I agree. Our business rarely uses Office apps. That's irrelevant for us. Most IT people seem to think that "business" means cube farms in a big company that do nothing but push paper. Our business relies on 2 critical windows apps, both of which don't have anything even close to equivalent to run on Linux. And since they're critical, I'm sure as hell not going to try to run them in VMWare or Wine as some sort of kludge, because even if they do happen to work 100% (which I kind of doubt), you just lost all of your support from the company. For us, switching to Linux is about as likely as switching to VMS: it ain't gonna happen.
Re:Overpriced small laptop?
on
OQO For Sale
·
· Score: 1
So, then you're willing to pay $1000 for the luxury of being able to put something in your pocket as opposed to carrying it in a small bag? I guess that answers my question... it's being marketed at the very wealthy (those with substantial disposable income). I guess that's why these kinds of devices have never taken off: the market is quite tiny. There aren't many people who can afford to, or who are willing to pay that kind of substantial price differential for such a small convenience.
Overpriced small laptop?
on
OQO For Sale
·
· Score: 1
From what I can tell, it's a grossly overpriced small laptop with a touchscreen. Wow. Where's my wallet? Really, what's the incentive to buy this instead of a much cheaper, much much more powerful laptop? Are most people not able to lug around the gargantuan, 5-8 pound laptops available today? Jesus, most books are heavier than today's laptops.
I like your troll. You don't agree or don't understand or don't want to admit he's right, so you suggest that he's a corporate mouthpiece. Fantastic. How do you propose that "keen young programmers" can make a living from a software invention? [Keep in mind that you should tell us who you work for in your response so we can call you a "shill" or something else appropriate if we don't agree with you].
Ok, excellent point-- but how would Computer Shopper help you? Of the 1000 pages, probably 900 were just advertising... it wasn't Computer Reviewer.
The ads WERE cool! You could see pictures, read specs, find that wierd little adapter you needed, find stuff that you didn't even know existed, see all the different vendors, etc. It was fun! Plus, you could just keep it by the toilet, and peruse and peruse and peruse. It was almost as cool as finding a really cool computer store that has all kinds of *stuff* (the kind of store that doesn't exist any more).
Come on, people, do you really _want_ 1000 pages of Computer Shopper, instead of browsing at any number of online searchable sites?
Yes I do. Even in computers today, not *everything* is a commodity, to be purchased by comparing to see which widget is $0.05 less than the next. While price is always important, it's not the MOST important aspect of pretty much anything I buy, which makes sites like pricewatch boring and stale.
Uhh, all I can say is that my business RELIES on paypal for payments, and today we have lost ALOT of business.
Uhh, that's your problem. Paypal has NEVER been reliable, and I *never* buy from any site/person/whatever that uses PayPal. You need to get a real credit card processor, and stop complaining. It's like complaining that you run a gravel hauling business, your Honda Civic that you used for hauling your trailer full of gravel broke down, and gosh darn it, it shouldn't! If your business RELIES on PayPal, then no offense, but you don't have much of a business.
5. Nitwits who don't understand the work assume it's easy, thus making it impossible to get any respect.
I was already there. I was an IT grunt and manager. After a job that involved cleaning carcinogenic dust off of fluorescent light fixtures in a textile plant with no air conditioning 8 hours a day on a scaffold over rapidly moving machines that would kill you instantly if you fell, yes IT work is relatively easy. IT people get no pity from me.
cheese steaks for lunch every day? Try cold pizza bought on special a week ago because you can't afford a fucking cheese steak sandwich every day. Oh yeah, and that's working about 84 hours/week. You're so lucky...
Hey, that sounds GREAT! Let's trade. I've got two possiblities. My friend picks up garbage and cleans drainage ditches for the state. He gets paid about $7/hour, and spends 100% of his day outside, no matter what the weather is. He said he'd take your job. Or, you can have my job. I work 12 hours/day, 7 days a week for abot $1.50/hour. No vacation. No benefits. Have to worry about paying every bill. Dealing with bitchy customers all day. Your job sounds like a dream come true.
One reason that I'm not in IT is beause of the people. People who whine over an IT management job. Are you kidding me?
1. They get paid a LOT more than minimum wage.
2. They usually get to work in a climate controlled office.
3. They usually get to sit down.
4. They generally don't have to punch a time clock.
These few things here make ANY IT job better than about 90% of the jobs on the planet. Quit whining and repeat after me, "I am not entitled to any particular kind of job."
Television is dead and HDTV is even more dead... how many years have they spun standard after standard?!
I agree. I don't know of anyone in my age group (25-35) that watches "TV" anymore. Just about everybody has one, for watching DVD's or playing games, but I don't think that I know a single person my age with cable or even an antenna. TV is rapdily becoming something for the poor and uneducated. Good riddens!
Compared to the $200 billion to kill and maim tens (hundreds?) of thousands of people in the name of "terrorism", $260 million to create essentially, a Library of Alexandria is a fucking bargain.
Well, I thought that XP was a bit limiting until a fellow/.er pointed out the Windows XP Powertools. Now, with MS Virtual Desktops and the x-windows style mouse over focus stuff, and the cool alt_tab tool, I don't know what else KDR or Gnome could offer me...
I'm the only person? Do this. Go ask random people who sets web browser standards. I'll wager cash that the vast majority of the adult, human population on this planet has never heard of the W3C, and could care less. As long as it works in IE, that's all that matters to them.
I wonder if Apple ever intends to crack the gaming nut.
They won't if they're smart. The PC gaming community is just that: a community. PC gaming has been declining steadily since the advent of Nintendo, I think is where it started. People just don't want the complexity and expense of PC gaming, and neither do the manufacturers, for that matter. PC caming is just going to continue to become a smaller and smaller market.
This, my friends, is where Windows is seriously lacking as far as usability goes. He makes a good point. I for one can't stand more than about 4 Windows open at a time when I'm using windows, where as when I'm using Linux (I'm not a OSX guy) I usually have 20+ windows open on 6 virtual desktops.
See, that makes no sense to me. I just make my taskbar larger (did you know you could do that?), and I can easily get to my 20+ windows I have open. I can't imagine having to remember what virtual desktop each app is running in and play hide and seek every time I switch. That's a real nightmare for me.
Well, how the heck am I supposed to know that? A year+ worth of web logs show -zero- "Amaya" browsers.
Again, that's my point... these "Standards" are a moot point. They're ivory tower idealism that are simply irrelevant. It's kind of like the/. "cracker" vs. "hacker" thing. It's irrelevant, because if you're outside of the tiny geek community, nobody will know what you're talking about and nobody cares. It's kind of like some militia group claiming their 100 acres in northern Michigan to be a free country. You can say it all you want, but that doesn't make it true. You can scream "W3C makes the standards" all you want, but reality says otherwise. So, nitpick all you want, say "troll" all you want, but you're not going to have any impact, whatsoever on reality.
That's one of the most pernicious effects of monopoly control - the weaknesses of a monopoly product become liabilities to everyone.
That's not entirely true. With Netscape/Gecko/Mozilla/Firefox not supporting the a.click() method, I had to re-do a LOT of pages because I'd get people complaining about this or that not working. Those browsers account for about 5% of our traffic, but was enough to be a royal pain in the ass. In which case, the small guys caused the problem, because they don't conform to the de-facto standard.
Because IE isn't standards-compliant and barfs on standards-compliant pages very often.
As far as these so-called standards go... who says that they're "standards"? I didn't vote for them or the group that designed them. The W3C doesn't own the web. The W3C doesn't even make a web browser! They're just some arbitrary 3rd party making arbitrary "standards". A "standard" is something that's either agreed upon by members using those standards or is de-facto in that it's what a majority uses and accepts. IE is the standard. I'm sorry to break the news to you, but IE's way of doing things has been the standard for several years now. The W3C has been irrelevant for quite a while now. I can say that the new "standard" to make a hyperlink is to use the [thisisahyperlink] tag, and it would be about as relevant as the W3C. So, accoring to my "standards", no browser measures up!
whats so hard about loading a transparent PNG anyway?
I dunno. What's so hard about getting a.click() to work? Netscape/Gecko/Mozilla/Firefox STILL hasn't fixed this one (been broken for at least 4 years), making for nasty DHTML workarounds in some situations..PNGs don't work? Jesus, use GIFs, JPGs, TIFFs, etc. No big deal.
This whole "Firefox is safer than IE" thing is total and complete crap. Firefox lets just as many viruses and trojans and spyware through as IE does. How do I know? My virus checker catches them all of the time when browsing with Firefox. Using Firefox may be a bit better, but to say that "Firefox is safe" is a riduclous false sense of security that is going to get a lot of people in trouble because it's simply not true.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. Our business rarely uses Office apps. That's irrelevant for us. Most IT people seem to think that "business" means cube farms in a big company that do nothing but push paper. Our business relies on 2 critical windows apps, both of which don't have anything even close to equivalent to run on Linux. And since they're critical, I'm sure as hell not going to try to run them in VMWare or Wine as some sort of kludge, because even if they do happen to work 100% (which I kind of doubt), you just lost all of your support from the company. For us, switching to Linux is about as likely as switching to VMS: it ain't gonna happen.
So, then you're willing to pay $1000 for the luxury of being able to put something in your pocket as opposed to carrying it in a small bag? I guess that answers my question... it's being marketed at the very wealthy (those with substantial disposable income). I guess that's why these kinds of devices have never taken off: the market is quite tiny. There aren't many people who can afford to, or who are willing to pay that kind of substantial price differential for such a small convenience.
From what I can tell, it's a grossly overpriced small laptop with a touchscreen. Wow. Where's my wallet? Really, what's the incentive to buy this instead of a much cheaper, much much more powerful laptop? Are most people not able to lug around the gargantuan, 5-8 pound laptops available today? Jesus, most books are heavier than today's laptops.
I like your troll. You don't agree or don't understand or don't want to admit he's right, so you suggest that he's a corporate mouthpiece. Fantastic. How do you propose that "keen young programmers" can make a living from a software invention? [Keep in mind that you should tell us who you work for in your response so we can call you a "shill" or something else appropriate if we don't agree with you].
Cheap DVD drives + http://www.dvdshrink.org/ = No copy protection.
Ok, excellent point-- but how would Computer Shopper help you? Of the 1000 pages, probably 900 were just advertising... it wasn't Computer Reviewer.
The ads WERE cool! You could see pictures, read specs, find that wierd little adapter you needed, find stuff that you didn't even know existed, see all the different vendors, etc. It was fun! Plus, you could just keep it by the toilet, and peruse and peruse and peruse. It was almost as cool as finding a really cool computer store that has all kinds of *stuff* (the kind of store that doesn't exist any more).
Come on, people, do you really _want_ 1000 pages of Computer Shopper, instead of browsing at any number of online searchable sites?
Yes I do. Even in computers today, not *everything* is a commodity, to be purchased by comparing to see which widget is $0.05 less than the next. While price is always important, it's not the MOST important aspect of pretty much anything I buy, which makes sites like pricewatch boring and stale.
Uhh, all I can say is that my business RELIES on paypal for payments, and today we have lost ALOT of business.
Uhh, that's your problem. Paypal has NEVER been reliable, and I *never* buy from any site/person/whatever that uses PayPal. You need to get a real credit card processor, and stop complaining. It's like complaining that you run a gravel hauling business, your Honda Civic that you used for hauling your trailer full of gravel broke down, and gosh darn it, it shouldn't! If your business RELIES on PayPal, then no offense, but you don't have much of a business.
5. Nitwits who don't understand the work assume it's easy, thus making it impossible to get any respect.
I was already there. I was an IT grunt and manager. After a job that involved cleaning carcinogenic dust off of fluorescent light fixtures in a textile plant with no air conditioning 8 hours a day on a scaffold over rapidly moving machines that would kill you instantly if you fell, yes IT work is relatively easy. IT people get no pity from me.
that and the cheese steaks for lunch every day...
cheese steaks for lunch every day? Try cold pizza bought on special a week ago because you can't afford a fucking cheese steak sandwich every day. Oh yeah, and that's working about 84 hours/week. You're so lucky...
Hey, that sounds GREAT! Let's trade. I've got two possiblities. My friend picks up garbage and cleans drainage ditches for the state. He gets paid about $7/hour, and spends 100% of his day outside, no matter what the weather is. He said he'd take your job. Or, you can have my job. I work 12 hours/day, 7 days a week for abot $1.50/hour. No vacation. No benefits. Have to worry about paying every bill. Dealing with bitchy customers all day. Your job sounds like a dream come true.
One reason that I'm not in IT is beause of the people. People who whine over an IT management job. Are you kidding me?
1. They get paid a LOT more than minimum wage.
2. They usually get to work in a climate controlled office.
3. They usually get to sit down.
4. They generally don't have to punch a time clock.
These few things here make ANY IT job better than about 90% of the jobs on the planet. Quit whining and repeat after me, "I am not entitled to any particular kind of job."
Television is dead and HDTV is even more dead ... how many years have they spun standard after standard?!
I agree. I don't know of anyone in my age group (25-35) that watches "TV" anymore. Just about everybody has one, for watching DVD's or playing games, but I don't think that I know a single person my age with cable or even an antenna. TV is rapdily becoming something for the poor and uneducated. Good riddens!
Does anybody know of a torrent of the questionable data? If there's a torrent, it would be pretty impossible to track down and sieze...
Hey, but the Us did it better and more efficiently! Did Saddam kill that many people so quickly?
Compared to the $200 billion to kill and maim tens (hundreds?) of thousands of people in the name of "terrorism", $260 million to create essentially, a Library of Alexandria is a fucking bargain.
Well, I thought that XP was a bit limiting until a fellow /.er pointed out the Windows XP Powertools. Now, with MS Virtual Desktops and the x-windows style mouse over focus stuff, and the cool alt_tab tool, I don't know what else KDR or Gnome could offer me...
I'm the only person? Do this. Go ask random people who sets web browser standards. I'll wager cash that the vast majority of the adult, human population on this planet has never heard of the W3C, and could care less. As long as it works in IE, that's all that matters to them.
I wonder if Apple ever intends to crack the gaming nut.
They won't if they're smart. The PC gaming community is just that: a community. PC gaming has been declining steadily since the advent of Nintendo, I think is where it started. People just don't want the complexity and expense of PC gaming, and neither do the manufacturers, for that matter. PC caming is just going to continue to become a smaller and smaller market.
This, my friends, is where Windows is seriously lacking as far as usability goes. He makes a good point. I for one can't stand more than about 4 Windows open at a time when I'm using windows, where as when I'm using Linux (I'm not a OSX guy) I usually have 20+ windows open on 6 virtual desktops.
See, that makes no sense to me. I just make my taskbar larger (did you know you could do that?), and I can easily get to my 20+ windows I have open. I can't imagine having to remember what virtual desktop each app is running in and play hide and seek every time I switch. That's a real nightmare for me.
Well, how the heck am I supposed to know that? A year+ worth of web logs show -zero- "Amaya" browsers.
/. "cracker" vs. "hacker" thing. It's irrelevant, because if you're outside of the tiny geek community, nobody will know what you're talking about and nobody cares. It's kind of like some militia group claiming their 100 acres in northern Michigan to be a free country. You can say it all you want, but that doesn't make it true. You can scream "W3C makes the standards" all you want, but reality says otherwise. So, nitpick all you want, say "troll" all you want, but you're not going to have any impact, whatsoever on reality.
Again, that's my point... these "Standards" are a moot point. They're ivory tower idealism that are simply irrelevant. It's kind of like the
That's one of the most pernicious effects of monopoly control - the weaknesses of a monopoly product become liabilities to everyone.
That's not entirely true. With Netscape/Gecko/Mozilla/Firefox not supporting the a.click() method, I had to re-do a LOT of pages because I'd get people complaining about this or that not working. Those browsers account for about 5% of our traffic, but was enough to be a royal pain in the ass. In which case, the small guys caused the problem, because they don't conform to the de-facto standard.
Because IE isn't standards-compliant and barfs on standards-compliant pages very often.
As far as these so-called standards go... who says that they're "standards"? I didn't vote for them or the group that designed them. The W3C doesn't own the web. The W3C doesn't even make a web browser! They're just some arbitrary 3rd party making arbitrary "standards". A "standard" is something that's either agreed upon by members using those standards or is de-facto in that it's what a majority uses and accepts. IE is the standard. I'm sorry to break the news to you, but IE's way of doing things has been the standard for several years now. The W3C has been irrelevant for quite a while now. I can say that the new "standard" to make a hyperlink is to use the [thisisahyperlink] tag, and it would be about as relevant as the W3C. So, accoring to my "standards", no browser measures up!
whats so hard about loading a transparent PNG anyway?
.PNGs don't work? Jesus, use GIFs, JPGs, TIFFs, etc. No big deal.
I dunno. What's so hard about getting a.click() to work? Netscape/Gecko/Mozilla/Firefox STILL hasn't fixed this one (been broken for at least 4 years), making for nasty DHTML workarounds in some situations.
This whole "Firefox is safer than IE" thing is total and complete crap. Firefox lets just as many viruses and trojans and spyware through as IE does. How do I know? My virus checker catches them all of the time when browsing with Firefox. Using Firefox may be a bit better, but to say that "Firefox is safe" is a riduclous false sense of security that is going to get a lot of people in trouble because it's simply not true.