It's not just netbooks. Widescreen is perhaps the worst thing to happen to monitors. This bullshit lets manufacturers sell a screen with smaller area as the same "inches".
I hate the music industry. I hate their unethical behavior. I hate how they bully people. I hate how they cater to the lowest common denominator. I hate how they try to shove crap down our throats. I don't want any "forgiveness" or "amnesty" bullshit. I WANT THEM DEAD.
When Apple did their origional research, they found that the menu bar in the same top location allowed users to locate it and it's commands more quickly (as they don't have to search for it).
It's not searching, it's aiming. The fixed menu bar has the advantage of being an "infinitely vertical" target. You just throw the cursor to the top: it will never go past the menu bar. In Windows, doing the same is fruitless. Not only you have to find the menu, you have to aim at it horizontally and vertically.
Apple's design remains the best -- it takes the least effort to perform the same task.
They seem to have improved the menubar on top over the Mac by putting the menubar on the same screen as the program. This is much better than the Mac where the menubar always appears on the primary screen even when the program window is on a secondary screen... this drives me crazy...
I've explored various add-on programs and kludgy fixes for my Mac to get the menubar to at least be on the same screen but no joy.
That would conflict with the way MacOS works, since it does not follow the "window=program" convention that is found in other systems. Apps can be running yet not have any window open, or have multiple windows in a single instance (in fact, apps can not have more than one instance). So, if you have multiple monitors, the same app can have windows in different monitors. And a window can be partly in two different monitors. Which monitor should get the menu bar? Should each monitor have one? Should it move around, depending on what window (not program) is frontmost?
Well, I'm a long time Mac fan, and I'd say the problem is not that they aped the Mac, but they did it in a "cargo cult" way: they aped it without understanding why it works, consequently making it NOT work.
They put the menu bar on top, good; then they make the menus hide -- d'oh. The advantage of that single bar on the top is that it's easier to target what you want to click, but they make it so you can't target without the intermediate step of putting the cursor on the damn thing. What's the point, then?
They add a Dock-like launcher, okay; they put it to the side rather than the bottom -- d'oh. They make it auto-hide -- d'oh again, nobody likes that. They make the apps stack in a weird pseudo-3D way -- and d'oh yet again. Cherry on top of the shit-flavored cake: they give you no easy way to customize that. And then you decide that migrating to a different system must be easier than getting used to this madness.
Yes, but which is it: "just gotta fix this and that" broken, or "this thing is a complete mess" broken?
I'll take the latter, as my impression of Unity was pretty much the worst possible; absolutely nothing works as a regular user would expect. It's like they went out of their way to make things as cryptic and unfamiliar as possible. It's nearly unusable. Oh, and Gnome 3? It sucks too. Both are like a goddamn cell phone interface crammed into the desktop -- seems to be a trend now. Well, fuck this shit: it simply does not work!
I've played MAME on an OLED device before and... you know, there's something about each pixel emitting light... it's like you're actually using a CRT again.
I can see some similar replies: "It depends on what you mean by adventure"... well, no. If you say adventure, you MUST mean games similar to Zork, King's Quest, Myst, Monkey Island, Gabriel Knight, stuff like that. Otherwise, you are simply using the wrong word. This is the traditional, well-established, widely accepted definition; it is not open to debate, period.
It's baffling to see Rodney King taken as an example of an innocent victim of police brutality. Look into it, get the full story. He was driving while drunk, refused to pull over (a DUI would violate his robbery parole), gave chase, resisted arrest, and tried to attack the policemen. Since then, he has been arrested for drunk driving and domestic violence.
It's ironic -- sure the LAPD was notoriously violent, but the case that gets everyone's attention is the one in which the use of force was justified!
Slashdot Mirror
Businesses need ActiveX for legacy junk. But a good browser would never run something as insecure as ActiveX.
It's not just netbooks. Widescreen is perhaps the worst thing to happen to monitors. This bullshit lets manufacturers sell a screen with smaller area as the same "inches".
It's not just netbooks, I've seen quite a few desktops that came with absolute rubbish distros.
We just need to clone the Duke.
It would take forever to make, and it would not be as cool as the original anyway.
Oh, wait, it's the new one.
That's such an offensive thing to say. I demand you apologize to the monkeys!
I hate the music industry. I hate their unethical behavior. I hate how they bully people. I hate how they cater to the lowest common denominator. I hate how they try to shove crap down our throats. I don't want any "forgiveness" or "amnesty" bullshit. I WANT THEM DEAD.
Nothing they do surprises me anymore.
When Apple did their origional research, they found that the menu bar in the same top location allowed users to locate it and it's commands more quickly (as they don't have to search for it).
It's not searching, it's aiming. The fixed menu bar has the advantage of being an "infinitely vertical" target. You just throw the cursor to the top: it will never go past the menu bar. In Windows, doing the same is fruitless. Not only you have to find the menu, you have to aim at it horizontally and vertically.
Apple's design remains the best -- it takes the least effort to perform the same task.
What's truly sad is that the world of wide screen displays does not make sense.
They seem to have improved the menubar on top over the Mac by putting the menubar on the same screen as the program. This is much better than the Mac where the menubar always appears on the primary screen even when the program window is on a secondary screen... this drives me crazy...
I've explored various add-on programs and kludgy fixes for my Mac to get the menubar to at least be on the same screen but no joy.
That would conflict with the way MacOS works, since it does not follow the "window=program" convention that is found in other systems. Apps can be running yet not have any window open, or have multiple windows in a single instance (in fact, apps can not have more than one instance). So, if you have multiple monitors, the same app can have windows in different monitors. And a window can be partly in two different monitors. Which monitor should get the menu bar? Should each monitor have one? Should it move around, depending on what window (not program) is frontmost?
Well, I'm a long time Mac fan, and I'd say the problem is not that they aped the Mac, but they did it in a "cargo cult" way: they aped it without understanding why it works, consequently making it NOT work.
They put the menu bar on top, good; then they make the menus hide -- d'oh. The advantage of that single bar on the top is that it's easier to target what you want to click, but they make it so you can't target without the intermediate step of putting the cursor on the damn thing. What's the point, then?
They add a Dock-like launcher, okay; they put it to the side rather than the bottom -- d'oh. They make it auto-hide -- d'oh again, nobody likes that. They make the apps stack in a weird pseudo-3D way -- and d'oh yet again. Cherry on top of the shit-flavored cake: they give you no easy way to customize that. And then you decide that migrating to a different system must be easier than getting used to this madness.
Yes, but a bit of trivia: as 5% of the Finnish people, Swedish was his mother language.
Yes, but which is it: "just gotta fix this and that" broken, or "this thing is a complete mess" broken?
I'll take the latter, as my impression of Unity was pretty much the worst possible; absolutely nothing works as a regular user would expect. It's like they went out of their way to make things as cryptic and unfamiliar as possible. It's nearly unusable. Oh, and Gnome 3? It sucks too. Both are like a goddamn cell phone interface crammed into the desktop -- seems to be a trend now. Well, fuck this shit: it simply does not work!
A question mark ending an affirmative sentence that is broken by ellipsis is meant to be read as a suggestion spoken in a hesitant tone.
I've played MAME on an OLED device before and... you know, there's something about each pixel emitting light... it's like you're actually using a CRT again.
Then... buy a CRT monitor?
Actually yes, it should be. But that's a whole different topic.
And I can't accept vsync disabled, screen tearing is far more noticeable and annoying than a tiny bit of lag.
as a Dreamcast owner who DIDN'T pirate games
Then you've missed the best it can offer; some of the best DC games were rare imports, or even leaked betas of cancelled titles.
Not a new euphemism at all. Mind you, "vagina" is the Latin word for "scabbard".
Especially with the prevalence of the first person ad nauseam... i mean shooter.
No, you don't. If you say simply "shooter", you MUST mean shoot 'em ups, not first person shooters. That is: R-Type, not Doom.
I can see some similar replies: "It depends on what you mean by adventure"... well, no. If you say adventure, you MUST mean games similar to Zork, King's Quest, Myst, Monkey Island, Gabriel Knight, stuff like that. Otherwise, you are simply using the wrong word. This is the traditional, well-established, widely accepted definition; it is not open to debate, period.
Zelda is not an adventure, it is an action-RPG (in fact, Zelda DEFINES what action-RPG even means).
An adventure game is between an action game and roleplay.
How can that be? One of the defining traits of the adventure genre is the ABSENCE of action gameplay.
It's baffling to see Rodney King taken as an example of an innocent victim of police brutality. Look into it, get the full story. He was driving while drunk, refused to pull over (a DUI would violate his robbery parole), gave chase, resisted arrest, and tried to attack the policemen. Since then, he has been arrested for drunk driving and domestic violence.
It's ironic -- sure the LAPD was notoriously violent, but the case that gets everyone's attention is the one in which the use of force was justified!