Well, it's not really rational, more like some sort of idealism... the command line seemed primitive (and still does, frankly). You looked at DOS and thought: how quaint. You looked at Windows and thought: it still has DOS inside. Having no command line made the Mac seem pure and modern; it was designed from scratch, no legacy, no cruft. It was built with usability in mind: no consideration for how computers used to work, only how they should.
Too bad it was not really that modern: no preemptive multitasking, no memory protection, a program crash would usually bring the whole system down.
While id Tech 4 had taken a new direction with its dynamic per-pixel lighting, this unconventional feature had steeper hardware requirements and was initially only useful in "spooky games" (until the MegaTexture addition), whereas an increasing number of developers preferred conventional engines that could render large outdoor areas. Also notable was id Tech 4's relative lack of scalability compared to competing FPS engines which would have limited its potential audience; the Source Engine could still run on the older widespread DirectX 7 GPUs albeit without shaders being used.
Also, Doom 3 was... to put it politely, terribly un-Doom-like.
Wait, how come a musician has no say in the engineer's work? True, if you're a session musician, you have no final control. But if you play solo or in a band, just go to him and complain; he probably compressed shit to hell because that's what the clueless "suits" always ask him to do, not because he likes to destroy sound quality.
I dunno where AC gets his information, I haven't found this to be the case with my mac.
I believe he was talking about Apple's programs on Windows -- Quicktime, iTunes, and Safari. They do install that updater shit. That's the kind of sleazy, sneaky design I'd expect from someone like Real or AOL, not Apple!
What I find really funny comparing Windows/Gnome/KDE with a Mac. The Mac actually has a lot less eye candy, yet perception has it as having more.
Maybe it's not just less eye candy. It's subtler eye candy. For example, Vista's Flip 3D will show all your windows in a tilted cascade... fantastic for computer magazine screenshots, quite worthless for the user. OSX's Exposé will instead let you see your stuff and find what you need.
Okay, the shovel thing was a bit simplistic. I guess it's more like this:
I have these blueprints for a nice, complete playground. You come to me and ask, can I borrow your blueprints to build my playground? Sure, here ya go.
Now, after you're done, I see you did not follow the plans strictly: you added a cool new toy. I ask, can I borrow the blueprint for new toy? And you just say no.
Give me your stuff then I'll show you how to tape it. Dude seriously, if you want it, just tape the shaft so that it will grow back.
Tape? Already did. Would have possibly gone insane if it wasn't for that. An improvement, yes. But it's far from perfect. The sensations are not quite right.
I wonder if I could clone and implant the real deal. Hello, any stem cell scientist lurking here?!
As it stands there is nothing to make them release the source code to drivers they have written.
I don't think you get it. You consider "freedom" to be the ability to force other people to release their own code under terms you find favorable?
The question here is, whose freedom?
The BSD license gives freedom to the developer; the GNU license gives freedom to the code itself.
That is: with BSD, you can take code from the community, do work on top of theirs, and keep it for yourself. In a sense, you can take free code and turn it into non-free code. With GNU, you can take code from the community, and do work on top of theirs; then, you are obliged to share back. The code was free, the code stays free. If you use my shovel to build your playground, you damn better let me play too.
I think if the sensations during intercourse with my wife were even more intense, my head would explode.
Here's an analogy... it's like they altered your eyes to make you see in black and white; and someone says you could have a "more intense" vision. Not ever knowing color, you can only imagine that as increased brightness. And you think, no, I don't need more brightness.
But it's not just more of what you know. It's something you don't know at all.
Note, however, that male circumcision (no significant long-term loss of function) is not in the same world as female "circumcision", which causes a permanent loss of function.
"Developing" countries are now, and always have been second world countries
The "worlds" classification does not work that way.
First world: wealthy capitalist countries. USA, Canada, Japan, Australia, all of Europe. Second world: communist countries. China, Cuba, North Korea. Previously, of course, the Soviet Union. Third world: developing or poor countries. All of South America, all of Africa, most of Asia, and Russia. Fourth world: nations without a state: roma, palestinians, native americans; or nomadic, hunter-gatherer societies.
The bigger problem, in my opinion, is not that it comes with a browser, but that you CAN'T get rid of it. Before XP, Microsoft claimed IE was "part of the system", and you couldn't remove it. People called bullshit and found a way - there was a third-party app for that. What did MS do next? Merge file browsing and web browsing for real, so now you really can't uninstall it. They made things WORSE ON PURPOSE.
and frankly basic CG is doable on a desktop computer.
Reminds me of an interesting story. An episode of Diagnosis Murder needed a scene of a motorcycle crash, but the budget was not enough for a location shot... so Dick Van Dyke went home, turned on his Amiga, and did the crash in CG.
The way the mac is described to me seems to imply that if I have, say, two safari windows and a word editor open, switching between the safari windows is done differently than switching between the word editor and one of the safari windows.
Yes, that is correct: I press command + ` to move from window to window in the same program; and command + tab to move from an application to another.
And again, the Mac way is the best. Using your example: I have two web browser windows open, and a word editor. Now, I am reading one of the browser windows, and want to read the other. I just press two keys and I'm there - no chance to move to a different program unless I want to.
But just two programs? Let's make the example more realistic. You may be running a number of programs at once: text editor, graphics editor, audio editor, web browser, instant messenger, torrent client, whatever. Each program may have several windows. What to do... wade through a list with perhaps dozens of windows? The Mac way enforces a logical hierarchy: first the programs, then the documents that belong to each program. You want a "flat" system, that just gives you all every document at once. For me, that's a pain. I mean, when I use XP, I always change the taskbar to two rows, because one is just not enough.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, to some extent. Check MESS.
Well, it's not really rational, more like some sort of idealism... the command line seemed primitive (and still does, frankly). You looked at DOS and thought: how quaint. You looked at Windows and thought: it still has DOS inside. Having no command line made the Mac seem pure and modern; it was designed from scratch, no legacy, no cruft. It was built with usability in mind: no consideration for how computers used to work, only how they should.
Too bad it was not really that modern: no preemptive multitasking, no memory protection, a program crash would usually bring the whole system down.
Mac users bragged about the absence of a command line back then. It's kind of disappointing to see one on OSX.
While id Tech 4 had taken a new direction with its dynamic per-pixel lighting, this unconventional feature had steeper hardware requirements and was initially only useful in "spooky games" (until the MegaTexture addition), whereas an increasing number of developers preferred conventional engines that could render large outdoor areas. Also notable was id Tech 4's relative lack of scalability compared to competing FPS engines which would have limited its potential audience; the Source Engine could still run on the older widespread DirectX 7 GPUs albeit without shaders being used.
Also, Doom 3 was... to put it politely, terribly un-Doom-like.
Wait, how come a musician has no say in the engineer's work? True, if you're a session musician, you have no final control. But if you play solo or in a band, just go to him and complain; he probably compressed shit to hell because that's what the clueless "suits" always ask him to do, not because he likes to destroy sound quality.
I believe he was talking about Apple's programs on Windows -- Quicktime, iTunes, and Safari. They do install that updater shit. That's the kind of sleazy, sneaky design I'd expect from someone like Real or AOL, not Apple!
Maybe it's not just less eye candy. It's subtler eye candy. For example, Vista's Flip 3D will show all your windows in a tilted cascade... fantastic for computer magazine screenshots, quite worthless for the user. OSX's Exposé will instead let you see your stuff and find what you need.
What the fuck are you talking about? That page has quotes from dozens of people, including doctors.
Okay, the shovel thing was a bit simplistic. I guess it's more like this:
I have these blueprints for a nice, complete playground. You come to me and ask, can I borrow your blueprints to build my playground? Sure, here ya go.
Now, after you're done, I see you did not follow the plans strictly: you added a cool new toy. I ask, can I borrow the blueprint for new toy? And you just say no.
Incorrect.
Tape? Already did. Would have possibly gone insane if it wasn't for that. An improvement, yes. But it's far from perfect. The sensations are not quite right.
I wonder if I could clone and implant the real deal. Hello, any stem cell scientist lurking here?!
The question here is, whose freedom?
The BSD license gives freedom to the developer; the GNU license gives freedom to the code itself.
That is: with BSD, you can take code from the community, do work on top of theirs, and keep it for yourself. In a sense, you can take free code and turn it into non-free code. With GNU, you can take code from the community, and do work on top of theirs; then, you are obliged to share back. The code was free, the code stays free. If you use my shovel to build your playground, you damn better let me play too.
What if someone had tossed a shoe against Saddam Hussein?
You may joke, you sick scumbag, but I would not hesitate a second to give EVERYTHING I HAVE to get it back.
Here's an analogy... it's like they altered your eyes to make you see in black and white; and someone says you could have a "more intense" vision. Not ever knowing color, you can only imagine that as increased brightness. And you think, no, I don't need more brightness.
But it's not just more of what you know. It's something you don't know at all.
You are terribly, completely mistaken.
If you are actually in any manner related to the developement of devices for genital mutilation, I would gladly break your neck.
The "worlds" classification does not work that way.
First world: wealthy capitalist countries. USA, Canada, Japan, Australia, all of Europe.
Second world: communist countries. China, Cuba, North Korea. Previously, of course, the Soviet Union.
Third world: developing or poor countries. All of South America, all of Africa, most of Asia, and Russia.
Fourth world: nations without a state: roma, palestinians, native americans; or nomadic, hunter-gatherer societies.
King Bhumibol, I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a binturong and your father smelt of durians!
The bigger problem, in my opinion, is not that it comes with a browser, but that you CAN'T get rid of it. Before XP, Microsoft claimed IE was "part of the system", and you couldn't remove it. People called bullshit and found a way - there was a third-party app for that. What did MS do next? Merge file browsing and web browsing for real, so now you really can't uninstall it. They made things WORSE ON PURPOSE.
Reminds me of an interesting story. An episode of Diagnosis Murder needed a scene of a motorcycle crash, but the budget was not enough for a location shot... so Dick Van Dyke went home, turned on his Amiga, and did the crash in CG.
I heard that, back in the day, there were Virtua Fighter 2 classes in Japan.
I guess it would be the same movie, except Adam Sandler would be removed. Something like Garfield minus Garfield.
If I'm not mistaken, Reagan was the first president to ever appear in a video game. That has to count for something!
Yes, that is correct: I press command + ` to move from window to window in the same program; and command + tab to move from an application to another.
And again, the Mac way is the best. Using your example: I have two web browser windows open, and a word editor. Now, I am reading one of the browser windows, and want to read the other. I just press two keys and I'm there - no chance to move to a different program unless I want to.
But just two programs? Let's make the example more realistic. You may be running a number of programs at once: text editor, graphics editor, audio editor, web browser, instant messenger, torrent client, whatever. Each program may have several windows. What to do... wade through a list with perhaps dozens of windows? The Mac way enforces a logical hierarchy: first the programs, then the documents that belong to each program. You want a "flat" system, that just gives you all every document at once. For me, that's a pain. I mean, when I use XP, I always change the taskbar to two rows, because one is just not enough.