> Hell, the way the market is today they say "Fuck off. You can't play our game."
Valve certainly does that (which has captured a lot of the gamer market) and with Macintels supporting Windows, I don't think they're even going to consider the MacOSX platform now.
> I completely disagree. What percentage of Mac buyers do you think will acquire a copy of WinXP and use Boot Camp? I'd guess less than 20%, and probably less than 10%.
I guess 67%.
> Cross-platform game engine developers.
Would be nice to have more games targeted to Linux, *BSD etc. Which pretty much work on every modern architecture out there.
I don't think it will change much, just look at Linux, it runs practically on every modern architecture out there. People who see Linux as superior are the minority, as are the MacOSX users.
The Mac users *I* know, have most likely, never baught a game in their lives, but they do have many. Perhaps I'm just with a minority of people. However, these users I know, tend to believe games are too expensive, too this , too that . Which is a justification for them not to buy it, but pirate it.
PC users on the other hand. I've seen piracy from minors, which is generally because they can't get it otherwise (parents won't buy it, don't have the money, shops won't sell it because of the rating).
I've also seen piracy on PCs with better excuses than Mac users have used, such as, lack of CD checks, lack of code checks, lack of Steam which slows the entire game down to crawl and can't play offine a single player game because of anti-piracy checks (note: This isn't always the case with Steam, but it does happen at random intervals).
Perhaps the industry sees less priracy on Macs, because there is less Macs.
Because when people switch to Mac, they switch to MacOSX to use Microsoft Office, Microsoft Media player, Photoshop...
Re:Why this is significant: Risk Reduction
on
Going To Boot Camp
·
· Score: 1
> I dislike it because it lacks a proper shell.
I use CYGWIN and/or Windows Services for Unix to get a propper shell under Windows.
I find MacOS X's default terminal application a complete annoyance with the lack of ANSI support. Which even Windows's 'console' applications support.
> I dislike it because I have to run antivirus products, which all slow my system down and get in my way.
Then don't. Personally I just do monthly scans, I don't have a resident scanner turned on. Only sometimes will I turn it on when I suspect something is wrong.
> I dislike it because I find the interface clunky and unintuitive.
I tend to use the classic theme, I can't stand the 'modern' theme of windows xp or MacOS X's Default Aqua setup for that matter (waste of resources in my opinion to draw so many 'pretty' effects for the UI).
> I dislike it because I hate having to waste my time hunting for drivers
I never have to hunt for drivers, I do know the manufactorers, and I do know the models of hardware I have. I just goto the manufactorer's website and download the latest drivers. Of course I could just use the driver CDs I get with my hardware, but then I don't get the latest features in nview etc. Besides, manufactorers are free to donate drivers to Microsoft's windows update, provided they aren't tied in with other appications, installers. Just simple system files and.inf files.
However it seems some manufactorers don't like doing that.
> something I almost never have to do on a Mac.
If you mean, included on the CD or such, you can do burn windows cds todo that. However you do have a point, with Mac's limited range of hardware, it was possible todo this.
> I dislike it because the Windows versions of iLife sort of applications are inferior and harder to use.
Well, iLife did more or less come after Windows had developed a lot of these things long ago. Generally it's to be expected newer releases to have better features or such (compare windows's search with the indexing service [designed originally in 1999?] to spotlight).
Of course there are alternatives, such as google desktop, yahoo desktop. I haven't seen any alternatives on Apple systems for this.
> And I don't play games (like most "adults")
The horror!
> It seems to me that the person who has an agenda here is/you/.
AmigaOS forever!
Re:Sheezus, enough with the conceit already...
on
Going To Boot Camp
·
· Score: 1
Guess we shouldn't do the same with Microsoft then. Can't really complain about bluescreens anymore, can we?
> You could instead be using that time to make something useful, like a good backup program or something.
I don't really know any developers that suddenly stop working on a project to persue making something completely new, in the way you expressed. I do know quite a few developers.
> I hate that "blue background white text" option in Word.
Never even heard of that feature.
> Why is it there?
Microsoft had apparently planned it in advanced, Microsoft does plan their software projects, they don't just say "Oi! You! Make us a word proccessor!". I some how doubt the time used to make that 'feature' would of really helped any other option.
> Couldn't that time been used to make the auto-correct smarter instead,
I'm willing to bet the coder who made that wasn't assigned to auto-correct too. Which, I believe had it's own little project group to develop it.
> or add more languages to the dictionary?
I doubt any programmer that deals with Microsoft Office added languages to the dictionary (manually). Plus, Microsoft has many dictionaries in almost every language, they just don't redistribute many (five standard, I think) with copies of office. They sell dictionaries as a addon 'pack' from what I recall.
> The hardest part about installing Linux/NetBSD/etc., is the dual booting.
I don't like my Windows and Linux touching each other. I keep them seperate.
Re:Gmail is constantly blacklisted
on
Gmail vs Pine
·
· Score: 1
To be RFC compliant, they just have to accept the mail. They can always shove it into/dev/null.
But that's it, that's RFC compliant, they don't have to read it, they don't have to care etc.
Having a autoresponder that says nobody is going to read it is real courtesy, since many people don't do this even because it adds extra traffic to fake spam sources.
> Or every time I tried a new distribution. Or whenever I had to wipe my.kde directory.
I tend to migrate my settings to different distributions by copying my.kde directory over. Also, I have yet to find the need to delete my entire.kde directory.
Admittedly, I don't exactly try out different distributions everyday, or have a need to delete my.kde directory.
> The way people want to work is usually not the way they should be working.
So, the fact you're using Gnome (because you want to), is not the way you should be working?
> There has been enough research into user interfaces that a interface based on these principles, like GNOME, can be objectively very efficient.
Doing a google, I found most research was on new, and different interfaces. When I even googled for research on gnome, I didn't come up with anything relevent. Would you mind citing some sources?
> Moreover, GNOME's widget layouts are right, and its color coordination and useage of spacing is far superior to KDE's.
I've found many Gnome interfaces terribly bulky (1024x768 and 800x600 res monitors) by my standards, the default colors tend to hurt my eyes when focusing on tasks (I've used Gnome on many monitors). Gnome unfortunately in this instance doesn't work for me without customising it somewhat (which I know is possible, but your 'argument' seems to be that users should stick with default settings).
> GNOME's features aren't that sparse, they're just not in your face at every turn.
The only applications that I ever considered that was 'in your face' has been Konqueror, with all those buttons... Also generally every instant messenger that has a formatting bar felt like it was 'in your face'. In both instances I have been able to remove what I didn't like. I find myself far more efficient with the customizations I have done.
> So in the GTK+ file dialog, you have to hit CTRL-L to get the path bar, but in the common case of when you're already in the directory you want and the file is staring right at you, you don't have to deal with the mental baggage of having to look at the path bar.
I feel that the file dialog was dumbed down. There is no way a simple slash can be used as a filename, so it could at least of assumed if I hit a slash, that I am typing a path, not a filename.
In my opinion, a user interface also needs to be quick and efficient for what you're doing, not jump through hoops todo things in a, from a certain programmer's point of view, 'correct' way. But most importantly, if you need to customize it, there should be a quick and easy way todo so.
> This does not mean designing to dumb users or new users, but designing to accomodate the inherent limitations of the human mind.
We have distributions like Lindows (I'm not fond of) for this reason, which seem customize KDE in a more oriented way towards the, "inherent limitations of the human mind".
> The same things that make the UI discoverable for new users (minimal clutter, proper layout, etc), also make it more efficient for experienced users.
It does depend on the situation (ie: MS Paint VS Photoshop).
> Some of the things KDE apps do (like Konqueror's enormous right-click menus), are just objectively wrong.
I agree, Konqueror really has unbelievably stuck too many options and buttons in certain places by default. But at least I can change that with minimal effort (which I do).
> Human have the ability to memorize lists of 5-7 items.
I've seen some humans who can't even memorize three options in a context menu. Either way, different people have different needs, that is why we need customizability.
> A context menu with a dozen items means the person has to read it instead of just invoking muscle memory. That's not preference, that's fact.
Perhaps most, but not all. Not everyone is going to agree with this, and not everyone is
> In KDE, there is still no real drawing program like The Gimp written in Qt. If you have to load gtk in KDE than you'll slow down, and if you have to load Qt in Gnome you'll have a slowdown.
> 2) Cluttered layouts. There are too many widgets, toolbar buttons, context menu items, etc, in KDE apps, and there is nothing that can be done about it without fundementally redesigning the UIs.
Oh really? Took me a minute (at most) todo this on konqueror.
I really like the customisability of KDE applications, one of the reason why I use KDE in particular. I like having access to advanced tools if I need it. I'd rather not have a dumbed down UI.
Enlightenment doesn't have kioslaves, doesn't have many shared dynamiac libraries that applications built off it should use (to keep memory minimal). Doesn't have a real design concept in how things should be written (kdeinit handling all sorts of libraries was pure genius in my opinion).
Slashdot Mirror
> Hell, the way the market is today they say "Fuck off. You can't play our game."
Valve certainly does that (which has captured a lot of the gamer market) and with Macintels supporting Windows, I don't think they're even going to consider the MacOSX platform now.
> I completely disagree. What percentage of Mac buyers do you think will acquire a copy of WinXP and use Boot Camp? I'd guess less than 20%, and probably less than 10%.
I guess 67%.
> Cross-platform game engine developers.
Would be nice to have more games targeted to Linux, *BSD etc. Which pretty much work on every modern architecture out there.
I don't think it will change much, just look at Linux, it runs practically on every modern architecture out there. People who see Linux as superior are the minority, as are the MacOSX users.
> that Mac users pay for their games.
The Mac users *I* know, have most likely, never baught a game in their lives, but they do have many. Perhaps I'm just with a minority of people. However, these users I know, tend to believe games are too expensive, too this , too that . Which is a justification for them not to buy it, but pirate it.
PC users on the other hand. I've seen piracy from minors, which is generally because they can't get it otherwise (parents won't buy it, don't have the money, shops won't sell it because of the rating).
I've also seen piracy on PCs with better excuses than Mac users have used, such as, lack of CD checks, lack of code checks, lack of Steam which slows the entire game down to crawl and can't play offine a single player game because of anti-piracy checks (note: This isn't always the case with Steam, but it does happen at random intervals).
Perhaps the industry sees less priracy on Macs, because there is less Macs.
Because when people switch to Mac, they switch to MacOSX to use Microsoft Office, Microsoft Media player, Photoshop...
> I dislike it because it lacks a proper shell.
.inf files.
/you/.
I use CYGWIN and/or Windows Services for Unix to get a propper shell under Windows.
I find MacOS X's default terminal application a complete annoyance with the lack of ANSI support. Which even Windows's 'console' applications support.
> I dislike it because I have to run antivirus products, which all slow my system down and get in my way.
Then don't. Personally I just do monthly scans, I don't have a resident scanner turned on. Only sometimes will I turn it on when I suspect something is wrong.
> I dislike it because I find the interface clunky and unintuitive.
I tend to use the classic theme, I can't stand the 'modern' theme of windows xp or MacOS X's Default Aqua setup for that matter (waste of resources in my opinion to draw so many 'pretty' effects for the UI).
> I dislike it because I hate having to waste my time hunting for drivers
I never have to hunt for drivers, I do know the manufactorers, and I do know the models of hardware I have. I just goto the manufactorer's website and download the latest drivers. Of course I could just use the driver CDs I get with my hardware, but then I don't get the latest features in nview etc. Besides, manufactorers are free to donate drivers to Microsoft's windows update, provided they aren't tied in with other appications, installers. Just simple system files and
However it seems some manufactorers don't like doing that.
> something I almost never have to do on a Mac.
If you mean, included on the CD or such, you can do burn windows cds todo that. However you do have a point, with Mac's limited range of hardware, it was possible todo this.
> I dislike it because the Windows versions of iLife sort of applications are inferior and harder to use.
Well, iLife did more or less come after Windows had developed a lot of these things long ago. Generally it's to be expected newer releases to have better features or such (compare windows's search with the indexing service [designed originally in 1999?] to spotlight).
Of course there are alternatives, such as google desktop, yahoo desktop. I haven't seen any alternatives on Apple systems for this.
> And I don't play games (like most "adults")
The horror!
> It seems to me that the person who has an agenda here is
AmigaOS forever!
Guess we shouldn't do the same with Microsoft then. Can't really complain about bluescreens anymore, can we?
Because they make more money on hardware sales, apparently.
> However, noone at microsoft feels that consumers need to have virtual desktops.
There is a powertoy from microsoft you can use to get virtual desktops.
MSN made a desktop search thing, however I've never used it.
> You could instead be using that time to make something useful, like a good backup program or something.
I don't really know any developers that suddenly stop working on a project to persue making something completely new, in the way you expressed. I do know quite a few developers.
> I hate that "blue background white text" option in Word.
Never even heard of that feature.
> Why is it there?
Microsoft had apparently planned it in advanced, Microsoft does plan their software projects, they don't just say "Oi! You! Make us a word proccessor!". I some how doubt the time used to make that 'feature' would of really helped any other option.
> Couldn't that time been used to make the auto-correct smarter instead,
I'm willing to bet the coder who made that wasn't assigned to auto-correct too. Which, I believe had it's own little project group to develop it.
> or add more languages to the dictionary?
I doubt any programmer that deals with Microsoft Office added languages to the dictionary (manually). Plus, Microsoft has many dictionaries in almost every language, they just don't redistribute many (five standard, I think) with copies of office. They sell dictionaries as a addon 'pack' from what I recall.
> The hardest part about installing Linux/NetBSD/etc., is the dual booting.
I don't like my Windows and Linux touching each other. I keep them seperate.
To be RFC compliant, they just have to accept the mail. They can always shove it into /dev/null.
But that's it, that's RFC compliant, they don't have to read it, they don't have to care etc.
Having a autoresponder that says nobody is going to read it is real courtesy, since many people don't do this even because it adds extra traffic to fake spam sources.
> Or every time I tried a new distribution. Or whenever I had to wipe my .kde directory.
.kde directory over. Also, I have yet to find the need to delete my entire .kde directory.
.kde directory.
I tend to migrate my settings to different distributions by copying my
Admittedly, I don't exactly try out different distributions everyday, or have a need to delete my
> The way people want to work is usually not the way they should be working.
So, the fact you're using Gnome (because you want to), is not the way you should be working?
> There has been enough research into user interfaces that a interface based on these principles, like GNOME, can be objectively very efficient.
Doing a google, I found most research was on new, and different interfaces. When I even googled for research on gnome, I didn't come up with anything relevent. Would you mind citing some sources?
> Moreover, GNOME's widget layouts are right, and its color coordination and useage of spacing is far superior to KDE's.
I've found many Gnome interfaces terribly bulky (1024x768 and 800x600 res monitors) by my standards, the default colors tend to hurt my eyes when focusing on tasks (I've used Gnome on many monitors). Gnome unfortunately in this instance doesn't work for me without customising it somewhat (which I know is possible, but your 'argument' seems to be that users should stick with default settings).
> GNOME's features aren't that sparse, they're just not in your face at every turn.
The only applications that I ever considered that was 'in your face' has been Konqueror, with all those buttons... Also generally every instant messenger that has a formatting bar felt like it was 'in your face'. In both instances I have been able to remove what I didn't like. I find myself far more efficient with the customizations I have done.
> So in the GTK+ file dialog, you have to hit CTRL-L to get the path bar, but in the common case of when you're already in the directory you want and the file is staring right at you, you don't have to deal with the mental baggage of having to look at the path bar.
I feel that the file dialog was dumbed down. There is no way a simple slash can be used as a filename, so it could at least of assumed if I hit a slash, that I am typing a path, not a filename.
In my opinion, a user interface also needs to be quick and efficient for what you're doing, not jump through hoops todo things in a, from a certain programmer's point of view, 'correct' way. But most importantly, if you need to customize it, there should be a quick and easy way todo so.
> This does not mean designing to dumb users or new users, but designing to accomodate the inherent limitations of the human mind.
We have distributions like Lindows (I'm not fond of) for this reason, which seem customize KDE in a more oriented way towards the, "inherent limitations of the human mind".
> The same things that make the UI discoverable for new users (minimal clutter, proper layout, etc), also make it more efficient for experienced users.
It does depend on the situation (ie: MS Paint VS Photoshop).
> Some of the things KDE apps do (like Konqueror's enormous right-click menus), are just objectively wrong.
I agree, Konqueror really has unbelievably stuck too many options and buttons in certain places by default. But at least I can change that with minimal effort (which I do).
> Human have the ability to memorize lists of 5-7 items.
I've seen some humans who can't even memorize three options in a context menu. Either way, different people have different needs, that is why we need customizability.
> A context menu with a dozen items means the person has to read it instead of just invoking muscle memory. That's not preference, that's fact.
Perhaps most, but not all. Not everyone is going to agree with this, and not everyone is
> In KDE, there is still no real drawing program like The Gimp written in Qt. If you have to load gtk in KDE than you'll slow down, and if you have to load Qt in Gnome you'll have a slowdown.
I use Krita.
> 2) Cluttered layouts. There are too many widgets, toolbar buttons, context menu items, etc, in KDE apps, and there is nothing that can be done about it without fundementally redesigning the UIs.
Oh really? Took me a minute (at most) todo this on konqueror.
I really like the customisability of KDE applications, one of the reason why I use KDE in particular. I like having access to advanced tools if I need it. I'd rather not have a dumbed down UI.
You don't need to delete your ~/.kde directory when you upgrade, no reconfiguration needed.
> it's just that every time I fire up Glade or The Gimp, the dialog boxes annoy the hell out of me
I use the GTK-QT wrapper because of this.
'drakroam' works fine for me.
Enlightenment doesn't have kioslaves, doesn't have many shared dynamiac libraries that applications built off it should use (to keep memory minimal). Doesn't have a real design concept in how things should be written (kdeinit handling all sorts of libraries was pure genius in my opinion).
But, it does look pretty.
> DVD's don't need rewinding, but be sure to rotate them after you snap them into the case by pressing down with your finger.
:P
I knew someone would take me seriously.
> DVDs were an excellent step. Same form factor of a CD. No rewinding.
Oh really?
Why aren't there more free public sex videos then?
> Not every company will (without hesitation) own up to its mistakes and be generous enough to offer repairs.
April fools!
AOL assimilated them.