"you can't put songs on your iPod without iTunes because the iPod's CPU isn't powerful enough* to read the song files if they're not in Apple's special hashed directories"
I thought that was more to do with saving RAM - from my limited understanding, the iTunes DB is held in RAM when the iPod is running, including the filename of each track (along with artist/track name). So to avoid storing 40-60 character filenames, they've limited it to 12 (if memory serves = FXX/XXXX.mp3 etc). You're talking maybe a 100K or so of memory for the 1G iPods (10Gb model), but I expect in the first gen iPods, any memory saved was a good thing. Mind you, saving 100K on the new iPods is probably not to be sniffed at either. Except for the larger iPods that would be 800K of RAM saved instead.
That is, if there is a real technical excuse for it. I'm also receptive to the idea that it was just to make it harder to copy music from the iPod onto a computer.
Isn't the wireless switch quite useful for air travel? I haven't done it for a while, but I know they used to get a bit excited about devices broadcasting RF, so if you had a hardware switch on your laptop that killed wifi, then they were ok with that. I imagine many people use mp3 players on planes, so the RF switch would be a good feature to have.
Assumptions and ad hominem attacks! You must be very proud.
Re:The MSX was undoubtedly a computer
on
Consoles M.I.A.
·
· Score: 1
I'm pretty sure there were other computers that accepted cartridges, but my knowledge of obsolete non-x86 computers is a bit rusty so I can't name any.
Commodore 64, for one (according to my memory, backed up by wikipedia and eBay searches).
I would be suprised (but not shocked, I guess) to learn that Apple has removed BlueTooth as a standard feature.
Do what I did - go to the apple.com Store page, and choose the cheapest iMac. The 17" 1.83GHz model only has Airport Extreme RF, not Bluetooth (see here).
If it is even here in Notts, I'm going to spread the word and see what can be done, sadly it's hard to do retroactively without direct action and that looks a dangerous path with badged thugs running the show.
It may not be hopeless - in the town where I live (in the UK) a couple of years ago it became a 'thumbprint' zone (although they had a nice marketing name for it). Basically, little posters cropped up that informed you that if you made a purchase at participating shops, you might be asked for your thumbprint, to cut down on card fraud, etc.
My reaction was that if any shop actually insisted on having my thumbprint, I'd take my custom elsewhere. Having seen the thumbprint readers in a few shops, I was also about 60% convinced that they were fake anyway.
I guess a lot of people had the same reaction as me, because now I think about it, I haven't seen a reader for ages and I think the little posters have gone too.
The Mac world mindset is different, for one very basic reason. An out-of-the-box Macintosh has all the hardware (most) people need: built-in Bluetooth, wifi, USB, FireWire, DVD burning, etc. There's little need to have an upgradable machine because each Mac has just about everything already.
So, basically, you just proved the OP's point. If a new bit of hardware comes along, you won't upgrade - you'll just buy a new Mac that has it built-in.
Imagine you'd bought a Mac before bluetooth, wifi, USB2, firewire, DVD burner were fitted on all models - you'd need to upgrade then, wouldn't you? How about if I want the new wireless USB stuff to work with my Mac? Oops, Apple don't sell a Mac that has this yet (btw, the entry level Mac mini doesn't have a DVD burner, and the entry level iMac doesn't have a DVD burner or bluetooth).
Or have you assumed that we're done with tech innovation and new hardware?
True, a megabyte read can be fast in flash, but lots of random 512 byte reads or writes are far slower than a modern hard drive STILL in 2006. (15,000 rpm scsi from 7 diff manufacturers for example).
Really? What are the seek times on these 15,000 rpm scsi drives that out-perform solid-state devices, and where can I buy them?
Zonk: "After all this time, it's nice just to know there is an online strategy. "
Pathetic. Just pathetic.
Actually, it's a pretty reasonable comment - and a sentiment that many PS3 developers share, which you'll have seen evidence of, if you've been following the PS3 news in the past couple of months.
Sony have shown time and time again that the one thing they are hopeless at is software, and an online service is all about the software, not forgetting of course the hardware/server farms, which I think Microsoft just might have more experience with.
Knowing Sony's MO, the fact that this service is free basically telegraphs to me that Sony don't think this service will be as good as Xbox Live. In other words, they can't compete on quality or value with the online system, so they've decided to compete on price.
That's because IDEs tend to have a bunch of inseparable panes/tabs/child windows all stuck together.
No, I maximise Visual Studio for the reason I stated:
I'm about to do some programming for a few hours. I don't want to see anything else while I do that
Your reasons for doing it may be different to mine, but that doesn't change what mine are.
I maximize my IDE, because that's the only way it works. But I'd love an IDE with each component in a separate window/floating pallette so I could take advantage of the, well, windowing feature of my OS.
Well, as I mentioned, I use Visual Studio, so this is exactly what I do. Pretty much any component/pane in Visual Studio can be dragged off into its own window - for example, I drag the build/debug output windows, the source control window and the find in files results window off onto my second monitor and have them organised as a full screen window with tabs. For debugging, I have the debugging panes dragged off onto the second monitor. But when I'm coding I want a simple full-screen app on my primary monitor - end of story. I know it might seem hard to comprehend, but I like the fact that I can maximise the window in this scenario.
Mmm. ragging a selection down to the app-switcher to activate an app, then back up to put it in the app's window, is twice as much work as just dragging it over to the app. No improvement there.
Yes there is, which you might have noticed from more careful reading. I use the app maximised, because I don't need to keep dragging and dropping between apps, but when I do, I can just drag onto a taskbar button and wait for the app to appear. I'm not sure how it could be much more efficient than that, unless I kept the window un-maximised, so I can see every other app I might want to drag and drop onto. But in my scenario, that's so inefficient it's laughable.
On Windows, they're "hidden" inside My Computer, which in turn is hiding on the desktop behind all the other windows. Or inside the start menu. Unless you have My Computer open in the background, which still requires a trip to the taskbar. Slower than hitting F11 for Expose.
I just hit the 'My Computer' button on my keyboard. Works fine. But the main problem with the desktop is that it doesn't behave like another window.
Or, for that matter, placing the Computer in the Dock. Or command-tabbing to the Finder and hitting shift-command-C. Might as well command-tab over to the Termainal and type "cd/Volumes; open."
My throwaway comment about how some people like different things has obviously deeply offended you in some way, for which I am sorry. I offer no judgement as to whether the Mac or Windows way of doing this is intrinsically better, I just know that I (that's me, not anyone else) prefer the Windows model. (You may want to move your self-esteem further away from your choice of OS, though.)
In fact, I'd say, that the decision to maximize in a limited display is a sign that they're not so dumb after all.
Well that's nice. I'm sick of hearing about how maximised windows are stupid and useless, and how I just don't understand. People who still say that never seem to imagine this scenario: I'm about to do some programming for a few hours. I don't want to see anything else while I do that, so I'd rather I get to maximise, e.g. Visual Studio and block out everything else. But according to these people, I should not maximise my window, but leave other apps visible so I can drag and drop between them, or just not use the whole screen area because it in some way offends their sensibilities. (Newsflash to these geniuses: you can still drag and drop to other apps from a maximised app - try hovering over the Windows task bar while dragging sometime).
But then, some people can't bear the fact that the way they work might not be the super optimal best way of working for everyone else, and so decide not to accept it. Personally, I use Windows on a two monitor system (which I find does help my productivity compared to a single monitor, thanks), maximise apps often, and use Alt-Tab to context switch, often so fast that people watching can't follow what I'm doing. Is the best way for my Dad to work? Probably not. Sure, I'll point out alternative working models to people, but that doesn't mean it's easiest for them. The Mac desktop model usually drives me mad, with hard drives/CDs hiding behind all the other windows, etc., but lots of Mac users love it. So what? People are different. Film at 11.
On the other hand, having a 23" HD format monitor now makes me question Fitt's Law, which breaks down when the menu is waaay over there.
Me no understand.
Fitt's Law:
The time to acquire a target is a function of the distance to and size of the target.
Surely this explicitly takes into account the menu bar being waaay over there? Or have I misunderstood?
How is reading paper easier on the eyes than reading a TFT LCD? Answer? it isn't - it's all psycological.
Well, let's just start with the superior resolution of most printed matter, the fact that you're reading from a reflective surface rather than a transmissive one, and all the effort still being put into making on-screen fonts easier to read, and take it from there.
Windows beta testing superstar Paul Thurrott has been throwing everything he can at the 32-bit RC releases and has yet to find an application that doesn't work
Define 'work'.
And try:
Install Office 2000.
Run Word.
Hit Ctrl-F to bring up the Find dialog.
Watch the dialog appear painfully slowly as its zoom animation screws over Vista's DWM.
Close the dialog.
Watch in awe as most of the contents of the dialog are left behind on screen.
I can't recommend that Akamai downloader though. When I downloaded RC1, my router died about halfway through and needed a reset. The download manager could not cope with this. It said a serious error had occured and the download could not be continued. Despite the fact that I could restart the download via the manager or http fine. So I had downloaded 1Gb or so of Vista, and had to chuck it and start again.
I used straight http via Firefox the next time. Worked fine.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought that was more to do with saving RAM - from my limited understanding, the iTunes DB is held in RAM when the iPod is running, including the filename of each track (along with artist/track name). So to avoid storing 40-60 character filenames, they've limited it to 12 (if memory serves = FXX/XXXX.mp3 etc). You're talking maybe a 100K or so of memory for the 1G iPods (10Gb model), but I expect in the first gen iPods, any memory saved was a good thing. Mind you, saving 100K on the new iPods is probably not to be sniffed at either. Except for the larger iPods that would be 800K of RAM saved instead.
That is, if there is a real technical excuse for it. I'm also receptive to the idea that it was just to make it harder to copy music from the iPod onto a computer.
Isn't the wireless switch quite useful for air travel? I haven't done it for a while, but I know they used to get a bit excited about devices broadcasting RF, so if you had a hardware switch on your laptop that killed wifi, then they were ok with that. I imagine many people use mp3 players on planes, so the RF switch would be a good feature to have.
Unless wifi is now proved 'safe' on aircraft? :-)
Assumptions and ad hominem attacks! You must be very proud.
Commodore 64, for one (according to my memory, backed up by wikipedia and eBay searches).
It was quite popular at one point :-).
Probably the fact that we get to make up most of the rules in computing (catapults vs. cat's paws, etc).
Whereas medicine is essentially a constant process of reverse engineering and good old fashioned trial and error.
Hey, come to think of it, maybe computing and medicine aren't that different after all :-)
Do what I did - go to the apple.com Store page, and choose the cheapest iMac. The 17" 1.83GHz model only has Airport Extreme RF, not Bluetooth (see here).
Apart from when you picked up the gun to look at it? Or does this happen so often in the US that people forget picking up someone else's gun?
It may not be hopeless - in the town where I live (in the UK) a couple of years ago it became a 'thumbprint' zone (although they had a nice marketing name for it). Basically, little posters cropped up that informed you that if you made a purchase at participating shops, you might be asked for your thumbprint, to cut down on card fraud, etc.
My reaction was that if any shop actually insisted on having my thumbprint, I'd take my custom elsewhere. Having seen the thumbprint readers in a few shops, I was also about 60% convinced that they were fake anyway.
I guess a lot of people had the same reaction as me, because now I think about it, I haven't seen a reader for ages and I think the little posters have gone too.
So, basically, you just proved the OP's point. If a new bit of hardware comes along, you won't upgrade - you'll just buy a new Mac that has it built-in.
Imagine you'd bought a Mac before bluetooth, wifi, USB2, firewire, DVD burner were fitted on all models - you'd need to upgrade then, wouldn't you? How about if I want the new wireless USB stuff to work with my Mac? Oops, Apple don't sell a Mac that has this yet (btw, the entry level Mac mini doesn't have a DVD burner, and the entry level iMac doesn't have a DVD burner or bluetooth).
Or have you assumed that we're done with tech innovation and new hardware?
Really? What are the seek times on these 15,000 rpm scsi drives that out-perform solid-state devices, and where can I buy them?
It certainly does beg the question.
There's your mistake. The accepted definition of audiophile is "someone who listens to the equipment rather than the music."
That is all.
Others, too - this one was fairly widely reported, I thought.
Lapinator? For some reason, I had visions of an unstoppable cyborg rabbit - I'm glad it's just a laptop mat.
"Hare Connor?"
Actually, it's a pretty reasonable comment - and a sentiment that many PS3 developers share, which you'll have seen evidence of, if you've been following the PS3 news in the past couple of months.
Sony have shown time and time again that the one thing they are hopeless at is software, and an online service is all about the software, not forgetting of course the hardware/server farms, which I think Microsoft just might have more experience with.
Knowing Sony's MO, the fact that this service is free basically telegraphs to me that Sony don't think this service will be as good as Xbox Live. In other words, they can't compete on quality or value with the online system, so they've decided to compete on price.
Oh, I seeeee.
We can but take solace in the fact that it's all a load of horseshit anyway, so it doesn't really matter :-)
Still, to quote Bunnie from Animal Crossing: "Yaaaay! Numbers!"
No, I maximise Visual Studio for the reason I stated:
Your reasons for doing it may be different to mine, but that doesn't change what mine are.
Well, as I mentioned, I use Visual Studio, so this is exactly what I do. Pretty much any component/pane in Visual Studio can be dragged off into its own window - for example, I drag the build/debug output windows, the source control window and the find in files results window off onto my second monitor and have them organised as a full screen window with tabs. For debugging, I have the debugging panes dragged off onto the second monitor. But when I'm coding I want a simple full-screen app on my primary monitor - end of story. I know it might seem hard to comprehend, but I like the fact that I can maximise the window in this scenario.
Yes there is, which you might have noticed from more careful reading. I use the app maximised, because I don't need to keep dragging and dropping between apps, but when I do, I can just drag onto a taskbar button and wait for the app to appear. I'm not sure how it could be much more efficient than that, unless I kept the window un-maximised, so I can see every other app I might want to drag and drop onto. But in my scenario, that's so inefficient it's laughable.
I just hit the 'My Computer' button on my keyboard. Works fine. But the main problem with the desktop is that it doesn't behave like another window.
My throwaway comment about how some people like different things has obviously deeply offended you in some way, for which I am sorry. I offer no judgement as to whether the Mac or Windows way of doing this is intrinsically better, I just know that I (that's me, not anyone else) prefer the Windows model. (You may want to move your self-esteem further away from your choice of OS, though.)
How would his calculations take this into account?
There was no 13th October 1582, so it's irrelevant.
I thought MS bought Citrix's technology and built Remote Desktop on top of it?
Well that's nice. I'm sick of hearing about how maximised windows are stupid and useless, and how I just don't understand. People who still say that never seem to imagine this scenario: I'm about to do some programming for a few hours. I don't want to see anything else while I do that, so I'd rather I get to maximise, e.g. Visual Studio and block out everything else. But according to these people, I should not maximise my window, but leave other apps visible so I can drag and drop between them, or just not use the whole screen area because it in some way offends their sensibilities. (Newsflash to these geniuses: you can still drag and drop to other apps from a maximised app - try hovering over the Windows task bar while dragging sometime).
But then, some people can't bear the fact that the way they work might not be the super optimal best way of working for everyone else, and so decide not to accept it. Personally, I use Windows on a two monitor system (which I find does help my productivity compared to a single monitor, thanks), maximise apps often, and use Alt-Tab to context switch, often so fast that people watching can't follow what I'm doing. Is the best way for my Dad to work? Probably not. Sure, I'll point out alternative working models to people, but that doesn't mean it's easiest for them. The Mac desktop model usually drives me mad, with hard drives/CDs hiding behind all the other windows, etc., but lots of Mac users love it. So what? People are different. Film at 11.
Me no understand.
Fitt's Law:
Surely this explicitly takes into account the menu bar being waaay over there? Or have I misunderstood?
Well, let's just start with the superior resolution of most printed matter, the fact that you're reading from a reflective surface rather than a transmissive one, and all the effort still being put into making on-screen fonts easier to read, and take it from there.
Doesn't seem fair if the environment in question is, for example, where she works. Maybe it's just me, though.
So, er...what exactly are you downloading from Microsoft then?
Define 'work'.
And try:
And this is Office. Microsoft Office.
I can't recommend that Akamai downloader though. When I downloaded RC1, my router died about halfway through and needed a reset. The download manager could not cope with this. It said a serious error had occured and the download could not be continued. Despite the fact that I could restart the download via the manager or http fine. So I had downloaded 1Gb or so of Vista, and had to chuck it and start again.
I used straight http via Firefox the next time. Worked fine.