I also remember installing Win32S API or something and getting amazed that it works better than Windows itself.
Well, that would be because it was supposed to be better than Windows - it was the new API for Windows NT (or, at least a subset of it - hence the 'S').
"Microsoft said HD Photo's lightweight algorithm causes less damage to photos during compression, with higher-quality images that are half the size of a JPEG."
Didn't they say that about wma vs mp3? It wasn't true then...
I just don't get it... are the people who are writing the web apps really that bad with their concept of standards? Are they relying on browser bugs to do a job?
Well, I only skimmed the article, but:
You can use image buttons for many purposes, although they do require you to develop images. If you want to bypass this, create an image button with alt text and an invalid URL for its image
...is that it detects SMART disk errors in normal use (i.e. you don't have to be watching the BIOS screens when your PC boots).
When I was trying the Vista RC, it told me that my drive was close to failing. I, of course, didn't believe it at first, but I ran the Seagate test floppy and it agreed. So I sent it back to Seagate for a free replacement.
About the only feature that impressed me in Vista, sadly. (And I'm not sure it should have impressed me, tbh. I'm assuming XP never did this as I've never seen/heard of such a feature.)
I got Norton Utilities for Windows once, as I needed to undelete some files.
After I was done, I noticed it had some Norton Desktop performance tuner stuff, which I installed out of curiosity (I wasn't expecting much, tbh).
It was a goddamn joke - it displayed a shedload of shiny dials and meters, and had all sorts of omnipresent UI crap for me to play with to 'improve' my settings and performance.
The only trouble was, the mere act of installing all this shit made my PC take twice as long to start up, and seemed to run like a dog afterwards. I uninstalled it immediately, and suddenly my PC was way faster again.
To this day, I can't work out if Symantec was just playing some sort of post-modern joke on me.
I don't know what possessed me to look at his code
Damn you! You made me look at his code! The goggles, they do nothing.
His cleverness gets the better of him when it comes to his modified radix sort. For example, he creates two arrays (on the stack) of 65535 elements; apparently unaware that this creates an array with indexes 0..65534.
I can't help feeling he should have declared Ptrs and Tails as Node* arrays, and bypassed all that random casting to longs. Not sure what's going on there. But then anyone who thinks the roundabout way he used of accessing the top 16 bits of a 32-bit memory value is 'cool' is definitely on my list of people most likely to re-invent the radix sort badly.
At first, I thought it wasn't a stable sort, but looking further into it, that's because he mixed up the 'head' and 'tail' descriptions in the explanation (or possibly in the code).
It is amusing that some/. posters think that doing this in-place is somehow an amazing leap of insight. Sometimes/. is like reading thedailywtf.com - you see something dumb as the main story, and then find half the people commenting on it have even less of a clue.
I turn my back for a couple of years and they're publishing articles where the authors find it necessary to explain what types like integers and floats are?
You resize a window (a normal, useful operation) and it is very slow and jerky. What's the excuse for that?
I imagine it's because the app gets involved with redraw and reformatting the window contents. All the other flashy stuff is compositing the desktop with 3D hardware, so it's just chucking a few triangles at the GPU. For desktop work, it's usually a ludicrously low number of triangles (compared to e.g. a game) so it always looks lovely and smooth.
I agree with the flashiness aspect of it - I was wondering how many times the guy would move a window from one virtual desktop to another in the video. Duh, I think I get it.
While I agree it is very bad, wrong, etc, is it really illegal?
In the UK, I believe this kind of thing falls foul of the Computer Misuse Act - deleting the user's home directory in this example seems pretty well covered by the Act as being an offence.
The system takes about 12 seconds to boot up and 3 to 5 seconds to shutdown - a huge improvement over XP. It remains to be seen if this effect will last though. As more software gets installed and the detritus starts to build I expect these times to increase (I'll be surprised if they don't).
I thought he'd been running it for 19 months? Did he not install any software in that time?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, that would be because it was supposed to be better than Windows - it was the new API for Windows NT (or, at least a subset of it - hence the 'S').
You think that's bad - try multiple monitor setups, where the app's window is on one screen, and the menu bar is on the other.
Say it with me: "The plural of anecdote is not data."
If you have trouble typing, programming of any kind probably isn't going to be your thing anyway.
Didn't they say that about wma vs mp3? It wasn't true then...
Because GDC is not for you. The clue is in the name.
Well, I only skimmed the article, but:
You can use image buttons for many purposes, although they do require you to develop images. If you want to bypass this, create an image button with alt text and an invalid URL for its imageSo yes, perhaps they are.
...is that it detects SMART disk errors in normal use (i.e. you don't have to be watching the BIOS screens when your PC boots).
When I was trying the Vista RC, it told me that my drive was close to failing. I, of course, didn't believe it at first, but I ran the Seagate test floppy and it agreed. So I sent it back to Seagate for a free replacement.
About the only feature that impressed me in Vista, sadly. (And I'm not sure it should have impressed me, tbh. I'm assuming XP never did this as I've never seen/heard of such a feature.)
Do you mean because he put an expiry date on his challenge?
Reminds me of a phrase we used at a company I once worked at, to describe 'free' equipment we were given, and co-erced into using.
"It didn't cost us anything. Well, not at first."
There may be another choice.
Hey, I'm not judging, ok?
Which car company do you work for?
I got Norton Utilities for Windows once, as I needed to undelete some files.
After I was done, I noticed it had some Norton Desktop performance tuner stuff, which I installed out of curiosity (I wasn't expecting much, tbh).
It was a goddamn joke - it displayed a shedload of shiny dials and meters, and had all sorts of omnipresent UI crap for me to play with to 'improve' my settings and performance.
The only trouble was, the mere act of installing all this shit made my PC take twice as long to start up, and seemed to run like a dog afterwards. I uninstalled it immediately, and suddenly my PC was way faster again.
To this day, I can't work out if Symantec was just playing some sort of post-modern joke on me.
So, do you, for example, let her watch Peter Pan? Or Dumbo?
Trying to fly seems like a very dangerous activity to copy, and she's much more likely to be able to do that than drive away a car.
I got it, but remember kids: puns are bad, but poems are verse.
Damn you! You made me look at his code! The goggles, they do nothing.
His cleverness gets the better of him when it comes to his modified radix sort. For example, he creates two arrays (on the stack) of 65535 elements; apparently unaware that this creates an array with indexes 0..65534.I can't help feeling he should have declared Ptrs and Tails as Node* arrays, and bypassed all that random casting to longs. Not sure what's going on there. But then anyone who thinks the roundabout way he used of accessing the top 16 bits of a 32-bit memory value is 'cool' is definitely on my list of people most likely to re-invent the radix sort badly.
At first, I thought it wasn't a stable sort, but looking further into it, that's because he mixed up the 'head' and 'tail' descriptions in the explanation (or possibly in the code).
It is amusing that some /. posters think that doing this in-place is somehow an amazing leap of insight. Sometimes /. is like reading thedailywtf.com - you see something dumb as the main story, and then find half the people commenting on it have even less of a clue.
I must be new here.
Well, I'm not sure, but I'm pretty sure it's not going to be the guy who made it again 30 years after everyone was already using it.
I turn my back for a couple of years and they're publishing articles where the authors find it necessary to explain what types like integers and floats are?
I imagine it's because the app gets involved with redraw and reformatting the window contents. All the other flashy stuff is compositing the desktop with 3D hardware, so it's just chucking a few triangles at the GPU. For desktop work, it's usually a ludicrously low number of triangles (compared to e.g. a game) so it always looks lovely and smooth.
I agree with the flashiness aspect of it - I was wondering how many times the guy would move a window from one virtual desktop to another in the video. Duh, I think I get it.
In the UK, I believe this kind of thing falls foul of the Computer Misuse Act - deleting the user's home directory in this example seems pretty well covered by the Act as being an offence.
FTA:
The system takes about 12 seconds to boot up and 3 to 5 seconds to shutdown - a huge improvement over XP. It remains to be seen if this effect will last though. As more software gets installed and the detritus starts to build I expect these times to increase (I'll be surprised if they don't).I thought he'd been running it for 19 months? Did he not install any software in that time?
...because he used the word 'rig' to describe his computer.
Move along.
Stop getting Yoda wrong!
You and other slashdot posters can keep saying that, but that doesn't make it true.