I don't use any toolbars - I just like more viewing space. There's literally nothing on the top bar except the menu button and close/minimize buttons - why not use that space for tabs like Chrome? The title of the tab is the same title that'd be in the titlebar anyway, so you don't really need a titlebar. And yeah, on netbooks, Firefox can be really annoying on some sites.
The main thing, however, is not even the screen space - it's the fact that it's even FASTER (despite your mouse traveling a smidge further) to have the tabs at the very top. This is because it doesn't require precise Y-axis movement to within a 30-pixel-tall space to choose a tab, you just slam your mouse to the top and make sure the X-coordinate is within the 150px or so that the tab takes up.
It's not about the mouse distance traveled - it in fact takes LESS time to pick tabs that are on top because you can slam your mouse to the top of the screen - you don't need to spend the extra time precisely choosing your Y coordinate, only the X. Same reason it's nice that in Windows, the close button (even though it doesn't physically touch it) can still be hit by slamming your mouse into the upper right of the screen. It's basically a gesture at that point, not a precise move and then click.
Seems like they're shooting pretty low by trying to match IE9's performance. Chrome, Safari, and Opera are all still kicking ass in the JavaScript speed space - come on Firefox, I want to go back to you but you still waste an entire bar of vertical screen space on the titlebar (MOVE THE TABS UP THERE) and JS performance is still going to be subpar?
Looking at these new screenshots, they STILL have fucking grammar issues. If I'm going to fall for something, it's not going to be an error page with spelling errors and unnecessary exclamation points. How hard would it be for these fuckers to find a native English speaker to proofread their shit for them? Jeez.
I do this on laptops, games - anything that comes with bastardly stickers. It works really well but eventually you burn your finger and smooth the outer layers of skin to the point where a) you can't feel touch as well, b) you don't have as prominent of a fingerprint, and c) it hurts.
I don't support the patent, but I also don't support the submitter's complete troll of a description.
Windows 7 shuts down very fast, and it's actually really nice that it asks if you want to close unsaved documents - I'd rather have to click one more time on "Force Shutdown" than have it force Photoshop or Word closed when I forget one of my tens of documents isn't saved yet.
This is the saddest part of this. I don't give a shit about AOL, other than the fact that they own Winamp.
Granted, Winamp is basically completely mature right now and I can't think of any more features I want. I just hope when newer operating systems are released, Winamp will still work, or that someone will take over for the occasional bugfix.
Also, iTunes and WMP work well enough for me since versions 9 and 11, respectively - when they became pretty full-featured and fast. But I still love me some Winamp - I started using it at version 2.
You're right about the wireless anywhere human beings reside - it's not hard to find internet on the go, even assuming you don't have it through your smartphone already.
$7/month is also easy to beat if you value your time at all. What's a minimal DSL subscription these days, $20? At 1.5Mb/s, this is still approximately 37 times faster than dial-up.
Doesn't AOL require you to install their bloatware to connect as well? Gross!:P
It's not always because us car-drivers are talking on cell phones that we almost hit you motorcyclists.
It's because motorcycles are so damn small, and because people who drive them frequently drive them too fast and change lanes too often - I can check my blind spot to make a turn, and by the time I turn my head forward and do it there can be a motorcycle that has weaved into the blind spot, completely hidden from my mirror views. This has happened to me. I have almost hit motorcyclists several times, and not because of talking on my phone - because they and their bikes are too damn small. They almost always proceed to flick me off as well, as if I should have some sort of 360-degree camera on top of the car watching out at all times for assholes.
Don't take this as an insult to you - if you drive your motorcycle at reasonable speeds without a ton of lane-weaving, anyway. Also, if your motorcycle is quiet and doesn't disrupt everyone's conversation and dinner within a 4-block radius when you unnecessarily rev the engine.
In the same vein, I hate trucks. I can't see a damn thing when they're around me and I'm trying to make a turn, or when they're in front of my shining their lights directly at my eye level. Most of these people don't need to haul anything anyway - and they've got a bald-eagle-and-American-flag stencil on their back window, along with a Calvin-pissing-on-opposing-truck-manufacturer sticker.
but you aren't even going to consider your option to start your own competing service?
Yeah, because that's reasonable. Valve has been in the industry for 12 years and they've established the biggest digital game distribution platform. You're saying he should consider starting his own service to compete (and do better at making anti-cheat software) because some people couldn't play MW2 for a weekend?
Whether it's beneficial to them or not, it still shows how good customer service can be conducted to benefit both the company and the consumer. Valve is one of the most community-friendly game developers, which is all the more amazing since they're such a successful company (not just a small indie developer).
Had this happened in a previous Call of Duty game, PunkBuster wouldn't have done a damn thing about it other than releasing a patch. If anyone cries foul at Valve's generous solution, they need to take off the tinfoil hat and also realize that not playing Modern Warfare 2 for a weekend isn't so bad.
Ha - sounds like the two extremes of cat personalities. I stand corrected. I prefer the first type (same kind I have), except when I'm trying to sleep - he craves attention, i.e. sitting on the face of sleeping people.
You've obviously never owned a cat. I can sit there talking at my cat loudly while he's sleeping (I know, I know - what the hell is wrong with me?), and he won't move or open his eyes at all. The second I say "Norman", even quietly, his head perks up and he looks at me. I know it's just the combination of sounds that he's used to hearing, being associated with me petting or feeding him - but he definitely answers to it, sometimes with a MOW.
I'm not concerned with babysitting users. I'm concerned with having my sites work on their browser. The most work I do to that end is a warning for IE6 and IE7 that they should upgrade to IE8, Chrome, or Firefox (with links).
Well obviously letting IE die is the way to fix the REAL problem. This isn't about the real problem - this is about a really nice bandaid.
I'm not so idealistic that I'm going to refuse to make sites work in IE and thus put myself starving on the streets - because I don't write sites for myself. I write them for clients who have ignorant customers, who are probably using IE.
It may not seem like a big deal, but these CSS3 properties can instantly make a site look nicer to a client that doesn't know much about design. These are things they demand anyway. Now it's a lot easier to do them.
You don't seem to understand - this requires the viewer to install Chrome Frame. As sweet as CF is, the reason these people are running IE6 or IE7 is because they're too ignorant/apathetic/incapable to upgrade their browser. You really think they'll install a plugin if even Windows Update's prompts for IE8 haven't gotten through yet?
This is a method for developers to get sites to look nice in IE easily, this has nothing to do with end users. Coding for all the good browsers -and- IE usually just means a terrible headache where you spend 2/3 of your time fixing shit that won't work in IE. This seeks to eliminate that nightmare situation, as far as the making-websites-pretty side of development goes.
I know CSS3 Pie basically only lets you display eye candy, but you have to understand some web developers' clients WANT this shit. They don't understand good minimalist design, they want things to be shiny and flashy.
That JS library looks pretty awesome. The PNG transparency in IE6 is nice, but it also says it fixes CSS issues - does it just fix bugs in the way IE renders CSS, or does it implement JS equivalents of modern CSS eye candy like CSS3 Pie too? If so, I'd use it.
I want to do web development for whoever pays you to do it. Not having to code for IE would be heaven, but 95% of my clients want their shit to work well in IE because, unfortunately, most people still use it. This is the terrible world we live in.
This isn't pointless - do you understand what this is? This isn't for people that use IE, it's for people that develop websites for IE. This is a Godsend for me.
Developing nice-looking websites in Chrome/Firefox/Safari/Opera is easy as PIE (pun intended), but when you want that same site to look good in IE it's a fucking nightmare. This provides some easy ways of making a site look nice in all the major browsers without a huge coding headache.
It's not arrogant - I didn't say I was a good photographer _NOR_ did I say these screens weren't art. I only pointed out that there aren't as many artful considerations to an in-game photographer (even in a dedicated photo mode like Forza 3's.)
One of the most important things about photography to me is that there's infinite ways to capture a seemingly infinite number of subjects. In a game like Forza, you've got what, hundreds of cars? Tens of tracks? You're not going to come up with much original material once the community has used the photo mode for a while. The cars will be the same, and the tracks will never change or have small details to emphasize - they'll be on the upper end of bland game levels. Have you ever seen a racing game with really great, non-repetitive details all around the tracks? No, it's all major scenery and repeated crowds.
Another thing is that photography captures a moment - but it's special because it's a moment that will never be again. In a game, you can sit there for hours and nothing will change - it's not really a moment in time you're capturing, it's a state of a computer program.
By the way, what kind of light simulation is there in that game? Does light absorb on the in-game sensor in subtly different ways at different apertures? Does the game have a 24-hour day/night cycle wherein the angle of light (and thus shadows) changes, along with the light color (and not just the color of the sky at the horizon?) Does light reflect off every surface accurately, allowing for creative ways to use it? Can you change the bokeh characteristics by changing your background and/or lenses, or is it just a computer-generated uniform blur? Is there lens flare? Does it require good technique to frame a shot and have it come out perfect?
I haven't dicked around enough in the few games that have "true" photo modes to know of them - so I'll admit to ignorance. I've been playing games since 1986, and I'd consider myself relatively hardcore. I mean come on, I've got a mid-6-digit Slashdot ID and I'm posting comments on a non-front-page story in the Games section. I don't think it was that unreasonable to assume that these shots were basically screenshots of PC games - particularly because the games I know in TFA are BioShock and Half-Life 2, neither of which HAVE a photo mode and both of which are on PC.
Just so we're clear, I'm not in the Roger Ebert camp here. Games have made me feel, and thus they're art. I suppose some in-game photography could be considered art, although I don't know that a screenshot could ever inspire an emotion in me - I haven't seen one yet that does, yet photos do all the time. The reason games have the ability to be art that other mediums don't have is immersion. When you're on Tallon IV in Metroid Prime, you really feel like it's you that's there exploring ancient Chozo ruins. I don't think in-game photography captures that feeling.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't use any toolbars - I just like more viewing space. There's literally nothing on the top bar except the menu button and close/minimize buttons - why not use that space for tabs like Chrome? The title of the tab is the same title that'd be in the titlebar anyway, so you don't really need a titlebar. And yeah, on netbooks, Firefox can be really annoying on some sites.
The main thing, however, is not even the screen space - it's the fact that it's even FASTER (despite your mouse traveling a smidge further) to have the tabs at the very top. This is because it doesn't require precise Y-axis movement to within a 30-pixel-tall space to choose a tab, you just slam your mouse to the top and make sure the X-coordinate is within the 150px or so that the tab takes up.
It's not about the mouse distance traveled - it in fact takes LESS time to pick tabs that are on top because you can slam your mouse to the top of the screen - you don't need to spend the extra time precisely choosing your Y coordinate, only the X. Same reason it's nice that in Windows, the close button (even though it doesn't physically touch it) can still be hit by slamming your mouse into the upper right of the screen. It's basically a gesture at that point, not a precise move and then click.
Seems like they're shooting pretty low by trying to match IE9's performance. Chrome, Safari, and Opera are all still kicking ass in the JavaScript speed space - come on Firefox, I want to go back to you but you still waste an entire bar of vertical screen space on the titlebar (MOVE THE TABS UP THERE) and JS performance is still going to be subpar?
Looking at these new screenshots, they STILL have fucking grammar issues. If I'm going to fall for something, it's not going to be an error page with spelling errors and unnecessary exclamation points. How hard would it be for these fuckers to find a native English speaker to proofread their shit for them? Jeez.
I do this on laptops, games - anything that comes with bastardly stickers. It works really well but eventually you burn your finger and smooth the outer layers of skin to the point where a) you can't feel touch as well, b) you don't have as prominent of a fingerprint, and c) it hurts.
I don't support the patent, but I also don't support the submitter's complete troll of a description.
Windows 7 shuts down very fast, and it's actually really nice that it asks if you want to close unsaved documents - I'd rather have to click one more time on "Force Shutdown" than have it force Photoshop or Word closed when I forget one of my tens of documents isn't saved yet.
People still use Konqueror? Even if I was running Linux, I'd be using Chrome, or Firefox, or Opera..
I'll still have to disagree with you on this point ;-)
This is the saddest part of this. I don't give a shit about AOL, other than the fact that they own Winamp.
Granted, Winamp is basically completely mature right now and I can't think of any more features I want. I just hope when newer operating systems are released, Winamp will still work, or that someone will take over for the occasional bugfix.
Also, iTunes and WMP work well enough for me since versions 9 and 11, respectively - when they became pretty full-featured and fast. But I still love me some Winamp - I started using it at version 2.
You're right about the wireless anywhere human beings reside - it's not hard to find internet on the go, even assuming you don't have it through your smartphone already.
:P
$7/month is also easy to beat if you value your time at all. What's a minimal DSL subscription these days, $20? At 1.5Mb/s, this is still approximately 37 times faster than dial-up.
Doesn't AOL require you to install their bloatware to connect as well? Gross!
The Omar offer a wide variety of biomodification canisters with full piezochem compatibility - you should talk to them.
It's not always because us car-drivers are talking on cell phones that we almost hit you motorcyclists.
It's because motorcycles are so damn small, and because people who drive them frequently drive them too fast and change lanes too often - I can check my blind spot to make a turn, and by the time I turn my head forward and do it there can be a motorcycle that has weaved into the blind spot, completely hidden from my mirror views. This has happened to me. I have almost hit motorcyclists several times, and not because of talking on my phone - because they and their bikes are too damn small. They almost always proceed to flick me off as well, as if I should have some sort of 360-degree camera on top of the car watching out at all times for assholes.
Don't take this as an insult to you - if you drive your motorcycle at reasonable speeds without a ton of lane-weaving, anyway. Also, if your motorcycle is quiet and doesn't disrupt everyone's conversation and dinner within a 4-block radius when you unnecessarily rev the engine.
In the same vein, I hate trucks. I can't see a damn thing when they're around me and I'm trying to make a turn, or when they're in front of my shining their lights directly at my eye level. Most of these people don't need to haul anything anyway - and they've got a bald-eagle-and-American-flag stencil on their back window, along with a Calvin-pissing-on-opposing-truck-manufacturer sticker.
What are you talking about? These are THE GAMES people want to be playing! Have you seen xEyes?
Yeah, because that's reasonable. Valve has been in the industry for 12 years and they've established the biggest digital game distribution platform. You're saying he should consider starting his own service to compete (and do better at making anti-cheat software) because some people couldn't play MW2 for a weekend?
Whether it's beneficial to them or not, it still shows how good customer service can be conducted to benefit both the company and the consumer. Valve is one of the most community-friendly game developers, which is all the more amazing since they're such a successful company (not just a small indie developer).
Had this happened in a previous Call of Duty game, PunkBuster wouldn't have done a damn thing about it other than releasing a patch. If anyone cries foul at Valve's generous solution, they need to take off the tinfoil hat and also realize that not playing Modern Warfare 2 for a weekend isn't so bad.
Ha - sounds like the two extremes of cat personalities. I stand corrected. I prefer the first type (same kind I have), except when I'm trying to sleep - he craves attention, i.e. sitting on the face of sleeping people.
You've obviously never owned a cat. I can sit there talking at my cat loudly while he's sleeping (I know, I know - what the hell is wrong with me?), and he won't move or open his eyes at all. The second I say "Norman", even quietly, his head perks up and he looks at me. I know it's just the combination of sounds that he's used to hearing, being associated with me petting or feeding him - but he definitely answers to it, sometimes with a MOW.
I'm not concerned with babysitting users. I'm concerned with having my sites work on their browser. The most work I do to that end is a warning for IE6 and IE7 that they should upgrade to IE8, Chrome, or Firefox (with links).
Well obviously letting IE die is the way to fix the REAL problem. This isn't about the real problem - this is about a really nice bandaid.
I'm not so idealistic that I'm going to refuse to make sites work in IE and thus put myself starving on the streets - because I don't write sites for myself. I write them for clients who have ignorant customers, who are probably using IE.
It may not seem like a big deal, but these CSS3 properties can instantly make a site look nicer to a client that doesn't know much about design. These are things they demand anyway. Now it's a lot easier to do them.
You don't seem to understand - this requires the viewer to install Chrome Frame. As sweet as CF is, the reason these people are running IE6 or IE7 is because they're too ignorant/apathetic/incapable to upgrade their browser. You really think they'll install a plugin if even Windows Update's prompts for IE8 haven't gotten through yet?
This is a method for developers to get sites to look nice in IE easily, this has nothing to do with end users. Coding for all the good browsers -and- IE usually just means a terrible headache where you spend 2/3 of your time fixing shit that won't work in IE. This seeks to eliminate that nightmare situation, as far as the making-websites-pretty side of development goes.
I know CSS3 Pie basically only lets you display eye candy, but you have to understand some web developers' clients WANT this shit. They don't understand good minimalist design, they want things to be shiny and flashy.
That JS library looks pretty awesome. The PNG transparency in IE6 is nice, but it also says it fixes CSS issues - does it just fix bugs in the way IE renders CSS, or does it implement JS equivalents of modern CSS eye candy like CSS3 Pie too? If so, I'd use it.
I want to do web development for whoever pays you to do it. Not having to code for IE would be heaven, but 95% of my clients want their shit to work well in IE because, unfortunately, most people still use it. This is the terrible world we live in.
This isn't pointless - do you understand what this is? This isn't for people that use IE, it's for people that develop websites for IE. This is a Godsend for me.
Developing nice-looking websites in Chrome/Firefox/Safari/Opera is easy as PIE (pun intended), but when you want that same site to look good in IE it's a fucking nightmare. This provides some easy ways of making a site look nice in all the major browsers without a huge coding headache.
It's not arrogant - I didn't say I was a good photographer _NOR_ did I say these screens weren't art. I only pointed out that there aren't as many artful considerations to an in-game photographer (even in a dedicated photo mode like Forza 3's.)
One of the most important things about photography to me is that there's infinite ways to capture a seemingly infinite number of subjects. In a game like Forza, you've got what, hundreds of cars? Tens of tracks? You're not going to come up with much original material once the community has used the photo mode for a while. The cars will be the same, and the tracks will never change or have small details to emphasize - they'll be on the upper end of bland game levels. Have you ever seen a racing game with really great, non-repetitive details all around the tracks? No, it's all major scenery and repeated crowds.
Another thing is that photography captures a moment - but it's special because it's a moment that will never be again. In a game, you can sit there for hours and nothing will change - it's not really a moment in time you're capturing, it's a state of a computer program.
By the way, what kind of light simulation is there in that game? Does light absorb on the in-game sensor in subtly different ways at different apertures? Does the game have a 24-hour day/night cycle wherein the angle of light (and thus shadows) changes, along with the light color (and not just the color of the sky at the horizon?) Does light reflect off every surface accurately, allowing for creative ways to use it? Can you change the bokeh characteristics by changing your background and/or lenses, or is it just a computer-generated uniform blur? Is there lens flare? Does it require good technique to frame a shot and have it come out perfect?
I haven't dicked around enough in the few games that have "true" photo modes to know of them - so I'll admit to ignorance. I've been playing games since 1986, and I'd consider myself relatively hardcore. I mean come on, I've got a mid-6-digit Slashdot ID and I'm posting comments on a non-front-page story in the Games section. I don't think it was that unreasonable to assume that these shots were basically screenshots of PC games - particularly because the games I know in TFA are BioShock and Half-Life 2, neither of which HAVE a photo mode and both of which are on PC.
Just so we're clear, I'm not in the Roger Ebert camp here. Games have made me feel, and thus they're art. I suppose some in-game photography could be considered art, although I don't know that a screenshot could ever inspire an emotion in me - I haven't seen one yet that does, yet photos do all the time. The reason games have the ability to be art that other mediums don't have is immersion. When you're on Tallon IV in Metroid Prime, you really feel like it's you that's there exploring ancient Chozo ruins. I don't think in-game photography captures that feeling.