QT4 is supposed to bring speed increases all over the place, help with parallel processing, it brings SVG rendering, and lessens the memory footprint all at the same time. That is pretty much a reality today even with the beta.
Right now Konqueror still exists as the super-app for those who love it, but there is a better dedicated file viewer called Okular that renders all kinds of documents including PDFs, and does so amazingly fast. There is a dedicated new file manager that I believe both KDE and Gnome fanatics will love. Now if only they have a KHTML/QT fork of Firefox, I'd be happy as pie, but that isn't happening anytime soon.
You get a new series of icons, which some I really love, and others I don't care for. Honestly, I'm just going to replace them with another icon set anyway, but the default icons on the whole are much nicer. There was a new default widget/theme set called Oxygen as well that I thought looked incredible, but the code was poor and so was performance so it went out the window. The new Oxygen widget/theme looks a little to plain for my taste. And it doesn't look like an OS X clone, but it certainly seems to follow the same design philosophy. Given that many worship at the altar of OS X, I'm sure it will be popular, but right now I'm particular to the Domino widgets and a nice dark theme.
The new kwin today has composite technology, which is good and bad. It is good in that we get 3D eye-candy in the desktop without too much fuss since it is built right into KDE. It is bad in that with all the peace and love of Compiz and Beryl getting back together, we just split into two camps again, and the truly brilliant compiz-fusion project is no basically delegated to Gnome users for the most part. I was very disappointed that the KDE team decided to invent the wheel from scratch (and as far as I know they don't really have many effects or plugins right now, where as Compiz-Fusion has tons) rather than just extend support for what already exists.
KDE 4 already has some other great technologies like the semantic desktop project, and Sonnet is very promising, though unfinished. Solid, Phonon and Decibel might not be obvious to the end-user, but apparently are very important back-end technologies. I'm also a fan of Strigi, which is very much a reality today, but I'm not sure if it is being included by default in KDE 4 or not.
There are tons, and I mean tons of little new things, like "Get New Hot Stuff" which is a terrible name, but a neat concept. It is a simple seamless way to download new content into applications. It can already been seen in Amarok if you want to download plug-ins and such.
Plasma does exist, but it is just basically a new (easier) way to make widgets largely. The API and libraries are supposed to very useful, but the revolution in how we use our desktops doesn't exist, and I'm not sure anyone is working on it.
So on one hand, we do have plenty of new toys and great technology that is part of KDE 4. And at the same time it is fair to say that with the most visible project (Plasma) there were huge promises and little delivered. Take that as you will.
It should also be noted that Amarok and KOffice aren't tired directly into the KDE release schedule, but Amarok 2 and KOffice 2 are planned to be major versions and coincide with KDE 4, though they will likely release slightly later than KDE 4.
Frankly, I own licenses of Windows that came with the laptops. So I feel like I can legally take my Windows fonts and drop them in Linux, which is exactly what I did. I have the various open-source fonts (like the Liberation series) sitting right along side various commercial fonts I picked up, and the core Microsoft fonts.
It generally isn't very difficult regardless of distro to get the Microsoft fonts in Linux. The only question is the legality of it.
Cheaper than the alternatives and yet has all the features you need?i
Given that there are free phones with more alternatives, and smart phones starting as low as $50 in most places, I'm not sure the iPhone can ever be the cheapest of the alternatives. You must not be looking, but hey if you want to drop $600, go right ahead.
The n800 does call over VOIP. Every phone in my company is solely VOIP and we have thousands of employees. It works great.
Many of the iPhone's listed capabilities are based on web-based communication, like the video chat and such. So Apple gets to use those claims, but no one else?
The latest trunk of KHTML passes ACID2. Webkit was forked off KHTML some time ago, and they are just now getting together to merge changes. Safari and Webkit do not pass ACID2, and the Safari in the iPhone (don't know about the normal Safari) is unable to render the CSS hover menus properly. Apple's solution was to tell people to redesign their websites for the iPhone.
No, a supposedly brilliant CIO insisted Apples are better for research. He didn't insist that a group of particular users just happen to be familiar with them. And I'm not sure about Harvard, but at UNO, UNK, UNL, Metro and Creighton (the various Nebraska campuses I've been on) you will find Mandriva and Windows, but I haven't seen a single Mac in any of their computer labs. Apples uesd to be very prevalent in schools, and Apple laptops are seriously growing in popularity again, but I don't think as many schools have Apple products today as they used to.
"On the other hand, its formfactor, screen/footprint/thickness ratios, responsive and reliable OS, intuitive and fast interface, durable capacitance touchscreen, feature-rich web browser, visual voice mail, battery life, included memory, and tight integration between the apps are all unparalleled among other smartphones."
The n800 series is like 7 oz and the iPhone is like 5 oz. The n800 is designed to be a bit bigger because if you're going to be a tablet and allow web-surfing and such, a slightly bigger screen is preferable. But if you think 2 oz are going to weight you down unbearably so, more power to you. Then again, part of the reason the n800 is slightly larger is because it has an 800x480 display. When viewing videos and surfing the web I'd much rather have an 800x480 display than the iPhone's 480x320 display. In reality, when you compare the screen to the overall dimensions, the iPhone is lacking and not unparalleled.
You insist the OS is reliable, and given the phone has barely been out long enough to be tested, that is just a ridiculous claim. This secure OS has already been hacked and there is speculation that the first iPhone malware apps could spread across the web within the next few weeks. Again, this claim has no merit.
Intuitive and fast interface? This is the standby claim that all Apple products have superior interfaces. In reality, I can much more easily (and quickly) navigate on a standard phone with one hand than have to fight with a touchscreen and use two hands. And ask anyone who has had a smartphone/pda before how durable touchscreens are in the long-term. Nevermind that Apple didn't invent the smart phone, and that touchscreens have been around forever. Revisionists and fanboys will continue to insist the Apple innovated here.
Durable touchscreen? A brand new product that hasn't been tested yet has unparalleled durability. These statements come across like blind fanaticism.
Feature-rich web browser? Where is the Flash support? Oh, it doesn't exist. Is it ACID complaint? Nope. Does it have problems with CSS? Yes. In fact, Apple suggested that people need to redesign valid css and xhtml so our websites work better with the iPhone. How about just including a good browser to begin with? The n800 ships with Opera, which has been tested on mobile devices for years and has proven to be extremely reliable. The Safari port to a phone is brand new and untested, but again you're sure it is the best thing on the planet, calling it unparalleled. Did you know the n800 also ships with Flash support? In reality, the iPhone again is lacking in standard features the competition has.
Battery life? The iPhone has 250 hours of standby, much like my cheap, discontinued old Samsung. the n800 has 312 hours of standby. Again, the facts aren't really supporting your claims. Even better, you can't remove or replace the iPhone battery. All batteries lose the ability to keep a full charge, and with any other phone on the planet, you can buy a better battery, but if your $600 phone can't keep a charge, well too bad. Buy a new one I guess. That is surely unparalleled superior design.
The one actual advantage the iPhone has is plenty of internal memory, and that somewhat explains why it is so much more expensive. However 1 gig MicroSD cards can be bought for $9 on buy.com as opposed to blowing $600 on your phone. The price does not justify the feature.
Again, in reality the iPhone lacks many of the basic features most FREE phones have, and when you compare it to every other smart phone on the market, the iPhone is found to be inferior, but it is more proprietary, offers you less freedom and costs considerably more. I can't remember which model number exactly, but I've seen a "baby brother" of the n800 that still blows the iPhone out of the water and it is only $250. Sure beats $600, but you can keep insisting the iPhone is superior if you really want to.
Adobe's color correction/gamma correction and color profile software works on Windows just as well. The application's print function is basically the same on both platforms.
It would seem the ability to remember that specific files open with a specific app is somewhat nice, but the same can be accomplished in Windows with a shortcut, or simply right-clicking on the document and going "Open With..." Either way, I'm not sure how that makes Mac a superior platform for graphics. It just provides a little shortcut for opening files. I can name a laundry list of ways I can do such things on Linux to automate tasks, or configure my desktop experience to optimize my work-flow yet people insist that Apple seems to have cornered the market on perfect design. Don't get me started on Finder, nor iTunes. Both were so counter-intuitive it makes me cringe.
Given that the Adobe Creative Suite behaves the same way on both platforms, I'm not sure how the "graphic design workflow" is better. Normally I don't drag and drop between windows much, but I've never seen that it requires any extra steps beyond simply dragging-and-dropping. As evil as Microsoft is, they were actually the pioneers in OLE and binding common data models across applications. There were office-type applications out there, but they pushed the integration of a suite and the ability to use object models from one app into another.
I find that it is even faster to Ctrl-C (or Apple-C) and Ctrl-V (Apple-V) than to drag between windows. For many tasks, the keyboard is faster, and you're talking about optimal work-flow, that seems to be the way to go.
Not to mention you have to activate the phone via iTunes, so you can't use the phone if you use Linux or Windows x64. You are required to sign up for a data plan (minimum $60 USD/month) as opposed to normal calling plans.
This shows actual movie sales are fairly close on the two platforms, despite the disparity in the number of players out there, but BluRay is still consistently in the lead, and remember they had to come from behind since they launched later (and at a higher price point).
Again, with every major movie studio save for one backing BluRay, sales numbers, and the Blockbuster, Target and Best Buy decisions, it is apparent a winner has emerged. HD-DVD will continue on life support for a while, but again, why buy into a losing format?
The article was here on Slashdot, as well as many other places. Some stores were already test-beds for HD-DVD and some were test-beds for BluRay. Stores that already have HD-DVD titles aren't throwing them out, so they will continue to carry those for a time.
As far as retailers canceling HD-DVD orders, I'm not seeing it on a Slashdot search, but I read so many damned tech blogs I'm not sure where I saw it, but have seen a couple articles on the matter. I just saw one yesterday on Target officially declaring HD-DVD dead, but I thought even Slashdot had follow ups to the original Blockbuster just days later where retailers were then canceling HD-DVD shipments because of it.
As far as how many people have each drive, last I saw, BluRay was killing HD-DVD and it wasn't even close. Every PS3 owner has a BluRay, where as very few 360 owners have HD-DVD. Even though HD-DVD has been out longer, BluRay titles have considerably outsold HD-DVD titles as well. Some people said the last straw was a few months back when Pirates and Pirates 2 were released for BluRay the same weekend that there was a big release of all the Matrix DVDs on HD-DVD. The Pirates BluRay discs sold like mad, and no one bought the Matrix re-releases, which was one of the last trump cards the HD-DVD crowd had.
Even last year, when there were fewer than 400,000 PS3's sold, Blu-Ray titles were outselling HD-DVD titles. Given that Sony was selling close to 200,000 PS3's per month around launch and close to 100,000 per month these days, there are quite a few Blu-Ray players out there. Last month Microsoft only sold 40,000 HD-DVD players, and that was at the new cheap price with 5 free movies.
That doesn't answer the question. Schools used to carry Apple ][ computers way back in the day, so thusly OS X is better for research?
Most Mac users I know tend to use Adobe Creative Suite which is available on Windows (and thusly Linux via Wine) as well, and until CS3 came out, it ran faster on Windows than on OS X. So I don't really get how Macs are "better for graphics" anymore.
Can we please stop throwing these statements around like they mean something today? If you're going to go over the virtues of an OS, then lets talk about actual virtues of the OS. I'm sure Apple has some, I just don't know because I've barely used OS X and wasn't blown away. If this guy is a genius CIO I don't know why because his conclusions don't seem very rational or relevant.
I work in IT and this in my opinion, thought it doesn't count for squat.
The advantage of having Windows from an IT stand-point is two-fold. With standard/common Windows apps, you presume the end-users require less training since Windows is so common than they would need with a different OS. Secondly, when you purchase workstations, you already paid for the Windows license. You can purchase servers without an OS to save money, but it seems like we're talking workstation deployment here.
Out of the box, SuSe joins our domain and integrates into Active Directory nicely. Ubuntu can do this with just a little nudging as well. Both have major vendors from which you can get support. Both have some nifty package managers, easy installs and fully-featured desktop experiences (though I am extremely partial to KDE so I've used Kubuntu at home more than I've used Ubuntu at work). For workstation deployment, they are both very capable. In scenarios when your software is proprietary and you need full training regardless, I'd advocate Linux for low-cost of ownership and ease of administration. I also prefer the smaller, gradual upgrade cycle of Windows. Home users often don't really understand how difficult a Windows version migration can be in an enterprise environment with mission critical apps with poor support from vendors that only work on a certain version of Windows. Assuming you're not trapped in Windows due to vendor requirements, or that you can get by with Wine, I'd advocate SuSe or (K)Ubuntu when I could.
I currently work in the IT department of a fairly large newspaper company. We own a bunch of papers, and in 2001 we won an award for being the most technologically advanced newspaper company in the country. We're pretty big on automation, emerging technologies, etc. We aren't afraid to mix platforms, and experiment with what's out there. Many of our actual newsroom run on Apple products for years and years, but we've been getting them off Apple as much as possible primarily because they are a pain to support. I haven't used them or supported them a great deal, and I can't speak with much experience on the matter, but my coworkers who have been here years seem to loathe supporting OS X as a platform though they have no qualms supporting 95, NT, 2000, 2003, XP, Solaris and Linux side by side here every day. My last shop I was responsible for administering a bunch of AIX, AS/400, Red Hat and Windows servers and integrating live data between them. I'm not sure of the complications handling Apples in a cross-platform environment but apparently those issues exist. It is possible that it was simply an issue with training. For those familiar with *nix environments, one can get around Linux, Unix and Solaris without too much trouble, and most people know Windows. Maybe no one in the IT department knew anything about OS X and that was the issue. However, I can't think of an advantage for deploying Macs as workstations in an enterprise environment. They aren't cheap, there is a learning curve, and I don't think they are aimed at the workstation crowd.
I can honestly say I wouldn't use an iPhone if it were free. First off, I'd rather have tactile buttons than a touch screen. I'd rather be able to use my phone with one hand. And if we're talking more of a PDA device that requires a stylus, then I'd much rather have one that runs on a common OS that I can install software on. Let's see, common features the iPhone lacks:
- Songs as Ringtones - Games - Any flash support - Instant Messaging - Picture messages (MMS) - Video recording - Voice recognition or voice dialing - Wireless Bluetooth Stereo Streaming (A2DP) - One-size-fits-all headset jack (May have to buy an adapter for certain headphones) - 3G (EV-DO/HSDPA) - GPS - keyboard or any real good way to text - Removable battery - Expandable Storage - Direct iTunes Music Store Access (Over Wi-Fi or EDGE)
Most of these features are available on free phones. I have a Samsung I've had for a while that can play full TV episodes, songs, etc. I've got a 2 gig storage card, and the phone is great. It was free, and in most regards trumps the basic phone features of the iPhone.
Honestly, when Nokia puts out a similiar touch-screen PDA equivalent phone, except it is light-years better at HALF the price, you really can't make a single logical argument for the iPhone being worth $600. So don't begin to pretend that detractors are just jealous and want one. If I wanted a PDA phone I'd buy the Nokia. I had a Treo, but frankly it was cumbersome as a phone, and as much as I really love gadgets, I need my phone to work as a phone.
And the XBox 360 add-on player is getting even cheaper. However the cheapest player is actually a big waste of money. Let's say you invest $240 on your player and start buying movies. You're into the format for $500 by the end of the year, and the format dies. Well, that was $500 you put straight into the trash.
Blockbuster has officially stated they won't carry HD-DVD and they consider the format dead. Major retailers across the country like Wal-Mart and Best Buy have been canceling HD-DVD orders and just sitting on what they have. Target has officially declared HD-DVD dead as well, and said they will no carry it all.
Who really wants to jump in on a dying format? I'm still likely holding off until Christmas when I hope there will be a slightly cheaper PS3 model, but I'm more than likely going BluRay, not only because it is the superior format for storage, but because the movie studios are behind it.
Different parts of the world have different population density. For me the car wouldn't be practical if I can't take it anyway.
And while your work commute may be short, isn't part of the advantage of being in Europe that you can road-trip to other countries? That would be difficult if you can only drive 90 km each way.
If they have open electrical outlets out on the street, no doubt people will use them for all kinds of things, and just bleed the electricity. Assuming you lived in London (where you have to pay the fee to drive, as well as the insane petrol prices) an electric car must sound lovely.
They only have parking meters downtown. And the company I work for just did some massive construction downtown and it was a nightmare getting approval to do anything underground, so getting all the wiring done underground for an entire city is no small feat. And there is a different between plugging a quarter or two into the meter to park and paying to refuel my car. I imagine it will take a sizable amount of electricity and I can't simply pay for it with pocket change.
Assuming that there is an outlet where ever I have to park, which simply isn't the case. And how long does it take to recharge?
Do you think cities are going to put outputs in front of every parking spot in a city? Who is going to pay to install them? Who is paying for electricity used to recharge the cars?
Frankly, a plug-in car can really only be charged at your house. And until they can go 200 miles (100 mile each way) before a recharge, I don't believe they are feasible.
Slashdot Mirror
QT4 is supposed to bring speed increases all over the place, help with parallel processing, it brings SVG rendering, and lessens the memory footprint all at the same time. That is pretty much a reality today even with the beta.
Right now Konqueror still exists as the super-app for those who love it, but there is a better dedicated file viewer called Okular that renders all kinds of documents including PDFs, and does so amazingly fast. There is a dedicated new file manager that I believe both KDE and Gnome fanatics will love. Now if only they have a KHTML/QT fork of Firefox, I'd be happy as pie, but that isn't happening anytime soon.
You get a new series of icons, which some I really love, and others I don't care for. Honestly, I'm just going to replace them with another icon set anyway, but the default icons on the whole are much nicer. There was a new default widget/theme set called Oxygen as well that I thought looked incredible, but the code was poor and so was performance so it went out the window. The new Oxygen widget/theme looks a little to plain for my taste. And it doesn't look like an OS X clone, but it certainly seems to follow the same design philosophy. Given that many worship at the altar of OS X, I'm sure it will be popular, but right now I'm particular to the Domino widgets and a nice dark theme.
The new kwin today has composite technology, which is good and bad. It is good in that we get 3D eye-candy in the desktop without too much fuss since it is built right into KDE. It is bad in that with all the peace and love of Compiz and Beryl getting back together, we just split into two camps again, and the truly brilliant compiz-fusion project is no basically delegated to Gnome users for the most part. I was very disappointed that the KDE team decided to invent the wheel from scratch (and as far as I know they don't really have many effects or plugins right now, where as Compiz-Fusion has tons) rather than just extend support for what already exists.
KDE 4 already has some other great technologies like the semantic desktop project, and Sonnet is very promising, though unfinished. Solid, Phonon and Decibel might not be obvious to the end-user, but apparently are very important back-end technologies. I'm also a fan of Strigi, which is very much a reality today, but I'm not sure if it is being included by default in KDE 4 or not.
There are tons, and I mean tons of little new things, like "Get New Hot Stuff" which is a terrible name, but a neat concept. It is a simple seamless way to download new content into applications. It can already been seen in Amarok if you want to download plug-ins and such.
Plasma does exist, but it is just basically a new (easier) way to make widgets largely. The API and libraries are supposed to very useful, but the revolution in how we use our desktops doesn't exist, and I'm not sure anyone is working on it.
So on one hand, we do have plenty of new toys and great technology that is part of KDE 4. And at the same time it is fair to say that with the most visible project (Plasma) there were huge promises and little delivered. Take that as you will.
It should also be noted that Amarok and KOffice aren't tired directly into the KDE release schedule, but Amarok 2 and KOffice 2 are planned to be major versions and coincide with KDE 4, though they will likely release slightly later than KDE 4.
Frankly, I own licenses of Windows that came with the laptops. So I feel like I can legally take my Windows fonts and drop them in Linux, which is exactly what I did. I have the various open-source fonts (like the Liberation series) sitting right along side various commercial fonts I picked up, and the core Microsoft fonts.
It generally isn't very difficult regardless of distro to get the Microsoft fonts in Linux. The only question is the legality of it.
Cheaper than the alternatives and yet has all the features you need?i
Given that there are free phones with more alternatives, and smart phones starting as low as $50 in most places, I'm not sure the iPhone can ever be the cheapest of the alternatives. You must not be looking, but hey if you want to drop $600, go right ahead.
I can confirm they sell the OS X and Windows versions separately. You could "justify" pirating the second version if you own the other one.
The n800 does call over VOIP. Every phone in my company is solely VOIP and we have thousands of employees. It works great.
Many of the iPhone's listed capabilities are based on web-based communication, like the video chat and such. So Apple gets to use those claims, but no one else?
That seems partial. Way to be objective.
The latest trunk of KHTML passes ACID2. Webkit was forked off KHTML some time ago, and they are just now getting together to merge changes. Safari and Webkit do not pass ACID2, and the Safari in the iPhone (don't know about the normal Safari) is unable to render the CSS hover menus properly. Apple's solution was to tell people to redesign their websites for the iPhone.
No, a supposedly brilliant CIO insisted Apples are better for research. He didn't insist that a group of particular users just happen to be familiar with them. And I'm not sure about Harvard, but at UNO, UNK, UNL, Metro and Creighton (the various Nebraska campuses I've been on) you will find Mandriva and Windows, but I haven't seen a single Mac in any of their computer labs. Apples uesd to be very prevalent in schools, and Apple laptops are seriously growing in popularity again, but I don't think as many schools have Apple products today as they used to.
"On the other hand, its formfactor, screen/footprint/thickness ratios, responsive and reliable OS, intuitive and fast interface, durable capacitance touchscreen, feature-rich web browser, visual voice mail, battery life, included memory, and tight integration between the apps are all unparalleled among other smartphones."
The n800 series is like 7 oz and the iPhone is like 5 oz. The n800 is designed to be a bit bigger because if you're going to be a tablet and allow web-surfing and such, a slightly bigger screen is preferable. But if you think 2 oz are going to weight you down unbearably so, more power to you. Then again, part of the reason the n800 is slightly larger is because it has an 800x480 display. When viewing videos and surfing the web I'd much rather have an 800x480 display than the iPhone's 480x320 display. In reality, when you compare the screen to the overall dimensions, the iPhone is lacking and not unparalleled.
You insist the OS is reliable, and given the phone has barely been out long enough to be tested, that is just a ridiculous claim. This secure OS has already been hacked and there is speculation that the first iPhone malware apps could spread across the web within the next few weeks. Again, this claim has no merit.
Intuitive and fast interface? This is the standby claim that all Apple products have superior interfaces. In reality, I can much more easily (and quickly) navigate on a standard phone with one hand than have to fight with a touchscreen and use two hands. And ask anyone who has had a smartphone/pda before how durable touchscreens are in the long-term. Nevermind that Apple didn't invent the smart phone, and that touchscreens have been around forever. Revisionists and fanboys will continue to insist the Apple innovated here.
Durable touchscreen? A brand new product that hasn't been tested yet has unparalleled durability. These statements come across like blind fanaticism.
Feature-rich web browser? Where is the Flash support? Oh, it doesn't exist. Is it ACID complaint? Nope. Does it have problems with CSS? Yes. In fact, Apple suggested that people need to redesign valid css and xhtml so our websites work better with the iPhone. How about just including a good browser to begin with? The n800 ships with Opera, which has been tested on mobile devices for years and has proven to be extremely reliable. The Safari port to a phone is brand new and untested, but again you're sure it is the best thing on the planet, calling it unparalleled. Did you know the n800 also ships with Flash support? In reality, the iPhone again is lacking in standard features the competition has.
Battery life? The iPhone has 250 hours of standby, much like my cheap, discontinued old Samsung. the n800 has 312 hours of standby. Again, the facts aren't really supporting your claims. Even better, you can't remove or replace the iPhone battery. All batteries lose the ability to keep a full charge, and with any other phone on the planet, you can buy a better battery, but if your $600 phone can't keep a charge, well too bad. Buy a new one I guess. That is surely unparalleled superior design.
The one actual advantage the iPhone has is plenty of internal memory, and that somewhat explains why it is so much more expensive. However 1 gig MicroSD cards can be bought for $9 on buy.com as opposed to blowing $600 on your phone. The price does not justify the feature.
Again, in reality the iPhone lacks many of the basic features most FREE phones have, and when you compare it to every other smart phone on the market, the iPhone is found to be inferior, but it is more proprietary, offers you less freedom and costs considerably more. I can't remember which model number exactly, but I've seen a "baby brother" of the n800 that still blows the iPhone out of the water and it is only $250. Sure beats $600, but you can keep insisting the iPhone is superior if you really want to.
http://luiscosio.com/how-to-adobe-photoshop-cs2-on -ubuntu-10-steps
Google is your friend. Don't fear the Google.
The article is about solar panels. How is it off-topic to ask about solar panels?
Adobe's color correction/gamma correction and color profile software works on Windows just as well. The application's print function is basically the same on both platforms.
It would seem the ability to remember that specific files open with a specific app is somewhat nice, but the same can be accomplished in Windows with a shortcut, or simply right-clicking on the document and going "Open With..." Either way, I'm not sure how that makes Mac a superior platform for graphics. It just provides a little shortcut for opening files. I can name a laundry list of ways I can do such things on Linux to automate tasks, or configure my desktop experience to optimize my work-flow yet people insist that Apple seems to have cornered the market on perfect design. Don't get me started on Finder, nor iTunes. Both were so counter-intuitive it makes me cringe.
Given that the Adobe Creative Suite behaves the same way on both platforms, I'm not sure how the "graphic design workflow" is better. Normally I don't drag and drop between windows much, but I've never seen that it requires any extra steps beyond simply dragging-and-dropping. As evil as Microsoft is, they were actually the pioneers in OLE and binding common data models across applications. There were office-type applications out there, but they pushed the integration of a suite and the ability to use object models from one app into another.
I find that it is even faster to Ctrl-C (or Apple-C) and Ctrl-V (Apple-V) than to drag between windows. For many tasks, the keyboard is faster, and you're talking about optimal work-flow, that seems to be the way to go.
Yes, but will it run Linux?
Actually, while I'm glad they are making a more efficient solar panel, when will they make a cost-effecient solar panel for mass-adoption?
Not to mention you have to activate the phone via iTunes, so you can't use the phone if you use Linux or Windows x64. You are required to sign up for a data plan (minimum $60 USD/month) as opposed to normal calling plans.
It is a device for people who want a proprietary system with half the features for double the price.
/. crowd.
I never figured that for the
http://www.eproductwars.com/dvd/index.cfm
This shows actual movie sales are fairly close on the two platforms, despite the disparity in the number of players out there, but BluRay is still consistently in the lead, and remember they had to come from behind since they launched later (and at a higher price point).
Again, with every major movie studio save for one backing BluRay, sales numbers, and the Blockbuster, Target and Best Buy decisions, it is apparent a winner has emerged. HD-DVD will continue on life support for a while, but again, why buy into a losing format?
The article was here on Slashdot, as well as many other places. Some stores were already test-beds for HD-DVD and some were test-beds for BluRay. Stores that already have HD-DVD titles aren't throwing them out, so they will continue to carry those for a time.
/ 18/1340222&from=rss
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/06
As far as retailers canceling HD-DVD orders, I'm not seeing it on a Slashdot search, but I read so many damned tech blogs I'm not sure where I saw it, but have seen a couple articles on the matter. I just saw one yesterday on Target officially declaring HD-DVD dead, but I thought even Slashdot had follow ups to the original Blockbuster just days later where retailers were then canceling HD-DVD shipments because of it.
As far as how many people have each drive, last I saw, BluRay was killing HD-DVD and it wasn't even close. Every PS3 owner has a BluRay, where as very few 360 owners have HD-DVD. Even though HD-DVD has been out longer, BluRay titles have considerably outsold HD-DVD titles as well. Some people said the last straw was a few months back when Pirates and Pirates 2 were released for BluRay the same weekend that there was a big release of all the Matrix DVDs on HD-DVD. The Pirates BluRay discs sold like mad, and no one bought the Matrix re-releases, which was one of the last trump cards the HD-DVD crowd had.
Even last year, when there were fewer than 400,000 PS3's sold, Blu-Ray titles were outselling HD-DVD titles. Given that Sony was selling close to 200,000 PS3's per month around launch and close to 100,000 per month these days, there are quite a few Blu-Ray players out there. Last month Microsoft only sold 40,000 HD-DVD players, and that was at the new cheap price with 5 free movies.
"I also prefer the smaller, gradual upgrade cycle of Windows"
I meant over Windows. Windows has big, ugly, API-breaking upgrades.
That doesn't answer the question. Schools used to carry Apple ][ computers way back in the day, so thusly OS X is better for research?
Most Mac users I know tend to use Adobe Creative Suite which is available on Windows (and thusly Linux via Wine) as well, and until CS3 came out, it ran faster on Windows than on OS X. So I don't really get how Macs are "better for graphics" anymore.
Can we please stop throwing these statements around like they mean something today? If you're going to go over the virtues of an OS, then lets talk about actual virtues of the OS. I'm sure Apple has some, I just don't know because I've barely used OS X and wasn't blown away. If this guy is a genius CIO I don't know why because his conclusions don't seem very rational or relevant.
I work in IT and this in my opinion, thought it doesn't count for squat.
The advantage of having Windows from an IT stand-point is two-fold. With standard/common Windows apps, you presume the end-users require less training since Windows is so common than they would need with a different OS. Secondly, when you purchase workstations, you already paid for the Windows license. You can purchase servers without an OS to save money, but it seems like we're talking workstation deployment here.
Out of the box, SuSe joins our domain and integrates into Active Directory nicely. Ubuntu can do this with just a little nudging as well. Both have major vendors from which you can get support. Both have some nifty package managers, easy installs and fully-featured desktop experiences (though I am extremely partial to KDE so I've used Kubuntu at home more than I've used Ubuntu at work). For workstation deployment, they are both very capable. In scenarios when your software is proprietary and you need full training regardless, I'd advocate Linux for low-cost of ownership and ease of administration. I also prefer the smaller, gradual upgrade cycle of Windows. Home users often don't really understand how difficult a Windows version migration can be in an enterprise environment with mission critical apps with poor support from vendors that only work on a certain version of Windows. Assuming you're not trapped in Windows due to vendor requirements, or that you can get by with Wine, I'd advocate SuSe or (K)Ubuntu when I could.
I currently work in the IT department of a fairly large newspaper company. We own a bunch of papers, and in 2001 we won an award for being the most technologically advanced newspaper company in the country. We're pretty big on automation, emerging technologies, etc. We aren't afraid to mix platforms, and experiment with what's out there. Many of our actual newsroom run on Apple products for years and years, but we've been getting them off Apple as much as possible primarily because they are a pain to support. I haven't used them or supported them a great deal, and I can't speak with much experience on the matter, but my coworkers who have been here years seem to loathe supporting OS X as a platform though they have no qualms supporting 95, NT, 2000, 2003, XP, Solaris and Linux side by side here every day. My last shop I was responsible for administering a bunch of AIX, AS/400, Red Hat and Windows servers and integrating live data between them. I'm not sure of the complications handling Apples in a cross-platform environment but apparently those issues exist. It is possible that it was simply an issue with training. For those familiar with *nix environments, one can get around Linux, Unix and Solaris without too much trouble, and most people know Windows. Maybe no one in the IT department knew anything about OS X and that was the issue. However, I can't think of an advantage for deploying Macs as workstations in an enterprise environment. They aren't cheap, there is a learning curve, and I don't think they are aimed at the workstation crowd.
I can honestly say I wouldn't use an iPhone if it were free. First off, I'd rather have tactile buttons than a touch screen. I'd rather be able to use my phone with one hand. And if we're talking more of a PDA device that requires a stylus, then I'd much rather have one that runs on a common OS that I can install software on. Let's see, common features the iPhone lacks:
- Songs as Ringtones
- Games
- Any flash support
- Instant Messaging
- Picture messages (MMS)
- Video recording
- Voice recognition or voice dialing
- Wireless Bluetooth Stereo Streaming (A2DP)
- One-size-fits-all headset jack (May have to buy an adapter for certain headphones)
- 3G (EV-DO/HSDPA)
- GPS
- keyboard or any real good way to text
- Removable battery
- Expandable Storage
- Direct iTunes Music Store Access (Over Wi-Fi or EDGE)
Most of these features are available on free phones. I have a Samsung I've had for a while that can play full TV episodes, songs, etc. I've got a 2 gig storage card, and the phone is great. It was free, and in most regards trumps the basic phone features of the iPhone.
Honestly, when Nokia puts out a similiar touch-screen PDA equivalent phone, except it is light-years better at HALF the price, you really can't make a single logical argument for the iPhone being worth $600. So don't begin to pretend that detractors are just jealous and want one. If I wanted a PDA phone I'd buy the Nokia. I had a Treo, but frankly it was cumbersome as a phone, and as much as I really love gadgets, I need my phone to work as a phone.
And the XBox 360 add-on player is getting even cheaper. However the cheapest player is actually a big waste of money. Let's say you invest $240 on your player and start buying movies. You're into the format for $500 by the end of the year, and the format dies. Well, that was $500 you put straight into the trash.
Blockbuster has officially stated they won't carry HD-DVD and they consider the format dead. Major retailers across the country like Wal-Mart and Best Buy have been canceling HD-DVD orders and just sitting on what they have. Target has officially declared HD-DVD dead as well, and said they will no carry it all.
Who really wants to jump in on a dying format? I'm still likely holding off until Christmas when I hope there will be a slightly cheaper PS3 model, but I'm more than likely going BluRay, not only because it is the superior format for storage, but because the movie studios are behind it.
Different parts of the world have different population density. For me the car wouldn't be practical if I can't take it anyway.
And while your work commute may be short, isn't part of the advantage of being in Europe that you can road-trip to other countries? That would be difficult if you can only drive 90 km each way.
Family Guy, Futurama, Firefly and Drive all seemed to get the same treatment from the same network. Should we be surprised?
If they have open electrical outlets out on the street, no doubt people will use them for all kinds of things, and just bleed the electricity. Assuming you lived in London (where you have to pay the fee to drive, as well as the insane petrol prices) an electric car must sound lovely.
They only have parking meters downtown. And the company I work for just did some massive construction downtown and it was a nightmare getting approval to do anything underground, so getting all the wiring done underground for an entire city is no small feat. And there is a different between plugging a quarter or two into the meter to park and paying to refuel my car. I imagine it will take a sizable amount of electricity and I can't simply pay for it with pocket change.
Assuming that there is an outlet where ever I have to park, which simply isn't the case. And how long does it take to recharge?
Do you think cities are going to put outputs in front of every parking spot in a city? Who is going to pay to install them? Who is paying for electricity used to recharge the cars?
Frankly, a plug-in car can really only be charged at your house. And until they can go 200 miles (100 mile each way) before a recharge, I don't believe they are feasible.