> For example, rather than producing Hollywood-caliber graphics on a custom basis for each game, perhaps that function is better served by standalone companies that create characters and associated animations that game developers can license for use.
I don't mean to flame, but that is the most absurd idea I have heard in a good while.
> Windows has the same problem. The Win98 desktop is NOTHING like the XP desktop.
Funny, if the average user took a look at my XP desktop and then took a look at a 98 desktop I doubt they'd be able to point out a significant difference.
It is easy to get XP to look like 98 did. Just change the theme to "Windows Classic", and set your taskbar to "Classic Start Menu".
Anyone who can't figure this out is probably better off with the newfangled XP desktop anyway.
The differences between XP and 98 are extremely insignificant compared to the differences between KDE, Gnome, Fluxbox, pekwm, etc.
> This proof of RIAA is as good as the SCO evidences of greek language or bsd firewall code against linux
Uh, actually this is irrefutable proof. It will miss a lot of songs, but it is virtually guaranteed to not give false positives. This is much more solid proof than SCO had.
To think a month or two ago when SCO was insisting on an NDA many on/. were clamoring for some MD5 sums instead...
Obviously the RIAA's technical experts know what they are doing... its time to alter a few ID3 tags like the story suggested.
Of course the comparison was a generalization. I am assuming my 2.6 ghz has a proportional amount of more memory than his 366mhz (1GB as compared to.. 128mb at the most?).
Its all not very relevant though, one cannot complain Firebird/Thunderbird are by nature slower than other programs if one is using something as measly and obsolete as a 366mhz.
Well I do not think it was pointless to respond. At the very least I was indicating to a less wary reader that it was a possible troll.
As for comparing relative performance on a 2.5ghz to a 366mhz, I think it is entirely valid.
If you take two well coded programs, A and B, and run them on both a slow and fast processor, the relative performance of the two programs to each other will be comparable at least 95% of the time.
I love Firebird's underlying technology and the fact that its OSS but I think Opera 7.11 is more refined on the UI side of things, so I use it as my main browser.
If you trully can't afford (or don't want) to pay for Opera then a simple google search for a key will let you register and remove the ads.
IMO Firebird is a copy of Opera's UI. Its a good copy, and its progressing nicely, but Opera is still better.
And when I do come across one of the few pages that won't render in Opera I just fire up IE or Firebird.
You don't understand, this is about Firebird/Thunderbird IN GENERAL, not the performance on a Celeron 366 in particular. The AC demeaned Firebird/Thunderbird's performance, then mentioned right at the tail end of his post that he had an obsolete processor, the performance of which is no interest to Slashdotters in general.
Now, it is certainly possible that Firebird/Thunderbird run slow in comparison to other browsers/e-mail clients on a Celeron 366. This strikes me as very strange, but I do not claim to know for sure.
What I do know is that because of the strangeness of his comment there is a reasonably large chance it was a troll.
Who the hell is interested in discussing a Celeron 366mhz anyway? ten or twelve days ago at work I put eight fully functional Celeron 533's in a dumpster because no one would take them, not even the local school.
Even with the Firebird/Thunderbird source tree to back them up, they are going to have a hell of a hard time competing with Opera as a commercial product.
The only qualification I made was to my statement:
> "Either you are a troll, or browsers perform significantly different with a slow processor."
I have not tried Mozilla on a sub Ghz machine, nor do I intend to. Some of us like to keep current with the times... my THREE previous machines were faster than 1ghz.
Either you are a troll, or browsers perform significantly different with a slow processor.
My Athlon 2500 and Pentium4 2.6ghz systems run Moz/Firebird/Thunderbird significantly faster than any other browser/e-mail client except Opera, Mutt and of course Lynx and Pico.
Slashdot Mirror
Not sure if you were trying to be funny or not, but in (pretending?) to miss the point you've sure made a good one of your own.
> For example, rather than producing Hollywood-caliber graphics on a custom basis for each game, perhaps that function is better served by standalone companies that create characters and associated animations that game developers can license for use.
I don't mean to flame, but that is the most absurd idea I have heard in a good while.
It is a step in the right direction though.
Tomorrow's headline:
Red Hat, SuSE, Mandrake, Debian, Gentoo, Lindows, and Sun Microsystems agree to standardize the KDE desktop for Linux.
Yeah, right.
Yes it changed form 3.1 --> 95. But this was just natural progress (the 3.1 interface sucked).
If you compared KDE 3.x to 1.x., would it look the same? No.
So that isn't the point. The point is the end user does not know how to choose KDE/GNOME/Whatever
> Windows has the same problem. The Win98 desktop is NOTHING like the XP desktop.
Funny, if the average user took a look at my XP desktop and then took a look at a 98 desktop I doubt they'd be able to point out a significant difference.
It is easy to get XP to look like 98 did. Just change the theme to "Windows Classic", and set your taskbar to "Classic Start Menu".
Anyone who can't figure this out is probably better off with the newfangled XP desktop anyway.
The differences between XP and 98 are extremely insignificant compared to the differences between KDE, Gnome, Fluxbox, pekwm, etc.
Your analogy (criminal with shades) is hardly aplicable IMO, but you are correct in saying there will be "very easy false negatives."
As I said, it "will miss a lot of songs."
Big companies working together, you say?
The conspiracy theorists are going to have a heyday.
> This proof of RIAA is as good as the SCO evidences of greek language or bsd firewall code against linux
/. were clamoring for some MD5 sums instead...
Uh, actually this is irrefutable proof. It will miss a lot of songs, but it is virtually guaranteed to not give false positives. This is much more solid proof than SCO had.
To think a month or two ago when SCO was insisting on an NDA many on
Obviously the RIAA's technical experts know what they are doing... its time to alter a few ID3 tags like the story suggested.
Of course the comparison was a generalization. I am assuming my 2.6 ghz has a proportional amount of more memory than his 366mhz (1GB as compared to.. 128mb at the most?).
Its all not very relevant though, one cannot complain Firebird/Thunderbird are by nature slower than other programs if one is using something as measly and obsolete as a 366mhz.
> They're using those to play "Global Thermonuclear War"
No dude, that was the 60's. Today its mosty Tic-Tac-Toe and the occassional game of chess.
I asked most of the employees, but most were so glad to finally be rid of the clunkers at work and had no interest in taking one hume.
I asked the school, and they are well stocked with Pentium III's.
Sometimes I will give old systems to kids at the local slum, but no one was interested.
To bad we do not have a Goodwill in town....
Well I do not think it was pointless to respond. At the very least I was indicating to a less wary reader that it was a possible troll.
As for comparing relative performance on a 2.5ghz to a 366mhz, I think it is entirely valid.
If you take two well coded programs, A and B, and run them on both a slow and fast processor, the relative performance of the two programs to each other will be comparable at least 95% of the time.
I love Firebird's underlying technology and the fact that its OSS but I think Opera 7.11 is more refined on the UI side of things, so I use it as my main browser.
If you trully can't afford (or don't want) to pay for Opera then a simple google search for a key will let you register and remove the ads.
IMO Firebird is a copy of Opera's UI. Its a good copy, and its progressing nicely, but Opera is still better.
And when I do come across one of the few pages that won't render in Opera I just fire up IE or Firebird.
You don't understand, this is about Firebird/Thunderbird IN GENERAL, not the performance on a Celeron 366 in particular. The AC demeaned Firebird/Thunderbird's performance, then mentioned right at the tail end of his post that he had an obsolete processor, the performance of which is no interest to Slashdotters in general.
Now, it is certainly possible that Firebird/Thunderbird run slow in comparison to other browsers/e-mail clients on a Celeron 366. This strikes me as very strange, but I do not claim to know for sure.
What I do know is that because of the strangeness of his comment there is a reasonably large chance it was a troll.
Who the hell is interested in discussing a Celeron 366mhz anyway? ten or twelve days ago at work I put eight fully functional Celeron 533's in a dumpster because no one would take them, not even the local school.
Yes but we really shouldn't discuss those things on /. unless they are really, really high tech, eviro safe, or solar cars.
;)
So I was just playing along
I think you are in the minorty here because the two choices most people will make seem pretty clear to me:
a) Participate in the Firebird project, whether it be using, developing, testing, or making suggestions.
b) Stick it out with the stable 1.4 and upgrade to 1.6 or 2.0 later.
*sigh... read my response to the AC above you, maybe it'll help you learn to read properly.
Even with the Firebird/Thunderbird source tree to back them up, they are going to have a hell of a hard time competing with Opera as a commercial product.
By *system* I meant server side and *client*, designed to work together. It doesn't matter whether its MIME, IMAP, LDAP, or XYZAP. That's irrelevant.
What matters is that it all works together as a well integrated *system*, and preferably gets bundled with a good office suite like OO.o
The only qualification I made was to my statement:
> "Either you are a troll, or browsers perform significantly different with a slow processor."
I have not tried Mozilla on a sub Ghz machine, nor do I intend to. Some of us like to keep current with the times... my THREE previous machines were faster than 1ghz.
> It's not the finished product and doesn't pretend to be.
Uh, actually, release candidates DO pretend to be a finished product. Its the betas that do not.
Either you are a troll, or browsers perform significantly different with a slow processor.
My Athlon 2500 and Pentium4 2.6ghz systems run Moz/Firebird/Thunderbird significantly faster than any other browser/e-mail client except Opera, Mutt and of course Lynx and Pico.
> Uh, yeah, so why haven't we seen a new version since 0.6.1, which was released, what, six years ago?
I wouldn't call exactly 30 days ago "six years."
> Nothing (yet) beats gecko's (mozilla renderer) CSS 1/2 compliance.
I thought KHTML was the current reigning champion in this regard?