"The folding has the advantage that you require no accuracy with the movement, just back and forth until you're at the right depth. With Expose you have to accurately land on the mini version of the window."
With the folding method the difference between two windows is just a few pixels. I found it really annoying to get it right with the trackpad on my laptop, and if you make a mistake, you can't get that window back again (that'd probably be fixed in a final version, but I can't imagine any way to do it elegantly besides starting over.)
With expose and a hot corner the target is infinitely high and wide, so I can slam my mouse in that direction without having to worry about missing, then I have a nice set of windows to choose from, without any overlapping, and of a large enough size that it doesn't take much more work to click the right one.
With folding I have to move my mouse a lot slower so I can make sure I get the right window, and instead of having every window displayed right in front of me, I only have the next one down. My desktop gets pretty messy, I don't know how far down or in what position on the screen the window I want is going to be.
"The folding has the advantage that you require no accuracy with the movement, just back and forth until you're at the right depth. With Expose you have to accurately land on the mini version of the window."
With the folding method the difference between two windows is just a few pixels. I found it really annoying to get it right with the trackpad on my laptop, and if you make a mistake, you can't get that window back again (that'd probably be fixed in a final version, but I can't imagine any way to do it elegantly besides starting over.)
With expose and a hot corner the target is infinitely high and wide, so I can slam my mouse in that direction without having to worry about missing, then I have a nice set of windows to choose from, without any overlapping, and of a large enough size that it doesn't take much more work to click the right one.
With folding I have to move my mouse a lot slower so I can make sure I get the right window, and instead of having every window displayed right in front of me, I only have the next one down. My desktop gets pretty messy, I don't know how far down or in what position on the screen the window I want is going to be.
I always use expose for the same thing their doing, just grab the files, move my mouse to the top-right corner, click on a window, and drop the files there.
And I can do it all on my powerbook's trackpad without making any mistakes. I found it really hard to get to the window I want in the demo they had, and if I accidently moved one off the screen there's no way to get it back.
fusing dupes would be nice too.
Try paying attention to your own spelling.
Re:Gamers never know what's good for them
on
A Gamer's Manifesto
·
· Score: 1
"Simple answer. Use save points, but have them right before boss battles."
So then what happens if you die or have to stop playing five minutes before a boss battle?
Re:Gamers never know what's good for them
on
A Gamer's Manifesto
·
· Score: 1
"For example, having instant-save anywhere sounds fun until you have it, at which point you realize there's no challenge to a game. You can just play like an idiot and rewind whenever you make a mistake. At that point you could throw your console controller into a paintmixer and it would eventually "win". Fun = gone."
After playing several RPG's on emulators, I've found it's much more "fun" to be able to save state anywhere, than to have to run back through ten minutes of cutscenes and random battles just to get to where I already was.
"And the parents point about "good" AI is excellent also. we enjoy beating up lots of stupid guys in a game because it puts us in the driver's seat, controlling the game flow. If this guy wants good AI's with a selection of weapons, he should fire up some bots in Quake or UT and get his fill of immaculately aimed rail guns up his ass every 5 seconds. Wheee!!!"
If I want to beat up lots of stupid guys I'll set the difficulty level to easy. If I set the level to hard I want a challenge, more than just having less health boxes or receiving more damage from each shot.
IBM and MS didn't invent the PC. Before them there was another personal computer called the apple II. Apple wasn't really a big company back then, and their computers didn't really need to "be assembled by [hand] with [parts] from Radio Shack".
If there hadn't been any computers like these, IBM probably wouldn't have created their PC in the first place.
Searching is easier, and with indexing, it isn't very time consuming either. Our brains don't find data by travelling through folder hierarchies, they just request a peice of information, and if that data isn't found the first time, try again.
No method of organization will allow you to find information as quickly as requesting it. How often do you use google directory? How often do you use Google search? And what's quicker, typing the name of a program into a console, or finding it in the start menu? If you can request a file by describing it in any way (date, type, name, or anything else), it will be quicker to find it. Having to search everytime you need to access a file isn't so bad either, it's a lot easier to remember a search term than to remember what folder+filename you saved that last word document into.
Computers may not be able to do all of this yet, but they're fast enough that we can have much better searching tools than we have now.
Couldn't they use some sort of bayesian filtering thing to block out the bad results? Like, give users the option to rate whether the result they found was useful, and use that data to adjust the pagerank of that site and others like it?
Of course, they would need a way to prevent abuse, and it could clutter the interface. Maybe they could see which links people are clicking for different search results, and use that data to find better search results.
I think a demo for a good Role Playing Game would have a better chance of getting the user to buy the full game (assuming it doesn't suck). A demo for a rpg would probobly stop at a certain point in the plot, and the user would want to find out what happens after.
If you've ever read a good book where after every page you just couldn't stop reading, this is kind of the same. The demo would have to stop at a certain, suspensefull point in the plot that leaves the user wanting to continue to play. As long as the user liked the plot so far, and the battle system, graphics, movement, etc. they would probably want to buy the game a bit more than if it was a shooter or a strategy game (though the same idea can be used for these too).
So I think if you have a decent RPG you should try to release a demo for it that stops at a good spot (not so far into the game that the full version isn't worth anything, but not so soon that the user doesn't get a good idea of how the game works).
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, I should've clicked the preview button..
"The folding has the advantage that you require no accuracy with the movement, just back and forth until you're at the right depth. With Expose you have to accurately land on the mini version of the window."
With the folding method the difference between two windows is just a few pixels. I found it really annoying to get it right with the trackpad on my laptop, and if you make a mistake, you can't get that window back again (that'd probably be fixed in a final version, but I can't imagine any way to do it elegantly besides starting over.)
With expose and a hot corner the target is infinitely high and wide, so I can slam my mouse in that direction without having to worry about missing, then I have a nice set of windows to choose from, without any overlapping, and of a large enough size that it doesn't take much more work to click the right one.
With folding I have to move my mouse a lot slower so I can make sure I get the right window, and instead of having every window displayed right in front of me, I only have the next one down. My desktop gets pretty messy, I don't know how far down or in what position on the screen the window I want is going to be.
"The folding has the advantage that you require no accuracy with the movement, just back and forth until you're at the right depth. With Expose you have to accurately land on the mini version of the window." With the folding method the difference between two windows is just a few pixels. I found it really annoying to get it right with the trackpad on my laptop, and if you make a mistake, you can't get that window back again (that'd probably be fixed in a final version, but I can't imagine any way to do it elegantly besides starting over.) With expose and a hot corner the target is infinitely high and wide, so I can slam my mouse in that direction without having to worry about missing, then I have a nice set of windows to choose from, without any overlapping, and of a large enough size that it doesn't take much more work to click the right one. With folding I have to move my mouse a lot slower so I can make sure I get the right window, and instead of having every window displayed right in front of me, I only have the next one down. My desktop gets pretty messy, I don't know how far down or in what position on the screen the window I want is going to be.
I always use expose for the same thing their doing, just grab the files, move my mouse to the top-right corner, click on a window, and drop the files there.
And I can do it all on my powerbook's trackpad without making any mistakes. I found it really hard to get to the window I want in the demo they had, and if I accidently moved one off the screen there's no way to get it back.
fusing dupes would be nice too. Try paying attention to your own spelling.
"Simple answer. Use save points, but have them right before boss battles."
So then what happens if you die or have to stop playing five minutes before a boss battle?
"For example, having instant-save anywhere sounds fun until you have it, at which point you realize there's no challenge to a game. You can just play like an idiot and rewind whenever you make a mistake. At that point you could throw your console controller into a paintmixer and it would eventually "win". Fun = gone."
After playing several RPG's on emulators, I've found it's much more "fun" to be able to save state anywhere, than to have to run back through ten minutes of cutscenes and random battles just to get to where I already was.
"And the parents point about "good" AI is excellent also. we enjoy beating up lots of stupid guys in a game because it puts us in the driver's seat, controlling the game flow. If this guy wants good AI's with a selection of weapons, he should fire up some bots in Quake or UT and get his fill of immaculately aimed rail guns up his ass every 5 seconds. Wheee!!!"
If I want to beat up lots of stupid guys I'll set the difficulty level to easy. If I set the level to hard I want a challenge, more than just having less health boxes or receiving more damage from each shot.
IBM and MS didn't invent the PC. Before them there was another personal computer called the apple II. Apple wasn't really a big company back then, and their computers didn't really need to "be assembled by [hand] with [parts] from Radio Shack".
If there hadn't been any computers like these, IBM probably wouldn't have created their PC in the first place.
Searching is easier, and with indexing, it isn't very time consuming either. Our brains don't find data by travelling through folder hierarchies, they just request a peice of information, and if that data isn't found the first time, try again.
No method of organization will allow you to find information as quickly as requesting it. How often do you use google directory? How often do you use Google search? And what's quicker, typing the name of a program into a console, or finding it in the start menu? If you can request a file by describing it in any way (date, type, name, or anything else), it will be quicker to find it. Having to search everytime you need to access a file isn't so bad either, it's a lot easier to remember a search term than to remember what folder+filename you saved that last word document into.
Computers may not be able to do all of this yet, but they're fast enough that we can have much better searching tools than we have now.
Doesn't amazon.com do a similar thing? (search inside this book)
Couldn't they use some sort of bayesian filtering thing to block out the bad results? Like, give users the option to rate whether the result they found was useful, and use that data to adjust the pagerank of that site and others like it?
Of course, they would need a way to prevent abuse, and it could clutter the interface. Maybe they could see which links people are clicking for different search results, and use that data to find better search results.
So adults don't have morals but children do?
They will do there work to avoid being yelled at by there parents/teachers but not for the point of learning the information
That a problem with the school system, not computers.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=foreword
"A preface or an introductory note, as for a book, especially by a person other than the author."
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=foreward
\Fore"ward`\, n. The van; the front. [Obs.]
I think he spelled it right
Yes, this computer was inspired by the iMac. Whether the iMac was the first computer to be an LCD all-in-one doesn't matter.
Didn't they already do that? I think the results were similar to what you just said.
Or maybe it's because there's a lot more anti-ms news on the internet then anti-linux.
I think we need to find a cure for the common cold before we worry about car accidents. What do you think?
I think we need to stop worrying about what were going to fix and just find a cure for something.
Okay, if the K in konqueror stands for KDE, what does the K in KDE stand for?
"Soon to come antivirus, mainframes, and chips."
So now I'm supposed to trust MS with anitvirus?
I think a demo for a good Role Playing Game would have a better chance of getting the user to buy the full game (assuming it doesn't suck). A demo for a rpg would probobly stop at a certain point in the plot, and the user would want to find out what happens after.
If you've ever read a good book where after every page you just couldn't stop reading, this is kind of the same. The demo would have to stop at a certain, suspensefull point in the plot that leaves the user wanting to continue to play. As long as the user liked the plot so far, and the battle system, graphics, movement, etc. they would probably want to buy the game a bit more than if it was a shooter or a strategy game (though the same idea can be used for these too).
So I think if you have a decent RPG you should try to release a demo for it that stops at a good spot (not so far into the game that the full version isn't worth anything, but not so soon that the user doesn't get a good idea of how the game works).