Oh yeah, I hadn't even considered Windows--sorry! (In my neighborhood, I think there's probably something like a 5 to 1 ratio in favor of Macs.) I suppose there's always iTunes. Given that iTunes is happy to present movies fullscreen for free, it's even stupider that QuickTime Player won't let you do it without a hack. *kicks Steve*
tell application "QuickTime Player" to present front movie
Funny how often this comes up on a forum whose members pride themselves on being able to customize shit to their liking. Maybe AppleScript just isn't geeky enough.
What the fuck? Your post is fairly intelligent and some of the speculation's quite interesting, but I only discovered this by fighting the urge to skip it after seeing "MAC" and a hyphenated "OS-X" plastered all over the place like little black turds flung against the bedroom wall.
I struggle to comprehend why, but nothing pisses us Macheads off more reliably than seeing the computer, or a trillion times worse, the company, referred to as "MAC." Guess which of these disgusting offenses you committed.
You realize these spelling habits do nothing for your audience but trigger its built-in shitfilter.
They're guidelines, not commandments, and I think Apple recognizes "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." The first couple versions of QuickTime after it went "aluminum" were horrid, to be sure. But 6.0's great.
Some projects yes, some projects no, owing to the remarkable diversity of open source software. I've seen a lot of open-source apps and hacks that approach development and user experience with thoughtfulness and polish, and others that are more focused on doing cool stuff with the technology for its own sake. It'd be wrong to characterize OSS on the whole as one or the other--but if pressed, then yeah, I'd have to say a majority of the best-known OSS projects are of the latter variety. Apache is one exception (maybe because it's targeted to web admins and technicians to begin with). Firefox sort of straddles the line.
Yeah, I agree, that's probably an accurate perspective on the difference between the two. The only reason I can see why it matters is that it gives me an excuse to respect Google a little more than Microsoft.:-)
I've had this thought before, but nothing crystallizes it like Google Earth for OS X. The application is ugly. The interface is cluttered and somewhat inscrutable. It looks like a direct port from the Windows version with no regard for Mac UI conventions, up-to-date widgets (the 10.0-style tabs and sliders, in particular), or even alignment (scrollbars that overlap with adjacent elements? WTF).
This, to me, only reflects Google's broader philosophy. They don't release products that give people what they need, or solve problems they didn't know they had. Google releases whatever products the technology allows them to build, without regard of how, where, or even why it fits into people's lives. Google has a "because we can" mentality rather than one of "because it would help." Hence the bare-walls interfaces and inexplicable feature spammage. In this, Google behaves remarkably like Microsoft.
Don't get me wrong, I love Google for what it is, but not what it ain't: particularly tasteful or particularly elegant.
Look, I'm no troll--check my posting history--but your comments, TripMaster Monkey, are just inane. This one isn't funny and it serves no purpose. Please stop.
Re:Go 'Software Update' and you'll get it
on
iTunes is Malware?
·
· Score: 1
"...and QuickTime (which I didn't want so didn't get, because I'd need (have to buy) a new "QuickTime Pro" key.)"
You would? I got the update and didn't need to re-register.
What Windows XP calls "resolution independence" isn't. It looks terrible across the board--some things are scaled, some aren't, leaving a diarrheal soup of mismatched widgets, text, and images on your screen. Mac OS X's nascent resolution independence, on the other hand, is for real. Look for the UI to be exposed in the next major OS X release.
If you believe Steve, they used IBM's specially tuned compiler, not gcc, for the PowerPC code in their benchmarks. Of course, it's still possible (likely?) Intel's compiler has had more work put into it than IBM's, but note that IBM's compiler is plenty faster than gcc.
Either way, he still doesn't "get it." Elegance, tastefulness, featureful simplicity--call it what you like, Bill Gates and the crass masses in his employ will never understand.
As I said in another comment, we really need to get rid of channel numbers (or at least hide them, like IPs on the internet). Who wants to memorize a bunch of arbitrary numbers? Nobody. What you want is to flip back and forth through your favorite channels, which you can do by adding them to a list from an onscreen menu, then just hitting next/previous channel on the remote. When you want to jump to a specific channel, you want to be able to pick it from the same onscreen menu. Memorizing numbers have fuck-all to do with channel surfing except for historical reasons that were good in their time, but which everyone seems to be clinging to now only out of habit.
Exactly. Channel numbers are obsolete, anyway, or at least they ought to be. Let me pick my channels from an onscreen menu. If I have favorites, let me memorize the shortcuts on my own terms, not as the arbitrary, unchangeable numbers that come from my cable provider. What a fucking pain in the ass.
Yup, you and I both. That said, I'd be happy to see a Mighty Mouse-style trackpad button--still one surface, just configurable to allow ctrl-click on the right.
I'm as sick of seeing the same old jokes around here as anyone else with a brain (assuming any of us on Slashdot have brains at all). But I'm referring to your points 2 and 3. It is possible, you know, to poke fun at something without implying your opposition; but then you go on and imply this guy is Dick Cheney in a jester cap based on his one stupid little throwaway comment. Pointless.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, I want to be on the list too. Whoever maintains that thing, foe me.
Whaa...? But I watched the whole keynote. Is there more?
Oh yeah, I hadn't even considered Windows--sorry! (In my neighborhood, I think there's probably something like a 5 to 1 ratio in favor of Macs.) I suppose there's always iTunes. Given that iTunes is happy to present movies fullscreen for free, it's even stupider that QuickTime Player won't let you do it without a hack. *kicks Steve*
" 'But you have colorful skins to choose from when it starts and runs!' That's if the skins don't crash the player first."
Translation: Microsoft tires of ripping off Apple, now chases open source software instead.
tell application "QuickTime Player" to present front movie
Funny how often this comes up on a forum whose members pride themselves on being able to customize shit to their liking. Maybe AppleScript just isn't geeky enough.
You wish.
What the fuck? Your post is fairly intelligent and some of the speculation's quite interesting, but I only discovered this by fighting the urge to skip it after seeing "MAC" and a hyphenated "OS-X" plastered all over the place like little black turds flung against the bedroom wall.
I struggle to comprehend why, but nothing pisses us Macheads off more reliably than seeing the computer, or a trillion times worse, the company, referred to as "MAC." Guess which of these disgusting offenses you committed.
You realize these spelling habits do nothing for your audience but trigger its built-in shitfilter.
They're guidelines, not commandments, and I think Apple recognizes "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." The first couple versions of QuickTime after it went "aluminum" were horrid, to be sure. But 6.0's great.
I'll use it too, but that's no reason to bite my tongue and point out that things couldn't be better. Have you no vision?
Some projects yes, some projects no, owing to the remarkable diversity of open source software. I've seen a lot of open-source apps and hacks that approach development and user experience with thoughtfulness and polish, and others that are more focused on doing cool stuff with the technology for its own sake. It'd be wrong to characterize OSS on the whole as one or the other--but if pressed, then yeah, I'd have to say a majority of the best-known OSS projects are of the latter variety. Apache is one exception (maybe because it's targeted to web admins and technicians to begin with). Firefox sort of straddles the line.
Yeah, I agree, that's probably an accurate perspective on the difference between the two. The only reason I can see why it matters is that it gives me an excuse to respect Google a little more than Microsoft. :-)
I've had this thought before, but nothing crystallizes it like Google Earth for OS X. The application is ugly. The interface is cluttered and somewhat inscrutable. It looks like a direct port from the Windows version with no regard for Mac UI conventions, up-to-date widgets (the 10.0-style tabs and sliders, in particular), or even alignment (scrollbars that overlap with adjacent elements? WTF).
This, to me, only reflects Google's broader philosophy. They don't release products that give people what they need, or solve problems they didn't know they had. Google releases whatever products the technology allows them to build, without regard of how, where, or even why it fits into people's lives. Google has a "because we can" mentality rather than one of "because it would help." Hence the bare-walls interfaces and inexplicable feature spammage. In this, Google behaves remarkably like Microsoft.
Don't get me wrong, I love Google for what it is, but not what it ain't: particularly tasteful or particularly elegant.
Parent comment (and blog) inspires confidence in this scheme. Yes.
Look, I'm no troll--check my posting history--but your comments, TripMaster Monkey, are just inane. This one isn't funny and it serves no purpose. Please stop.
"...and QuickTime (which I didn't want so didn't get, because I'd need (have to buy) a new "QuickTime Pro" key.)"
You would? I got the update and didn't need to re-register.
What Windows XP calls "resolution independence" isn't. It looks terrible across the board--some things are scaled, some aren't, leaving a diarrheal soup of mismatched widgets, text, and images on your screen. Mac OS X's nascent resolution independence, on the other hand, is for real. Look for the UI to be exposed in the next major OS X release.
If you believe Steve, they used IBM's specially tuned compiler, not gcc, for the PowerPC code in their benchmarks. Of course, it's still possible (likely?) Intel's compiler has had more work put into it than IBM's, but note that IBM's compiler is plenty faster than gcc.
The minute Digg gets a threaded comment system remotely as usable as this one, it's goodbye Slashdot.
And here I thought the problem was "older models."
Either way, he still doesn't "get it." Elegance, tastefulness, featureful simplicity--call it what you like, Bill Gates and the crass masses in his employ will never understand.
As I said in another comment, we really need to get rid of channel numbers (or at least hide them, like IPs on the internet). Who wants to memorize a bunch of arbitrary numbers? Nobody. What you want is to flip back and forth through your favorite channels, which you can do by adding them to a list from an onscreen menu, then just hitting next/previous channel on the remote. When you want to jump to a specific channel, you want to be able to pick it from the same onscreen menu. Memorizing numbers have fuck-all to do with channel surfing except for historical reasons that were good in their time, but which everyone seems to be clinging to now only out of habit.
Exactly. Channel numbers are obsolete, anyway, or at least they ought to be. Let me pick my channels from an onscreen menu. If I have favorites, let me memorize the shortcuts on my own terms, not as the arbitrary, unchangeable numbers that come from my cable provider. What a fucking pain in the ass.
Nah, it's cool. I'm a Sony fanboy too.
Yup, you and I both. That said, I'd be happy to see a Mighty Mouse-style trackpad button--still one surface, just configurable to allow ctrl-click on the right.
I'm as sick of seeing the same old jokes around here as anyone else with a brain (assuming any of us on Slashdot have brains at all). But I'm referring to your points 2 and 3. It is possible, you know, to poke fun at something without implying your opposition; but then you go on and imply this guy is Dick Cheney in a jester cap based on his one stupid little throwaway comment. Pointless.