No, they still spawn a new VM for each new app, you can't get around that limitation. Too many of the core classes are coded in such a way that you cannot get around that. (it's because of the static member variables)
However, Apple's vm is basically sun's VM with some enhancements. First of all there's the Java-Cocoa(Objc) bridge that lets a developer write a java backend with a Obj-C native Cocoa front end. Secondly, the feature you may have heard about that saves much time and reuses code is that the VM caches on disk the HotSpot compliation of the Java byte code. The way it works is that Java code is compiled to JAva byte code by the developer. The VM then compiles byte code to it's own internal representation for eventual compiliation to native code. This code is normally intrepreted, but when a section of code is 'hotspotted' it is then compiled to native code. Apple modified the vm to save the internal representation of the bytecode to disk and use this in the VM. This is automatically done for all core classes at install time and on the fly for other Java code.
Sun is supposedly looking into a way to extend it to other applications. Though only in client application does this make much difference because in server applications classes don't get loaded a lot. (except for JSPs but you really shouldn't be doing cpu intensive stuff in the JSP code, but in a library function)
Which Unix? At least on MacOSX, it's easy as pie to deliver a self-contained jar to someone and have them run it. Same jar that runs on windows works in MacOSX (it just doesn't 'look' like a native osx application without either command line params, or packing it like a Mac App.
Really I shouldn't to have modded you second comment down, but sometimes I do make a mistake. I do think however that your first comment was not a '5' comment, but that's the mod system.
You are a paranoid, paranoid person. If you don't trust technology then you should really just get off the road. I mean your car could fail at any time, brake lines snapping, axel breaking, who knows what might happen! I hope that any technology that is brought into cars is tested so that the probibility of causeing problems is much lower then the probibility of helping. This is not always the case ( 8+ Cylinder engines for sport cars) but for safety features like this I think that they are taking a much closer look at the effects of this system on the drivers safety.
The modern car is so complex and full of possible problems that it's amazing that it works at all. There is already one computer controlling every aspect of every new car's engine, so why not add another one. If you main computer fails then there are backup systems, just as in this system. They can't release a product with this kind of killing potential in the event of failure without a good backup system. If a computer controlled breaking system were to fail then probably the best course of action would to be to stop the car (with the driver's action) and not start again.
Course then you'll probably say "what if the backup fails". Well, lets hope that never happens.
Let's also hope that your break lines never snap and your gas tank never explodes. There are just some things that no matter how many precautions we take can and will happen.
That's the only reason that I use it. If MS can create a better search engine then Google, that finds better pages with less thinking (less words and tweaking of searches).
The only problem I have with a search engine is when I go to it and have to try like 10 searches to get what I want, when I can goto Google and get it in 2.
However, they had better start from scratch because all their previous search engines are really bad. The MSDN one being the worst. Maybe there is a way to have it return better results, but I haven't found it. I want it to be easier to narrow down my choices for APIs. I mean why is a MSCE API ranked higher then a Win32 api call on their results pages? Are there really more users of the WinCE api?
So you're saying that planes (military planes) should still be fly by the seat of their pants?
Military planes have been fly by wire for years. Totatly computer controlled, all the 'pilot' has to do is point it in the correct direction, the plane does everything else.
If automation can reduce the number of bad drivers on the road then I'm all for it. It's either more automation of cars, or a reduction of cars on the road. I live in LA and nobody wants to give up their car here to ride on some form of mass transit even though it would be better for all if we did.
Actually I modded you down cause you've got a bad attitude and need to spend some time in the corner before spouting off.
Besides, you've been modded back up anyways, so cut back on the coffee.
If you're still mad next time you get mod points just mod-bomb me. Going around swearing isn't going to earn you any points either.
I disagree that you need to be an amazing driver to be able to drive on the roads, like you seem to think from your posts. Since you imply that you are pushing your car (not to the limits but still...) when you drive. Regardless of how amazing a driver you are, you won't always be able to dodge other bad drivers. Nobody is forcing you buy a car with this system installed anyway.
Because then you have people who can't tell the difference between 3rd party applications and apple applications and blame apple for screwing their computer up. Apple is not a software distributor, they do not get a commission from every copy of every program sold. Their platform is open in the sence that anyone can write a program that will run on it without paying Apple any money.
In case you didn't know about it, there is also PDF995 for windows that sets it up so that anything can be printed to PDF and it's only nagware until you register it and it's only like 10 bucks to register it.
It's nice to know when the plane is actually on the ground if you are waiting for someone to get off the stupid thing. If the airlines showed you more indication of when they were going to get in other then some time soon I might agree with you but come on.
Anyone buying a video card for the next generation of games is crazy! Buy the cheapest video card that will let you play the games you can buy TODAY. If and when Doom3, HL2, DNF (ha) come out, then go and buy the card with your goddly perforance then, but not now.
Video cards happen to be ahead of the curve right now. Hopefully the software will catch up and be ahead soon.
Also, in addition to my first point, the different modes that files can go into are definatly confusing to the first time user and are in violation of any sort of consistant interface. By having a 'file rename' mode for every object on the desktop, you have increased the complexity of using the interface. First, you have to be aware of the state of the computer all the time. This is not an easy task as the visual cues that signify this are small. While humans are good at determining the difference between things with only a slight difference in appearance, it also takes repeted exposure to it to achieve a competant level of use. Thus, for ease of learning you should remove this.
However I will say that after using computers for a long time you will figure this out and be able to tell the difference. But for new users or users who use many different platforms, this is a PITA.
First of all, when you are click on the desktop, where is the file menu? Oh yeah, there isn't any! Secondly there is more then one way to rename a file, and all ways should be consistant.
First of all I'm talking about Office 2000 here, all default settings. I can't verify any other implementation of MS Word here.
No triple click? Click anywhere in a paragraph, this click puts the cursor on that spot. Double click on a spot and it will select the word that is there. Triple click and it will select the entire paragraph. Quad click selects the word again then it repeats clicks triple and quad until you stop clicking. If you click in the left margin, then it selects the entire line.
There are no rules. Only guidelines that are broken everywhere.
1. So now the windows explorer is not a program? The windows file explorer should follow the same conventions as every other program. But even it violates it's own rules. Try editing the name of a file. Ok, now you have to click, once to select and once on the name of the file, and wait, wait, whenever the computer decides to respond to your input it will then change the normal text to an outline view and let you edit the name of the file. At which point all your 'rules' are gone. Before, double clicking on the filename would cause the file to be executed. In text edit mode, it causes the text to be selected.
Text editing GUI is even worse, in Word, triple clicking causes paragraph selection. But triple clicking in the explorer doesn't select the while filename if it has spaces in it. Total consistency nightmare for people who are not willing to hose a few of their files in order to figure out the rules. If you're not willing to sit there and play with the machine until you understand what it will do when you click around, then you won't know them. There are many corner cases. Icons, text, whatever, if you are going to make a blanket rule then you have to stick with it.
The difference between double and single clicking is really quite arbitrary.
Also in windows sometimes you can single click and othertimes double click and get the same result. The user must be aware of the mode that the computer is in. Like when you turn on point to select mode in windows 2k? Then you point to select and click to open not click to select and double click to open. This is not a visibly diffferent mode if you are not paying strict attention to the computer's output. And if you have a slow computer you might not even notice at all. The difference is quite impossiable to tell.
And if people know that clicking once is not enough they will always do more then is required to get the job done, aka triple or quad clicking. People understand that not always do computers understand what they the person is saying when they click on the button so they click a bunch of times so that the omputer will really understand.;)
Asking people to memorize long chains of commands is silly, that's why unix is so unpopular with normal people. Most people don't know the difference between cp, ls, grep, vi, emacs, rsync, find, tar, bzip2, wget, compress, df and any other of a million commands on unix systems.
The problem isn't that people are stupid. It's that the interface to a computer is not uniform. The interface is based on a bunch of arbitrary decisions made by the program writer. One guy decided to use single click, one guy double click. It's all very confusing and stupid to try and memorize every single idiosyncracy that pops up when useing computers.
I dunno, when 'they' change the way that computers work every 5 years, it's not wonder that someone who has been working with computers for 20 + years has a problem. Does configuring a network card really have to be common knowledge? Should everyone know their IRQs? Somethings also require a more creative mind then some computer eggheads have. It is a generalization, but people who are good at logical tasks, sometimes are very bad at tasks requiring creative thought.
Anyway, just because someone doesn't know how to use the newest os from Microsoft (WinXP) doesn't reflect on their ability to process information in a logical manner.
of this discussion and I'm posting late so this might be a little redundant.
After reading the information at their web site I think that they are trying to do the same thing that Apple is doing with tthe iApps, just that Apple is slower because they chose to integrate them differently and Apple also has to produce something that people can use now.
They want to basically integrate the different types of data that we all use on a daily basis, email, web, IM, etc in to one data repository so that any program can use them. Instead of having to write a seperate address book for your word processor and use that for mailing labels, just have one large address book for your entire computer. Apple's address book does the same thing. Instead of having a different spelling checker for every single application, use one global one that has a custom dictionary, that way you don't have to enter your last name into like 5 dictionarys.
They want to provide a unified interface to your data instead of 5 disparate ones. Apple is trying to do the same thing. Trying to seperate the data on the computer from the interface. So that the user only has to deal with the interface and not the details of files.
Yes,you can just use the file system. You could just think about a computer in terms of the HFS that everyone has. But does everyone actually want to? A Tree based file system works for some people, but others like lists, and want everything to be in huge (really huge) lists. Instead of having to drill down into their deep, nested file system, some people like to have all their files in one folder. (Usually the desktop)
Some people want to deal with their data in tree format, some in list format, maybe some remember everything by name and others like lots of pretty colors and icons to represent their data. People who have used the mac might know about Finder Labels that let you assign colors to files and folders. So you can then make say a red word document called 'resume' and that way you can remember that it was for emergency use only. Or some other such scheme that one might invent for their own data.
The point is that everyone is different and today's programs don't allow you to interface with your data in many ways. Since every program has it's own data store, it makes it hard to move data from one application to the other. Word maybe your favorite word processor, but when you want to use features like the mail merge, you have to massage your data from whatever program you are using to keep track of all your friends. You could use the outlook integration features, but even then it's using 2 seperate programs to access your data, since Outlook is storing it. Really, shouldn't there be one source for all your personal data on a computer and then outlook draws from that when it needs addresses or Word draws from it when it needs addresses.
nVidia's cheats didn't make the test look worse. The test was a flyby on a rail, if you are playing a game that uses this kind of system (Panzer Dragon comes to mind), then they are showing that by simply changing the clipping plane you get better performance then without, the same images were being drawn (AFAIK), just when you went outside the bounds of the test, all of a sudden the screen looked messed up.
Also, I don't understand why you don't want the test to be optimized as much as possiable for your card. If you have a card that gets 100 more points on the test after optimization this is telling the game developers that with some optimization they can get more performance out of their game engines.
The whole point of benchmarks is to get real world performance of something right?
Well, how can you use 3DMark to get 'real world' performance out of a video card? Answer: you can't because it is a synthetic benchmark designed to test out features of cards that also have just come out.
It is not testing real world performance, just some synthetic made up grahpics demo. Shouldn't it also try and emulate an application that is optimized as much as possiable so as to get the highest possiable performance instead of the lowest score? It's not real world, so the highest possiable score should be what Futuremark should be aiming for. This means optimizing their programs for every card. Getting down to the metal and making sure that everything runs as smoothly as possiable on every card they want to test on so as to get the best possiable performace.
I can already tell you that the worst possiable perforamnce on all future video cards on any possiable software will be, it's less then one frame per second. This we already know, what we should be using programs like 3DMark to find out is how fast a computer with a card CAN run. because 3DMark software is about the possiabilities that a card has, not its REAL WORLD performance.
So I say that 3DMark should let nVidia, Ati and etc create their drivers with special code paths. As long as it doesn't impact performance with normal programs, why not? 3DMark and other synthetic benchmarks should welcome the 'cheating' as it only validates the fact that people actually care about their benchmark. Then we might actually know how fast our cards can go given the right conditions.
Slashdot Mirror
No, they still spawn a new VM for each new app, you can't get around that limitation. Too many of the core classes are coded in such a way that you cannot get around that. (it's because of the static member variables)
However, Apple's vm is basically sun's VM with some enhancements. First of all there's the Java-Cocoa(Objc) bridge that lets a developer write a java backend with a Obj-C native Cocoa front end. Secondly, the feature you may have heard about that saves much time and reuses code is that the VM caches on disk the HotSpot compliation of the Java byte code. The way it works is that Java code is compiled to JAva byte code by the developer. The VM then compiles byte code to it's own internal representation for eventual compiliation to native code. This code is normally intrepreted, but when a section of code is 'hotspotted' it is then compiled to native code. Apple modified the vm to save the internal representation of the bytecode to disk and use this in the VM. This is automatically done for all core classes at install time and on the fly for other Java code.
Sun is supposedly looking into a way to extend it to other applications. Though only in client application does this make much difference because in server applications classes don't get loaded a lot. (except for JSPs but you really shouldn't be doing cpu intensive stuff in the JSP code, but in a library function)
Which Unix?
At least on MacOSX, it's easy as pie to deliver a self-contained jar to someone and have them run it. Same jar that runs on windows works in MacOSX (it just doesn't 'look' like a native osx application without either command line params, or packing it like a Mac App.
Which JRE are you using, AFAIK, being able to apply code changes while the code is running requires JRE support, which only was added in 1.4
Yeah, but service packs don't add over 100 new features to the OS and give you MORE software. Usually they just fix old bugs and security holes.
Java has this in 1.4+.
So does MSVS for C/C++.
Glad to see that I can use it on the mac finally! Yea!
The register said that they have USB 2.0, but is it USB 2.0 Hi speed or USB 2.0 Full Speed?
Argh!
My point was that MS should really NOT use any of their existing search technology in this new endeavor as it is really bad.
Really I shouldn't to have modded you second comment down, but sometimes I do make a mistake. I do think however that your first comment was not a '5' comment, but that's the mod system.
You are a paranoid, paranoid person. If you don't trust technology then you should really just get off the road. I mean your car could fail at any time, brake lines snapping, axel breaking, who knows what might happen! I hope that any technology that is brought into cars is tested so that the probibility of causeing problems is much lower then the probibility of helping. This is not always the case ( 8+ Cylinder engines for sport cars) but for safety features like this I think that they are taking a much closer look at the effects of this system on the drivers safety.
The modern car is so complex and full of possible problems that it's amazing that it works at all. There is already one computer controlling every aspect of every new car's engine, so why not add another one. If you main computer fails then there are backup systems, just as in this system. They can't release a product with this kind of killing potential in the event of failure without a good backup system. If a computer controlled breaking system were to fail then probably the best course of action would to be to stop the car (with the driver's action) and not start again.
Course then you'll probably say "what if the backup fails". Well, lets hope that never happens.
Let's also hope that your break lines never snap and your gas tank never explodes. There are just some things that no matter how many precautions we take can and will happen.
they stop returning good results.
That's the only reason that I use it. If MS can create a better search engine then Google, that finds better pages with less thinking (less words and tweaking of searches).
The only problem I have with a search engine is when I go to it and have to try like 10 searches to get what I want, when I can goto Google and get it in 2.
However, they had better start from scratch because all their previous search engines are really bad. The MSDN one being the worst. Maybe there is a way to have it return better results, but I haven't found it. I want it to be easier to narrow down my choices for APIs. I mean why is a MSCE API ranked higher then a Win32 api call on their results pages? Are there really more users of the WinCE api?
So you're saying that planes (military planes) should still be fly by the seat of their pants?
Military planes have been fly by wire for years. Totatly computer controlled, all the 'pilot' has to do is point it in the correct direction, the plane does everything else.
If automation can reduce the number of bad drivers on the road then I'm all for it. It's either more automation of cars, or a reduction of cars on the road. I live in LA and nobody wants to give up their car here to ride on some form of mass transit even though it would be better for all if we did.
Actually I modded you down cause you've got a bad attitude and need to spend some time in the corner before spouting off.
Besides, you've been modded back up anyways, so cut back on the coffee.
If you're still mad next time you get mod points just mod-bomb me. Going around swearing isn't going to earn you any points either.
I disagree that you need to be an amazing driver to be able to drive on the roads, like you seem to think from your posts. Since you imply that you are pushing your car (not to the limits but still...) when you drive. Regardless of how amazing a driver you are, you won't always be able to dodge other bad drivers. Nobody is forcing you buy a car with this system installed anyway.
Because then you have people who can't tell the difference between 3rd party applications and apple applications and blame apple for screwing their computer up. Apple is not a software distributor, they do not get a commission from every copy of every program sold. Their platform is open in the sence that anyone can write a program that will run on it without paying Apple any money.
In case you didn't know about it, there is also PDF995 for windows that sets it up so that anything can be printed to PDF and it's only nagware until you register it and it's only like 10 bucks to register it.
Just so you know.
What's your problem with that ?
It's nice to know when the plane is actually on the ground if you are waiting for someone to get off the stupid thing. If the airlines showed you more indication of when they were going to get in other then some time soon I might agree with you but come on.
Ten a minute is one every six seconds, or how often the average male thinks about sex? Does this mean tha GBA is on its way to replacing sex? NOOOO.
That's why they invented Fry's!
Return anything there for no reason at all.
Anyone buying a video card for the next generation of games is crazy! Buy the cheapest video card that will let you play the games you can buy TODAY. If and when Doom3, HL2, DNF (ha) come out, then go and buy the card with your goddly perforance then, but not now.
Video cards happen to be ahead of the curve right now. Hopefully the software will catch up and be ahead soon.
Also, in addition to my first point, the different modes that files can go into are definatly confusing to the first time user and are in violation of any sort of consistant interface. By having a 'file rename' mode for every object on the desktop, you have increased the complexity of using the interface.
First, you have to be aware of the state of the computer all the time. This is not an easy task as the visual cues that signify this are small. While humans are good at determining the difference between things with only a slight difference in appearance, it also takes repeted exposure to it to achieve a competant level of use. Thus, for ease of learning you should remove this.
However I will say that after using computers for a long time you will figure this out and be able to tell the difference. But for new users or users who use many different platforms, this is a PITA.
First of all, when you are click on the desktop, where is the file menu? Oh yeah, there isn't any! Secondly there is more then one way to rename a file, and all ways should be consistant.
First of all I'm talking about Office 2000 here, all default settings. I can't verify any other implementation of MS Word here.
No triple click?
Click anywhere in a paragraph, this click puts the cursor on that spot.
Double click on a spot and it will select the word that is there.
Triple click and it will select the entire paragraph.
Quad click selects the word again
then it repeats clicks triple and quad until you stop clicking.
If you click in the left margin, then it selects the entire line.
There are no rules. Only guidelines that are broken everywhere.
1. So now the windows explorer is not a program? The windows file explorer should follow the same conventions as every other program. But even it violates it's own rules. Try editing the name of a file. Ok, now you have to click, once to select and once on the name of the file, and wait, wait, whenever the computer decides to respond to your input it will then change the normal text to an outline view and let you edit the name of the file. At which point all your 'rules' are gone. Before, double clicking on the filename would cause the file to be executed. In text edit mode, it causes the text to be selected.
Text editing GUI is even worse, in Word, triple clicking causes paragraph selection. But triple clicking in the explorer doesn't select the while filename if it has spaces in it. Total consistency nightmare for people who are not willing to hose a few of their files in order to figure out the rules. If you're not willing to sit there and play with the machine until you understand what it will do when you click around, then you won't know them. There are many corner cases. Icons, text, whatever, if you are going to make a blanket rule then you have to stick with it.
The difference between double and single clicking is really quite arbitrary.
;)
Also in windows sometimes you can single click and othertimes double click and get the same result. The user must be aware of the mode that the computer is in. Like when you turn on point to select mode in windows 2k? Then you point to select and click to open not click to select and double click to open. This is not a visibly diffferent mode if you are not paying strict attention to the computer's output. And if you have a slow computer you might not even notice at all. The difference is quite impossiable to tell.
And if people know that clicking once is not enough they will always do more then is required to get the job done, aka triple or quad clicking. People understand that not always do computers understand what they the person is saying when they click on the button so they click a bunch of times so that the omputer will really understand.
Asking people to memorize long chains of commands is silly, that's why unix is so unpopular with normal people. Most people don't know the difference between cp, ls, grep, vi, emacs, rsync, find, tar, bzip2, wget, compress, df and any other of a million commands on unix systems.
The problem isn't that people are stupid. It's that the interface to a computer is not uniform. The interface is based on a bunch of arbitrary decisions made by the program writer. One guy decided to use single click, one guy double click. It's all very confusing and stupid to try and memorize every single idiosyncracy that pops up when useing computers.
I dunno, when 'they' change the way that computers work every 5 years, it's not wonder that someone who has been working with computers for 20 + years has a problem.
Does configuring a network card really have to be common knowledge?
Should everyone know their IRQs?
Somethings also require a more creative mind then some computer eggheads have. It is a generalization, but people who are good at logical tasks, sometimes are very bad at tasks requiring creative thought.
Anyway, just because someone doesn't know how to use the newest os from Microsoft (WinXP) doesn't reflect on their ability to process information in a logical manner.
of this discussion and I'm posting late so this might be a little redundant.
,you can just use the file system. You could just think about a computer in terms of the HFS that everyone has. But does everyone actually want to? A Tree based file system works for some people, but others like lists, and want everything to be in huge (really huge) lists. Instead of having to drill down into their deep, nested file system, some people like to have all their files in one folder. (Usually the desktop)
After reading the information at their web site I think that they are trying to do the same thing that Apple is doing with tthe iApps, just that Apple is slower because they chose to integrate them differently and Apple also has to produce something that people can use now.
They want to basically integrate the different types of data that we all use on a daily basis, email, web, IM, etc in to one data repository so that any program can use them. Instead of having to write a seperate address book for your word processor and use that for mailing labels, just have one large address book for your entire computer. Apple's address book does the same thing. Instead of having a different spelling checker for every single application, use one global one that has a custom dictionary, that way you don't have to enter your last name into like 5 dictionarys.
They want to provide a unified interface to your data instead of 5 disparate ones. Apple is trying to do the same thing. Trying to seperate the data on the computer from the interface. So that the user only has to deal with the interface and not the details of files.
Yes
Some people want to deal with their data in tree format, some in list format, maybe some remember everything by name and others like lots of pretty colors and icons to represent their data. People who have used the mac might know about Finder Labels that let you assign colors to files and folders. So you can then make say a red word document called 'resume' and that way you can remember that it was for emergency use only. Or some other such scheme that one might invent for their own data.
The point is that everyone is different and today's programs don't allow you to interface with your data in many ways. Since every program has it's own data store, it makes it hard to move data from one application to the other. Word maybe your favorite word processor, but when you want to use features like the mail merge, you have to massage your data from whatever program you are using to keep track of all your friends. You could use the outlook integration features, but even then it's using 2 seperate programs to access your data, since Outlook is storing it. Really, shouldn't there be one source for all your personal data on a computer and then outlook draws from that when it needs addresses or Word draws from it when it needs addresses.
nVidia's cheats didn't make the test look worse. The test was a flyby on a rail, if you are playing a game that uses this kind of system (Panzer Dragon comes to mind), then they are showing that by simply changing the clipping plane you get better performance then without, the same images were being drawn (AFAIK), just when you went outside the bounds of the test, all of a sudden the screen looked messed up.
Also, I don't understand why you don't want the test to be optimized as much as possiable for your card. If you have a card that gets 100 more points on the test after optimization this is telling the game developers that with some optimization they can get more performance out of their game engines.
The whole point of benchmarks is to get real world performance of something right?
Well, how can you use 3DMark to get 'real world' performance out of a video card? Answer: you can't because it is a synthetic benchmark designed to test out features of cards that also have just come out.
It is not testing real world performance, just some synthetic made up grahpics demo. Shouldn't it also try and emulate an application that is optimized as much as possiable so as to get the highest possiable performance instead of the lowest score? It's not real world, so the highest possiable score should be what Futuremark should be aiming for. This means optimizing their programs for every card. Getting down to the metal and making sure that everything runs as smoothly as possiable on every card they want to test on so as to get the best possiable performace.
I can already tell you that the worst possiable perforamnce on all future video cards on any possiable software will be, it's less then one frame per second. This we already know, what we should be using programs like 3DMark to find out is how fast a computer with a card CAN run. because 3DMark software is about the possiabilities that a card has, not its REAL WORLD performance.
So I say that 3DMark should let nVidia, Ati and etc create their drivers with special code paths. As long as it doesn't impact performance with normal programs, why not? 3DMark and other synthetic benchmarks should welcome the 'cheating' as it only validates the fact that people actually care about their benchmark. Then we might actually know how fast our cards can go given the right conditions.