Oh, please. Using an emotional word typed in all-caps doesn't make something true. It's not "extortion" to offer settlements. You guys all wanted the RIAA to go after individual infringers back in 2000 and 2001, and now they do that and you complain, so now they offer people a quick way to avoid lawsuits and you don't like THAT either.
Why don't you guys just admit that you're a bunch of pirates who don't want the RIAA to look good in any situation, so that you have someone to scapegoat as the bad guy to take the spotlight off of you? "The RIAA made me do it! They're so evil! Look at how they sue people who are infringing on their rights, the horror!"
People will now be able to settle for a discount. How nice.
Okay, maybe I'll get modded down for this (or get modded up for writing that old cliche), but what exactly is wrong with this? The RIAA is locating pirates via IP and, instead of suing them, offering them a quick and easy settlement.
Back in 2000 during the Napster lawsuits, every Slashdotter including the editors said the RIAA should go after individual infringers rather than P2P networks. Well, now they're doing that, and you don't like that either. What's changed? Are you just opposed to the RIAA protecting its own intellectual property period?
I have a better idea. Since you don't care so much about any of this, how about you don't bother reading Vista articles, clicking reply, and typing a multi-paragraph post about it. Microsoft will certainly appreciate folks like you putting your head in the sand. With launch sales being 60% less than XP's were six years ago, they need every sucker they can get!
You don't even need the start menu, for most things you either hit the quicklaunch icon or hit the windows key, type the first few letters of the program, then hit enter.
OS X had that. It was called Spotlight. Two freaking years ago.
Except when the UI becomes unresponsive and won't let you launch a terminal. Or even click in it. I've had two occasions where I had an app beachball unrecoverably - it would not force quit.
Maybe you've already checked into this, but have you run a repair of your hard drive through Disk Utility? I was getting weird application freeze-ups on my old Mac until I ran Disk Utility, and it discovered some non-critical errors in the filesystem. After the repair, apps worked fine again. Filesystem errors like that can happen if OS X gets shut down improperly for whatever reason (in my case, a bad audio driver from M-Audio).
What a load of crap. I have never, EVER had an application bring down OS X except once--Logic Pro running a beta audio driver. That is also true for Windows XP--only drivers have ever had it crash for me.
Even when people complain about Finder sometimes freezing up when a network share disconnects, I just mention that it takes forever to open any network shares in XP. It's all a trade-off.
Well, who can argue with that kind of research? Why would I trust an official study when I could just believe what "seems" to be true to Petersko of Slashdot?
(Let's ignore that those three-year-old machines are running XP and its dated graphics blitter, compared to OS X's vector-based Quartz system. That's like complaining that Doom 3 runs slower than Doom 1...)
Vista FUD? You think hating effects like the irritating 3D window zoom-in is FUD?
It's cool if you don't like the Mac way of doing things, but I'll give you two features that make me prefer it. The first is the application menu always being at the top of the screen, because I'm now used to slamming the mouse to the top and hitting a menu. It also saves screen space. On Windows, you have to slow your hand and pinpoint. I always feel slowed down, and over time it increased my frustration level.
The second is the way all windows are tied to one application icon. When you run Firefox on Windows, you get a taskbar button for the main window, a taskbar button for the downloads window, a taskbar button for the preferences, etc. If you have five Word documents open, that's over half your taskbar taken up, and XP does the annoying button grouping. On OS X, Firefox and Word would be two icons on the Dock, and clicking an app brings forward all its windows. To me, it's cleaner, more organized, and just makes sense, and if I have 30 documents open, that might just be five or six Dock icons. On Windows, that would be 30 fucking taskbar buttons in annoying groups I have to click through.
I've never gotten the "eye candy" argument because OS X actually includes very little. Menus only fade out, not in, because Apple knows you want immediacy when you click a menu. Windows appear immediately instead of zooming in obnoxiously like in Vista.
Most of the common interface animations take place on the Dock. A new application icon will zoom into place and start bouncing so you know that it's loading. When a progress bar animates, it's so that you know the application is still doing something even when the progress bar isn't moving (Vista swiped this behavior with a goofy green spark animation). The genie minimization effect might be overkill, but you can switch it to a pleasant zoom effect if you want.
The most obnoxious Vista effect of all is the way new windows fly in at you. It is headache-inducing, and I can't explain why. Vista also makes everything translucent and has harsh glass highlights on every window. At least OS X's original translucencies were given a functional explanation of denoting inactive windows at a glance, though Apple realized their ugliness and abandoned them years ago. Microsoft is following old creative paths forged by Apple in the beginning of the decade!
When I used RC2, I counted five different application menu styles. Some wizards look one way, some look another. Some dialogs look like Windows XP, some have a Vista style. My favorite dialog is when you click the wireless icon system tray and behold a dialog that has a Properties button above another Properties button. That deserves some kind of award for glorious interface confusion.
By the way, anyone notice how the system tray icons are now monochrome and resemble OS X's icons? Check out the volume icon--it's an exact clone of OS X's, down to the sound waves on the right side that increase and decrease as you change system volume. Almost as amusing as when XP shipped by default with the Recycle Bin in the bottom-right corner of the desktop. Real subtle, Microsoft!
This being Slashdot, people like you don't read the article. If you had, you'd see that it's the very same article but with some terms flipped, thus the suspicion. I understand that you're trying to appear enlightened by accusing everyone of bias, but it only made you look foolish.
This new network is also reliant on Microsoft DRM, which rules out Mac OS X and Linux. How nice for Microsoft.
Re:Sixth column of a series
on
DRM Causes Piracy
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
This isn't a discussion of blame anyway; it's simply a discussion of cause and effect.
I disagree. The headline says DRM causes piracy. The premise is to blame DRM for piracy as some pseudo-justification for it. People do this all the time--"The RIAA made me do it!" It's bogus. You're responsible for your actions, not some technology. You say it's a discussion of cause and effect, but again, DRM doesn't cause piracy. People cause piracy.
Re:Sixth column of a series
on
DRM Causes Piracy
·
· Score: 1, Flamebait
I have to strongly disagree with the premise of this article. DRM doesn't cause piracy; people do. I can't in good conscious begin to pretend that humans are mindless drones reacting to circumstances who have no personal responsibility in what they do. Blaming technology for people's actions is a road you don't want to take, or else someone could just as easily argue that the Internet "causes" child pornography or video games cause violence. Slashdotters often defend technologies against those in the press who blame it for the actions of a criminal few, but that goes both ways, and just because you don't like DRM for whatever reasons doesn't mean you should begin to blame it for piracy in some disingenuous attempt to turn the tables on the RIAA (please stop with the "MAFIAA" nonsense). To do so means you adopt positions when they suit your agenda. People are the ones who pirate, not DRM schemes--end of story.
Could someone please explain how finding and fixing bugs/issues/problems/whatever is bad? Now, I understand that it is not particularly good from a PR perspective.
I still don't see what the Apple ads are "lying" about. I wouldn't call the UAC prompt rare, especially if you're a more experienced user. I only ever get a password prompt in OS X when some program uses Apple's Installer, which itself is rare. On Vista, many of the things I'm used to doing require these popup clicks. It just adds up and gets annoying.
I enjoyed it too for the first week. "Black & White" syndrome set in where I realized the game had no longevity, and I haven't touched it since last year. Still play Morrowind often, though.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, please. Using an emotional word typed in all-caps doesn't make something true. It's not "extortion" to offer settlements. You guys all wanted the RIAA to go after individual infringers back in 2000 and 2001, and now they do that and you complain, so now they offer people a quick way to avoid lawsuits and you don't like THAT either.
Why don't you guys just admit that you're a bunch of pirates who don't want the RIAA to look good in any situation, so that you have someone to scapegoat as the bad guy to take the spotlight off of you? "The RIAA made me do it! They're so evil! Look at how they sue people who are infringing on their rights, the horror!"
Okay, maybe I'll get modded down for this (or get modded up for writing that old cliche), but what exactly is wrong with this? The RIAA is locating pirates via IP and, instead of suing them, offering them a quick and easy settlement.
Back in 2000 during the Napster lawsuits, every Slashdotter including the editors said the RIAA should go after individual infringers rather than P2P networks. Well, now they're doing that, and you don't like that either. What's changed? Are you just opposed to the RIAA protecting its own intellectual property period?
A UCLA/Stanford media study found Fox News to be the most centrist, so yeah, you would read Fox News.
It sure is nice to come to Slashdot and get unbiased news coverage, eh?
What's "totally different" about Office for Mac?
Why not stick with Win32? Just run Windows in Parallels on a Mac. Consider virtualization an extra security diaper for Windows.
I have a better idea. Since you don't care so much about any of this, how about you don't bother reading Vista articles, clicking reply, and typing a multi-paragraph post about it. Microsoft will certainly appreciate folks like you putting your head in the sand. With launch sales being 60% less than XP's were six years ago, they need every sucker they can get!
OS X had that. It was called Spotlight. Two freaking years ago.
XP matured into a solid OS? When did this miraculous event occur? I feel like I'm traveling backwards in time whenever I use XP.
Maybe you've already checked into this, but have you run a repair of your hard drive through Disk Utility? I was getting weird application freeze-ups on my old Mac until I ran Disk Utility, and it discovered some non-critical errors in the filesystem. After the repair, apps worked fine again. Filesystem errors like that can happen if OS X gets shut down improperly for whatever reason (in my case, a bad audio driver from M-Audio).
I like not having to mess with Cygwin to get a UNIX environment. My computer is already based on UNIX out of the box.
What a load of crap. I have never, EVER had an application bring down OS X except once--Logic Pro running a beta audio driver. That is also true for Windows XP--only drivers have ever had it crash for me.
Even when people complain about Finder sometimes freezing up when a network share disconnects, I just mention that it takes forever to open any network shares in XP. It's all a trade-off.
Well, who can argue with that kind of research? Why would I trust an official study when I could just believe what "seems" to be true to Petersko of Slashdot?
(Let's ignore that those three-year-old machines are running XP and its dated graphics blitter, compared to OS X's vector-based Quartz system. That's like complaining that Doom 3 runs slower than Doom 1...)
Vista FUD? You think hating effects like the irritating 3D window zoom-in is FUD?
It's cool if you don't like the Mac way of doing things, but I'll give you two features that make me prefer it. The first is the application menu always being at the top of the screen, because I'm now used to slamming the mouse to the top and hitting a menu. It also saves screen space. On Windows, you have to slow your hand and pinpoint. I always feel slowed down, and over time it increased my frustration level.
The second is the way all windows are tied to one application icon. When you run Firefox on Windows, you get a taskbar button for the main window, a taskbar button for the downloads window, a taskbar button for the preferences, etc. If you have five Word documents open, that's over half your taskbar taken up, and XP does the annoying button grouping. On OS X, Firefox and Word would be two icons on the Dock, and clicking an app brings forward all its windows. To me, it's cleaner, more organized, and just makes sense, and if I have 30 documents open, that might just be five or six Dock icons. On Windows, that would be 30 fucking taskbar buttons in annoying groups I have to click through.
I've never gotten the "eye candy" argument because OS X actually includes very little. Menus only fade out, not in, because Apple knows you want immediacy when you click a menu. Windows appear immediately instead of zooming in obnoxiously like in Vista.
Most of the common interface animations take place on the Dock. A new application icon will zoom into place and start bouncing so you know that it's loading. When a progress bar animates, it's so that you know the application is still doing something even when the progress bar isn't moving (Vista swiped this behavior with a goofy green spark animation). The genie minimization effect might be overkill, but you can switch it to a pleasant zoom effect if you want.
The most obnoxious Vista effect of all is the way new windows fly in at you. It is headache-inducing, and I can't explain why. Vista also makes everything translucent and has harsh glass highlights on every window. At least OS X's original translucencies were given a functional explanation of denoting inactive windows at a glance, though Apple realized their ugliness and abandoned them years ago. Microsoft is following old creative paths forged by Apple in the beginning of the decade!
When I used RC2, I counted five different application menu styles. Some wizards look one way, some look another. Some dialogs look like Windows XP, some have a Vista style. My favorite dialog is when you click the wireless icon system tray and behold a dialog that has a Properties button above another Properties button. That deserves some kind of award for glorious interface confusion.
By the way, anyone notice how the system tray icons are now monochrome and resemble OS X's icons? Check out the volume icon--it's an exact clone of OS X's, down to the sound waves on the right side that increase and decrease as you change system volume. Almost as amusing as when XP shipped by default with the Recycle Bin in the bottom-right corner of the desktop. Real subtle, Microsoft!
This being Slashdot, people like you don't read the article. If you had, you'd see that it's the very same article but with some terms flipped, thus the suspicion. I understand that you're trying to appear enlightened by accusing everyone of bias, but it only made you look foolish.
This new network is also reliant on Microsoft DRM, which rules out Mac OS X and Linux. How nice for Microsoft.
I disagree. The headline says DRM causes piracy. The premise is to blame DRM for piracy as some pseudo-justification for it. People do this all the time--"The RIAA made me do it!" It's bogus. You're responsible for your actions, not some technology. You say it's a discussion of cause and effect, but again, DRM doesn't cause piracy. People cause piracy.
I have to strongly disagree with the premise of this article. DRM doesn't cause piracy; people do. I can't in good conscious begin to pretend that humans are mindless drones reacting to circumstances who have no personal responsibility in what they do. Blaming technology for people's actions is a road you don't want to take, or else someone could just as easily argue that the Internet "causes" child pornography or video games cause violence. Slashdotters often defend technologies against those in the press who blame it for the actions of a criminal few, but that goes both ways, and just because you don't like DRM for whatever reasons doesn't mean you should begin to blame it for piracy in some disingenuous attempt to turn the tables on the RIAA (please stop with the "MAFIAA" nonsense). To do so means you adopt positions when they suit your agenda. People are the ones who pirate, not DRM schemes--end of story.
Is it a great month when vulnerabilities are found in Internet Explorer?
Didn't you just answer your own question?
Birds use twigs to jab into trees and pull out termites to eat.
I still don't see what the Apple ads are "lying" about. I wouldn't call the UAC prompt rare, especially if you're a more experienced user. I only ever get a password prompt in OS X when some program uses Apple's Installer, which itself is rare. On Vista, many of the things I'm used to doing require these popup clicks. It just adds up and gets annoying.
I enjoyed it too for the first week. "Black & White" syndrome set in where I realized the game had no longevity, and I haven't touched it since last year. Still play Morrowind often, though.