Hmm. Am I the only one who would never ever want to watch a movie on a 2 inch screen? I would never care to look at my picture album on such a screen either, but at least with a camera hookup the iPod Photo is at least somewhat useful. Just as long as they keep a simple, uncluttered music-only player, I'll be happy.
The sites that people click on after searching for a term...
Actually, I don't think this is one. The links an result pages look like they link directly to the site instead of going through some redirection script on Google's own server. The 'Similar pages' feature could be used for this purpose, though.
A common error in economics. Your time is only worth something if someone is PAYING you for it.
That's a load of crap. I don't get paid by spending time with my kids. I don't get paid by helping the wife with yard work. So that time is worth nothing? Perhaps my time is worth nothing to you, but it's worth an awful lot to me--far beyond any dollar amount you could put on it.
So when am I supposed to build a computer? When I'm supposed to be at my desk job or when I want to spend time with my kids? Right. My time isn't worthless, thanks.
Only the zealots claim that a Mac is cheaper. Most of us realize that x86 hardware is a commodity, and that you will obviously be paying more for Apple hardware. The point I like to bring up, though, is that the price gap is usually a lot smaller nowadays than many people realize. Most people buy Macs for the software (whether they realize it or not), and I consider the difference well worth it. But that's just me.
Gentoo was actually my first Linux distro. I installed it from stage 1. To me, it's like an accelerated learning program. Honesty, I learned the inner workings of Linux a lot faster than a lot of my associates who started with Ubuntu, etc. For what it's worth.
That said, I'm not totally convinced that spending the time to build everything from source actually made anything noticeably faster. I also consider apt-get a better package manager, but I may give Gentoo another try in a year or so.
Now, there are a few things that Linux currently cannot do that Windows can. These include installing things like Bonzi Buddy, Gator, and other cool freeware tools which come bundled with spyware, as well as some online gaming programs, etc. However, for people who want to use their computers to actually be productive, it is far better than Windows.
Actually, there are many good, real examples of things that you can do on Windows that you can't on Linux. First of all, running any native win32 binary is going to work better in Windows (as opposed to Wine). I would argue that having to crap around with Wine to run a certain Windows program decreases productivity, if it will even work at all. Second, there is no Photoshop and for most professionals Gimp is not an acceptable alternative. A great number of professional tools can be inserted in the previous sentence, if you aren't a graphic artist.
Also, your view of spyware is skewed. It isn't a "Windows" problem, it's an "Internet Explorer" problem. I built a Windows 2000 machine for my brother. The first thing I did was install Firefox (and he doesn't use Outlook). My brother is a typical "stupid" user and he hasn't had even one virus or any spyware at all. The only thing I've had to help him with is installing some HP drivers--and anyone who has had to do that will certainly understand.
Personally, I predominantly use Mac OS X with some Linux on the side whenever I happen to need Linux (pretty rare). I installed Windows 2000 on my brothers computer because I knew he'd be playing a lot of games, and quite frankly, I knew it would be harder for him to mess up his computer than if I installed a Linux distro. Personally, I prefer Linux over Windows, but I don't think we need to force people to conform when what they are already used to seem to work pretty good for them.
Hey, I wish I had gotten a g4 cube. Check on eBay to see how much the parts are going for. That's one of the best investments I've seen in a computer. You may not be able to make more money then you spend by selling the parts, but the computer has had several years of use, too.
But I get your point that it was an ultimate failure for Apple.
As far as I can tell, both the far left and the far right are both totally nuts! The right worships Rush Limbaugh's every word... and Rush is merely the captain of Bush's fan club. God knows who the left follow.
Honestly, I've got the best spot: sitting right in the middle. No, it's not sitting on the fence or being undecided. Being neutral allows you to take each issue as it comes and make your own decision.
Personally, I voted Bush as the lesser of two evils, but so far I've been disappointed with almost everything he's done so far. I still wouldn't vote Kerry if I got another chance, though. I hope we get some good candidates for 2008, but I'm not holding my breath.
Of course, but that is because printf is only designed for the generic types. I rarely need to print integers of which the bit-size is important--and when I do it's probably for debugging--so it doesn't really matter all that much. Of course I use the generic types in most cases because, like I said, the number of bits usually doesn't matter.
int32_t, int64_t, etc. are pretty standard. If for some reason they aren't defined, there is no reason why you can't make the definition yourself. The printf flags are %llu for uint64_t and %lli for int64_t.
This is actually a lot more portable than using just the generic 'int' or 'long' because the size of those can vary from platform to platform.
Personally, I use the specific int sizes whenever I need a an integer of a specific size. I use the generic keywords for stuff that doesn't really matter like loop iterators, etc.
The numbers are why Apple has less market share than Linux and is...
You sound like a troll, but oh well.
Linux may have bigger marketshare on servers, but I very much doubt it has even close to the marketshare that Apple does for desktop use, which is where Apple focuses most of their marketing. Pretty impressive considering:
Linux is usually "free" (as in beer) or cheaper than Mac OS X.
Linux can be compiled to run on a lot more hardware than Mac OS X is built for.
What this means is that desktop linux must be in pretty bad shape (it was when I tried it a year ago). I don't think the old standby excuse that people just don't know about Linux yet applies any more. I know that many people believe that Windows is all there is (because I know many of them), but anyone who is informed enough to know about the Macintosh platform also at least knows about Linux, and they just aren't switching to Linux.
As for gaming on Linux. All I can say is "haha whatever." But hey, I'm really glad that you use and apparently like Linux. Just put your marketshare numbers into perspective.
I didn't mean to suggest that you yourself are being demanding, but the general feeling of posts suggest that most people feel Microsoft owes them open formats.
There are plenty of instances in which you can point your finger at Microsoft and show that they abuse their position in the free market, but in this instance they don't owe their competitors the specs and they don't owe you the specs. It is your data, but it is still their specification. If you are concerned about accessing your data, then that is one more reason to choose an open solution to begin with.
That's why I personally don't use Microsoft products. I very much prefer open formats and standards-compliant software. I still don't think the world owes me those things.
In the end of the day, Microsoft has no obligation to make it easy for you to switch to another office suite. They have no obligation to support any other product. It is up to the other product to make the transition as easy as possible since they are the ones trying to win your business. "Open" documents would certainly be nice and many people (governments) simply choose products with open formats to begin with, but that doesn't mean Microsoft has any legal obligation to open their formats and it's a bit silly for anyone to "demand" it of them.
Your "generational upgrade" description is not totally accurate in that backwards compatibility is not necessarily broken. 9.x is able to run software written for much earlier systems (7.x, etc) and even OS X at least has the Classic environment for running such software.
I very much doubt it. Customers which bitch and whine and I'm certain they would get their way. But the important point is that Adobe would never yank support to begin with because it would be pointless to create such a situation.
#2 is flawed. That's not how business works. Adobe isn't supporting the Mac platform out of their good graces. Adobe supports the Macintosh because they have a lot of customers using Macs, and it's as simple as that. Yanking Mac support would simply be a terrible business decision for Adobe.
You're "up to date" with a 2001 operating system. If that is your meaning of "up to date" then, you will have to assume that you won't update the Mac operating system either, and you will both have a 2001 operating system. The difference is that there is something better available for your Mac if you so choose to upgrade (which is totally optional).
Wow. Windows XP has been out for how long and it is still over a hundred bucks? I'm glad I have a Mac. I probably couldn't afford to live the Windows lifestyle.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm. Am I the only one who would never ever want to watch a movie on a 2 inch screen? I would never care to look at my picture album on such a screen either, but at least with a camera hookup the iPod Photo is at least somewhat useful. Just as long as they keep a simple, uncluttered music-only player, I'll be happy.
Actually, you don't have to be a developer to submit bug reports/enhancement requests. Anyone can submit feedback.
Well, I think TigerDirect might have a case. Fortunately I've just been notified that Fedex is now in position of my copy. No stopping it now!
So when am I supposed to build a computer? When I'm supposed to be at my desk job or when I want to spend time with my kids? Right. My time isn't worthless, thanks.
Only the zealots claim that a Mac is cheaper. Most of us realize that x86 hardware is a commodity, and that you will obviously be paying more for Apple hardware. The point I like to bring up, though, is that the price gap is usually a lot smaller nowadays than many people realize. Most people buy Macs for the software (whether they realize it or not), and I consider the difference well worth it. But that's just me.
Gentoo was actually my first Linux distro. I installed it from stage 1. To me, it's like an accelerated learning program. Honesty, I learned the inner workings of Linux a lot faster than a lot of my associates who started with Ubuntu, etc. For what it's worth.
That said, I'm not totally convinced that spending the time to build everything from source actually made anything noticeably faster. I also consider apt-get a better package manager, but I may give Gentoo another try in a year or so.
Also, your view of spyware is skewed. It isn't a "Windows" problem, it's an "Internet Explorer" problem. I built a Windows 2000 machine for my brother. The first thing I did was install Firefox (and he doesn't use Outlook). My brother is a typical "stupid" user and he hasn't had even one virus or any spyware at all. The only thing I've had to help him with is installing some HP drivers--and anyone who has had to do that will certainly understand.
Personally, I predominantly use Mac OS X with some Linux on the side whenever I happen to need Linux (pretty rare). I installed Windows 2000 on my brothers computer because I knew he'd be playing a lot of games, and quite frankly, I knew it would be harder for him to mess up his computer than if I installed a Linux distro. Personally, I prefer Linux over Windows, but I don't think we need to force people to conform when what they are already used to seem to work pretty good for them.
Hey, I wish I had gotten a g4 cube. Check on eBay to see how much the parts are going for. That's one of the best investments I've seen in a computer. You may not be able to make more money then you spend by selling the parts, but the computer has had several years of use, too.
But I get your point that it was an ultimate failure for Apple.
For all the good those laws do. Microsoft owns the government, too.
As far as I can tell, both the far left and the far right are both totally nuts! The right worships Rush Limbaugh's every word... and Rush is merely the captain of Bush's fan club. God knows who the left follow.
Honestly, I've got the best spot: sitting right in the middle. No, it's not sitting on the fence or being undecided. Being neutral allows you to take each issue as it comes and make your own decision.
Personally, I voted Bush as the lesser of two evils, but so far I've been disappointed with almost everything he's done so far. I still wouldn't vote Kerry if I got another chance, though. I hope we get some good candidates for 2008, but I'm not holding my breath.
Of course, but that is because printf is only designed for the generic types. I rarely need to print integers of which the bit-size is important--and when I do it's probably for debugging--so it doesn't really matter all that much. Of course I use the generic types in most cases because, like I said, the number of bits usually doesn't matter.
int32_t, int64_t, etc. are pretty standard. If for some reason they aren't defined, there is no reason why you can't make the definition yourself. The printf flags are %llu for uint64_t and %lli for int64_t.
This is actually a lot more portable than using just the generic 'int' or 'long' because the size of those can vary from platform to platform.
Personally, I use the specific int sizes whenever I need a an integer of a specific size. I use the generic keywords for stuff that doesn't really matter like loop iterators, etc.
Linux may have bigger marketshare on servers, but I very much doubt it has even close to the marketshare that Apple does for desktop use, which is where Apple focuses most of their marketing. Pretty impressive considering:
- Linux is usually "free" (as in beer) or cheaper than Mac OS X.
- Linux can be compiled to run on a lot more hardware than Mac OS X is built for.
What this means is that desktop linux must be in pretty bad shape (it was when I tried it a year ago). I don't think the old standby excuse that people just don't know about Linux yet applies any more. I know that many people believe that Windows is all there is (because I know many of them), but anyone who is informed enough to know about the Macintosh platform also at least knows about Linux, and they just aren't switching to Linux.As for gaming on Linux. All I can say is "haha whatever." But hey, I'm really glad that you use and apparently like Linux. Just put your marketshare numbers into perspective.
I now remember why I don't watch soap operas.
Every episode is exactly the same.
I didn't mean to suggest that you yourself are being demanding, but the general feeling of posts suggest that most people feel Microsoft owes them open formats.
There are plenty of instances in which you can point your finger at Microsoft and show that they abuse their position in the free market, but in this instance they don't owe their competitors the specs and they don't owe you the specs. It is your data, but it is still their specification. If you are concerned about accessing your data, then that is one more reason to choose an open solution to begin with.
That's why I personally don't use Microsoft products. I very much prefer open formats and standards-compliant software. I still don't think the world owes me those things.
In the end of the day, Microsoft has no obligation to make it easy for you to switch to another office suite. They have no obligation to support any other product. It is up to the other product to make the transition as easy as possible since they are the ones trying to win your business. "Open" documents would certainly be nice and many people (governments) simply choose products with open formats to begin with, but that doesn't mean Microsoft has any legal obligation to open their formats and it's a bit silly for anyone to "demand" it of them.
You think the Internet Explorer user base is dwindling? Not even close.
Your "generational upgrade" description is not totally accurate in that backwards compatibility is not necessarily broken. 9.x is able to run software written for much earlier systems (7.x, etc) and even OS X at least has the Classic environment for running such software.
I very much doubt it. Customers which bitch and whine and I'm certain they would get their way. But the important point is that Adobe would never yank support to begin with because it would be pointless to create such a situation.
#2 is flawed. That's not how business works. Adobe isn't supporting the Mac platform out of their good graces. Adobe supports the Macintosh because they have a lot of customers using Macs, and it's as simple as that. Yanking Mac support would simply be a terrible business decision for Adobe.
You're "up to date" with a 2001 operating system. If that is your meaning of "up to date" then, you will have to assume that you won't update the Mac operating system either, and you will both have a 2001 operating system. The difference is that there is something better available for your Mac if you so choose to upgrade (which is totally optional).
Wow. Windows XP has been out for how long and it is still over a hundred bucks? I'm glad I have a Mac. I probably couldn't afford to live the Windows lifestyle.