromise on their approval process.
As a father, the iPad looks appealing to me precisely because you can only get software for the iPad from the App Store.
Less worries about whether any individual app will work (I just had to return a game for my daughter because it would crash if the computer had too much memory - no lie!). One stop shopping...a very high guarantee of compatible apps...very convenient.
Also, my daughter wouldn't be able to accidentally install a virus or Trojan even if she wanted to. One less thing to worry about, which is really great when your time is limited (most parents will understand what I'm talking about). I don't want to baby-sit an anti-virus program or worry that every little click could lead to infection.
Besides being a father, I'm also a software developer, so I understand the whole geek angle pretty well. Maybe for myself, I'll get an Android tablet (some day), because I'll want to do geek-friendly stuff.
It seems to me there's room in the world both for Apple's approach and for alternative approaches (like Android). I like that they work different, because different people have different priorities.
LAN play is dead.
A small group of friends and I played StarCraft every Friday night over the Internet for years.
Over the years, though, we finally got tired of the game, and now we only play the occasional LAN game. LAN games are still fun because of the social factor.
And now I have to tell them LAN games are dead. *sigh*
Well there's your problem. You've mistaken assumed that the title is in any way related to the summary, or that either of those are in any way related to the article.
Heh, yep. My mistake. :)
Guess? You didn't say anything about the design of Google's Storage API. (Which is fine by me, since the basic premise of this thread is stupid. The storage API is designed to match the S3 API, and isn't targeting end-users in the first place.)
The headline is "Are Googlers Too Smart For Their Own Good?". My comment goes to the very heart of that, by suggesting above average developers can actually be a problem. It's entirely on topic!
Whoever moderated me -1, Offtopic is just plain wrong. It was an incorrect moderation.
How the hell did I get modded -1, Offtopic on this!?
*sigh*
I tend to put software developers into four groups:
1. Below average.
2. Average.
3. Above average.
4. Well above average.
Group #1 is obviously bad, but I also think group #3 is bad, and here's why.
Above average developers tend to create overly complex solutions, because hey...they're above average. They can understand it, no problem. They can maintain it, no problem. But their designs and code are difficult to maintain for below average and average developers, which make up the bulk of developers out there.
Well above average developers create designs and code with average developers in mind. They make sure their designs are as simple as they reasonably can be, so that it's easy to maintain and enhance later on.
Fear above average developers, because they create designs and code that only a small percentage of developers can reliably and comfortably maintain.
I haven't had an article accepted in over 10 years and I suspect it's because I read the link I am referring to and write an appropriate headline.
I gave up trying to submit articles after realizing my mistake: I was trying to do a good job, which slowed me down. The secret to getting your articles selected isn't doing a good job, the secret it submitting lots and lots of them.
I became especially discouraged since 1/2 my articles were later accepted, after someone else submitted them, with a much crappier write-up. *sigh*
Does anyone know if Google is starting to wind down Usenet support too?
I only ask because sometime early last week, I stopped getting digest emails to the Usenet groups I'm subscribed to via Google Groups. It happened without warning: no reports of dropping support for digest emails or Usenet, no reports of problems they are working on, etc. It seems quite a few people are having this problem as well...
Any information would be appreciated!
The problem I have with it is that my PC is littered with update services. Apple, Adobe, Google, AV software, Windows itself all have updater services running in the background. It simply takes up system resources.
Yeah, that does stink. There really should be OS support for this kind of thing, so that one update service can keep any number of applications updated.
Why is it a problem if a program updates itself in the background while it's running?
I have non-technical relatives and friends with some pretty old equipment, and low bandwidth Internet connections. It produces an inferior experience for them to try to browse the web while downloads are happening in the background. It also puts them briefly at risk, because they'll be using an outdated browser while the update downloads and installs (perhaps the update plugs a serious security hole). It would be nice if they had an updated browser before they started browsing.
As always, though, I would prefer if silent updates were an option you could disable, so that everyone would be best served the way they like.
In an increasingly net-centric world, a browser is about as critical as it gets, especially as it's usually the update vector.
Well, here's the thing. I gave it some more thought, I don't really buy the whole, "I want to be able to reject browser updates" argument, because half the time, a new browser update is being pushed out to plug a security hole. I can't imagine it's ever a good idea to continue browsing with a browser version with a known security hole.
Therefore, I think 99% of the time, it would be foolish not to take a browser update. That being the case, why wouldn't you want silent updates turned on? I guess you might want to know when your browser is being updated, or might not want services running in the background taking up memory, or something, but those generally seem like pretty weak reasons to me.
I guess I can kind of buy the argument that you might want to roll back your version if an update breaks your access to an important intranet site at work or something, but at work, you're likely being forced to use IE anyway (ugh), and probably also at the mercy of your IT department pushing out updates.
I'm not sure a girlfriend is for OCD types like you!
That's probably for the best, as my wife would probably get pretty upset if I had a girlfriend!
Tip: if you're paranoid about this, carry sanitizing hand wipes (Purell).
If I had an iPad, I'd probably clean it regularly with wipes (or whatever), and I probably wouldn't share it (due to the greasy, oily fingerprints issue).
There's no reason to burden non-technical users (and even technical users) with applications that needlessly involve the user in routine maintenance tasks (like updating).
There is as long as things break randomly every fifth update. If they ran tests on my plugins, maybe...
I would definitely support being able to turn off silent updates. That way, technical users and power users can be sure their plug-ins will be compatible with newer versions before allowing the update. That being said, I think silent updates would be better for most average users.
Unfortunately auto updaters, while *awesome* in theory, are far less thrilling in practice.
I think this is largely because most software companies are too lazy to do it right.
Google Chrome's silent updater has been a huge hit with my non-technical relatives and friends. Less headaches, worries, and strange dialog boxes for them, less technical support phone calls for me.
Rarely with any soft of rollback feature at all either.
That's a good point, and for any critical software, a rollback feature would be a necessity.
Is the menu bar really that useful? Apart from using it as a way to get to Preferences, I can't think of a single option that I use the Firefox menu bar for.
It pains me to say anything nice about IE, but I do like the feature that hides the menu bar, displaying it only when you press the Alt key.
All the advantages of a cleaner UI (no menu cluttering up the screen and taking up precious screen real estate), but all the advantages of a menu bar as well (just an Alt key press away).
Unless the whole reason you're shutting it down, as is often the case for me, is that FF has been running so long that it's become an enormous memory hog and you need to shut it down then restart it so your system will speed back up. Or you're shutting it down in order to shut down or reboot your entire computer. I agree with the previous commenter, just give us the choice.
I'm hoping for a Google Chrome-like silent update feature myself.
I don't want to be distracted or delayed while starting up my browser, or while shutting down my browser, or at any other time, for that matter.
I want it to silently update itself in the background. Both for me, and my non-technical relatives and friends. I don't want them calling me because they're confused and worried about whether or not it's okay for Firefox to update itself.