That's not completely true. The US has a Fractional Reserve banking system that allows banks to create money out of thin air. The Federal Reserve controls the maximum amount that banks can create (based on the bank's current reserves), but banks are free to create anywhere from $0 to the max.
Except, on Windows, it's normal for a media player to be their own UI entity. Just look at WMP and Winamp and all the other media players, none of the popular ones use Windows' chrome.
If this were possible (i.e., support all Win XP apps with such improvements in the infrastructure) with a small engineering effort, why would MS not have already done so?
There's lots of things that other companies have done and do that Microsoft doesn't. This doesn't imply those tasks are impossible.
And the ability to isolate software is regularly practiced in computer science and real IT. Chroot jails are an example of this. It's not even that difficult, and now there is software that brings this same basic technology to general consumers.
Just because Microsoft doesn't do something because of business reasons (or whyever they decide not to implement such a thing) doesn't mean that it's impossible. To do what the grandparent suggested would only take Wine + similar chroot technology. This is all basic stuff.
'Twas a painful decision to give up modpoints to respond, but I think I need to.
When something is 90 plus percent of the market, it is a standard all of its own.
The problem is... there is no IE standard. There are substantial differences between IE 5.5 and IE 6, and it looks like even more differences between IE 6 and IE 7. This isn't the same case as Atom vs. RSS where you have two standards with similar goals but different rules/syntax/etc. This is the case of having an agreed standard and an implementation of that standard that is badly buggy.
If Microsoft had their own standard, they should be maintaining the implementation version to version. But they don't. If you relied on certain IE bugs for your site in IE 5.5, they were fixed and gone in IE 6. Now if you rely on certain IE bugs for IE 6, many of them will be gone in IE 7. This is not a standard. It's just a really badly buggy implementation that will and does change frequently.There is no IE "standard" to code to. Microsoft isn't competing with XHTML/CSS (yet, wait for Avalon in Vista), it's just that their implementation of it really sucks.
In a nutshell, this isn't the case of Betamax vs VHS, Atom vs. RSS, or HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray where there are real standards and Microsoft just so happens to be endorsing one standard over another. The "IE is 90% of marketshare and therefore is the standard" just doesn't apply in that way.
Bonjour just provides the framework for advertising services. And in OS X, file sharing is off by default so there's nothing in that regards for bonjour to advertise. Hopefully Vista does the same thing, but I don't know.
The myth that there is some sort of "easy to use" computer for people who don't know how to use a computer is a lie.
Of course. But decreasing the barriers is a good thing. You seem to think it's bad because there's no such thing as a "easy to use" computer, and that's silly.
Assuming that the user is familiar with the underlying concept of the platform...
The whole point for the guideline is so that you don't have to be familiar with the program to jump right in.
there is *no* difference between things being in a context menu and things being in a global menu
Then there's no problem with using the context menu as a shortcut, thereby foregoing the requirement that a user be familiar with the indiosyncracies of your platform. It is the best of all possible worlds: easy to use for beginners, without sacrificing the speed a context menu affords to power users.
I have to second DenyHosts, it is truly an awesome tool. My favorite feature is that it will find IP's with more than X failed attempts, and at least one successful login and warn you that there have been suspicious log-ins.
I've got Address Book minimized to the Dock, a TextWrangler window open behind Safari, and iCal behind that.
Sorry, that may appear to be unclear. At the time, I had Safari open on top (as that was where I was typing this post). Behind Safari was Text Wrangler. Behind TextWrangler was iCal. The Address Book was minimized to the dock. As you can see, that z-index is reflected in the order of the list, similarly to Windows.
Fate/luck are never on your side when you try to change something in the past that you know the history of.
What if I don't know the history? Say I'm in New York in 1980, and run over some random stranger I don't know anything about in 2005 (today, the day I hopped in my time machine and went to 1980), what happens?
Please. Next you'll be saying that better standards support is bad because Microsoft's dominance will mean that people will find security problems in other browsers. What? Doesn't really make much sense, but even if true it can only allow the competitors to improve while IE languishes in it's inferiority as a web browser.
Yes, but no rendering engine exists that lacks bugs and no standard exists where there aren't misinterpretations. How great those problems appear depends on how far out you go. If you do mostly basic stuff, I find that you don't need any modifications in all the major browsers excluding Explorer. if you push out to the more advanced and less used features of the standard, you start to run into buggy renderings (because it's far enough out that it hasn't been entirely tested) or places where the spec was open to misinterpretation and different rendering engines handle it differently.
The problem with Explorer is that it can barely handle some of the more basic CSS in a way consistent with anything else out there (including the standard), let alone the more advanced ones.
>> If you could buy the parts and build your own Mac they'd be alot more appealing to people...
No, it wouldn't. A lot more appealing to geeks, perhaps, but not people in general. Most people don't build their own systems, but buy the cheapest crap from Dell, HP, Gateway, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not completely true. The US has a Fractional Reserve banking system that allows banks to create money out of thin air. The Federal Reserve controls the maximum amount that banks can create (based on the bank's current reserves), but banks are free to create anywhere from $0 to the max.
Just do what I do and install it in VMWare. You won't get the shiny Aero effects, but you can atleast test the functionality/compatibility.
Except, on Windows, it's normal for a media player to be their own UI entity. Just look at WMP and Winamp and all the other media players, none of the popular ones use Windows' chrome.
There's lots of things that other companies have done and do that Microsoft doesn't. This doesn't imply those tasks are impossible.
And the ability to isolate software is regularly practiced in computer science and real IT. Chroot jails are an example of this. It's not even that difficult, and now there is software that brings this same basic technology to general consumers.
Just because Microsoft doesn't do something because of business reasons (or whyever they decide not to implement such a thing) doesn't mean that it's impossible. To do what the grandparent suggested would only take Wine + similar chroot technology. This is all basic stuff.
'Twas a painful decision to give up modpoints to respond, but I think I need to.
The problem is... there is no IE standard. There are substantial differences between IE 5.5 and IE 6, and it looks like even more differences between IE 6 and IE 7. This isn't the same case as Atom vs. RSS where you have two standards with similar goals but different rules/syntax/etc. This is the case of having an agreed standard and an implementation of that standard that is badly buggy.
If Microsoft had their own standard, they should be maintaining the implementation version to version. But they don't. If you relied on certain IE bugs for your site in IE 5.5, they were fixed and gone in IE 6. Now if you rely on certain IE bugs for IE 6, many of them will be gone in IE 7. This is not a standard. It's just a really badly buggy implementation that will and does change frequently. There is no IE "standard" to code to. Microsoft isn't competing with XHTML/CSS (yet, wait for Avalon in Vista), it's just that their implementation of it really sucks.
In a nutshell, this isn't the case of Betamax vs VHS, Atom vs. RSS, or HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray where there are real standards and Microsoft just so happens to be endorsing one standard over another. The "IE is 90% of marketshare and therefore is the standard" just doesn't apply in that way.
The correct answer is to do that to all the senior management's assistants. They'll have things taken care of pretty quickly. :)
Would you mind pointing me towards these cheap colocating services? I've been looking for one, but haven't found anything for less than $75. Thanks!
Bonjour just provides the framework for advertising services. And in OS X, file sharing is off by default so there's nothing in that regards for bonjour to advertise. Hopefully Vista does the same thing, but I don't know.
Ballmer is Microsoft's CEO, not Gates.
Honestly, it should really be the GPL Public License. :)
The joke is dependent on pronouncing SQL like "Sequel".
How many of these people were Apple's customer's in the first place?
Of course. But decreasing the barriers is a good thing. You seem to think it's bad because there's no such thing as a "easy to use" computer, and that's silly.
The whole point for the guideline is so that you don't have to be familiar with the program to jump right in.
there is *no* difference between things being in a context menu and things being in a global menuThen there's no problem with using the context menu as a shortcut, thereby foregoing the requirement that a user be familiar with the indiosyncracies of your platform. It is the best of all possible worlds: easy to use for beginners, without sacrificing the speed a context menu affords to power users.
I have to second DenyHosts, it is truly an awesome tool. My favorite feature is that it will find IP's with more than X failed attempts, and at least one successful login and warn you that there have been suspicious log-ins.
Very powerful feature, imho.
Sorry, that may appear to be unclear. At the time, I had Safari open on top (as that was where I was typing this post). Behind Safari was Text Wrangler. Behind TextWrangler was iCal. The Address Book was minimized to the dock. As you can see, that z-index is reflected in the order of the list, similarly to Windows.
Incorrect, at least in 10.3.9. Right now, I have these icons in my Dock: (in this order)
- Finder
- QuickSilver
- Terminal
- Safari
- NetNewsWire
- iCal
- Address Book
- Text Wrangler
- iTunes
I've got Address Book minimized to the Dock, a TextWrangler window open behind Safari, and iCal behind that. My Cmd-Tab looks like:Seems like it follows z-index just fine. IMHO, the biggest annoyance with it, is when I switch to applications minimized to the dock.
Sorry, I misunderstood. The slider moves up and down, but the image doesn't zoom in and out. Thanks for clarifying!
It works in Safari and Firefox for me... always has.
What if I don't know the history? Say I'm in New York in 1980, and run over some random stranger I don't know anything about in 2005 (today, the day I hopped in my time machine and went to 1980), what happens?
They also lack an equivelent to Exchange that would tie iCal, Mail, and Address Book to a server. Things are getting very close, though.
Please. Next you'll be saying that better standards support is bad because Microsoft's dominance will mean that people will find security problems in other browsers. What? Doesn't really make much sense, but even if true it can only allow the competitors to improve while IE languishes in it's inferiority as a web browser.
Yes, but no rendering engine exists that lacks bugs and no standard exists where there aren't misinterpretations. How great those problems appear depends on how far out you go. If you do mostly basic stuff, I find that you don't need any modifications in all the major browsers excluding Explorer. if you push out to the more advanced and less used features of the standard, you start to run into buggy renderings (because it's far enough out that it hasn't been entirely tested) or places where the spec was open to misinterpretation and different rendering engines handle it differently.
The problem with Explorer is that it can barely handle some of the more basic CSS in a way consistent with anything else out there (including the standard), let alone the more advanced ones.
That would make it more appealing to companies, not people.
No, it wouldn't. A lot more appealing to geeks, perhaps, but not people in general. Most people don't build their own systems, but buy the cheapest crap from Dell, HP, Gateway, etc.