I don't know what this looks like on other platforms, but on the Mac it's hideous.
It's not so bad on Windows - at least in terms of look and feel. It's definitely the least hideous Java app I've seen - in fact the only one I've ever carried on using after trying it. It has some non-standard appearance here and there (e.g. tabs).
But it still manages to, e.g. fail to redraw the main list view controls properly when you drag other windows over it. Like, really badly. Like great swathes of window area being left empty and unrendered. I'm not sure how you manage to screw up something as basic as that so badly.
Which doesn't fill me with confidence about SWT, tbh.
...that I will deal with this format war the same way I dealt with the last braindead format war: DVD+R/W and DVD-R/W.
In other words, until drives are available that read and write both Blu-Ray and HD DVD for less than $100, I'll pass, thanks.
Of course, I expect dual format drives are 'impossible', but then I seem to remember a lot of bleating about that from manufacturers about DVD+R/W vs DVD-R/W too, and yet dual-layer multi-format burners are like $40 now, so forgive me if I don't believe it this time either.
If it takes a couple of years that's fine - I certainly don't intend buying any movies in these formats until I know which one has 'won' anyway.
I doubt that Xbox has caught up since in the meantime. I severely doubt that GCN has, given that e.g. here in the UK, you virtually can't even buy a GCN in a shop any more.
I know iTunes isn't everyone's cup of tea, but the integration is really good. I've told it to sync a couple of playlists, so every time I plug in my iPod, iTunes fires up and syncs. No user action needed at all; it transfers any new songs to the iPod, removes any no longer in the playlist, updates play counts and times for songs you've played on either machine, copies to the iPod any edits you've done to track names or other data -- as I said, It Just Works.
I'm with the person who likes the iPod but not so much with the iTunes. My iPod is not large enough to hold all my mp3s, so I choose which ones I want by selecting them, and enabling the 'sync selected tunes' option (or whatever it's called).
Despite playing around with iTunes, I find it's really cumbersome when size of your mp3 library > size of your iPod. For example, if I want to select all tracks on an album, I have to manually select them in the list, and then 'tick' them. I can't just say 'sync this album'.
The main issue I have though is that when iTunes does its sync routine, it takes about 7 minutes. And that's a best case scenario - i.e. when there are no tunes that it actually has to copy. It takes 7 minutes to check the sync list (my PC is a 3.2GHz P4 with 2Gb RAM btw). And for much of this time iTunes appears unresponsive/appears to have crashed. So when I quickly want to add a couple of albums before going out, it takes ages. In fact I've stopped using iTunes.
Yeah, yeah, I know - all the usual excuses - I must have it set up wrong, there 'must be something wrong' with my setup/computer/religious dogma etc. The long and the short of it is that iTunes is slow and clunky enough that I don't want to use it. And it's not like I'm an inexperienced computer user.
Time I have, but I mean, I need some special skills. You know, like nunchuck skills, bowhunting skills, computer hacking skills...girls only want boyfriends who have great skills.
Never mind with 10.0 - try using Tiger with the dashboard - that ripple effect is the most overblown piece of UI eye candy I've ever seen (possibly excluding email programs in Hollywood blockbusters).
And even here, instead of accepting grammatical and spelling mistakes, people would rather flame you for correcting them. Not to mention the piss-poor quality of writing that most Slashdotters (and the editors) have. If you can follow the rules in a programming language, why is it so hard to do so for a natural language?
Well, their compilers and interpreters tell them when they make mistakes. How do you know they don't flame their compilers too, whenever it points out a syntax error?
Come to think of it, there was one guy I studied with who would shout insults at the computer, and jab his finger at the monitor when it wasn't going well. Hm.
Well, I'd have thought not, but apparently you did.
First, the OP claimed MS was 'first' to do this. Either they are or they aren't, but I'd say Apple shipping an OS that did this about 18 months before Vista is due to ship is evidence that MS weren't the first.
Second, as another poster has mentioned, this is not the first instance of OS X using the 3D hardware for the GUI. Again, I'd assumed most people would know this tech did not originate in Tiger, but earlier. Guess I was wrong.
I mean, just look at the previous page in the review that I linked to. It describes how Apple have previously used 3D hardware to render the GUI in Jaguar (back in 2002, at least).
I knew I should have linked to that page instead, but I refused to dumb down...
If they'd just stood up and said "screw you, the content isn't in the game unless you mod it, and even after you mod it it's less extreme than content that already exists in other M games"
Ha - you forget, pre-emptive multi-tasking and separate address spaces were not a big deal pre-OS X, when Mac OS didn't have these features. It was only when OS X was released and gained these features that Mac fans decided they were important. I wonder if you can work out why.
Similar instances of cognitive dissonance can be found in relation to other features and other OSs.
You seem to be using 'permissions-based file systems' to refer to the default permissions? And not to refer to the fact that the file system supports permissions of various levels. For instance, Windows ACLs permissions have finer granularity that Unix-style permissions (Tiger added support for ACL style permissions). Or am I misunderstanding?
So is opening a socket deemed to be a function call that requires administrative authorisation? I find it somewhat hard to believe that MSN Messenger, Fire, iChat etc all require you to authorise them with system permissions whenever they open a connection to a server or peer? (Mainly because I've used Messenger on OS X, and I don't remember it ever asking me for an admin password.)
So my point is, in case it's not clear, if you can get the user to run a program in this fashion, then the program can propogate across the internet without needing admin privileges?
This seems to be exactly the same type of attack as a lot of the Windows email worms - e.g. give the user a file that is of type A, but fool them into thinking it's of type B (and hence less dangerous).
If instead of failing to do something to Fire.app, the trojan had scurried through the Mac OS X address book, and then sent the file as an attachment in an email to all your contacts, and some of them had opened the attachment, etc. and so it had propogated like that, then would the Mac zealots admit there was a problem then?
My main question is - what actually causes the admin authentication dialog to open? Is it just the fact that you're trying to run a program that Mac OS X hasn't seen before? If not, then would trying to open a TCP/IP socket (e.g. to a mail server) cause the user to have to authenticate as admin? If not, then this seems like a lucky escape to me - this could have spread quite widely amongst Mac users.
Btw, Windows has a system for marking EXEs as untrusted (in some way - using a special stream, iirc) - IE and FF do this, I believe. So the first time you try to run the EXE, Windows asks if you're sure, and explains why. Does Mac OS X do this? Is this why the admin dialog appears?
Enquiring minds want to know.:-)
(BTW, anyone claiming Mac users wouldn't fall for social engineering in the first place needs to get a grip)
On Deadly Ground is different though - it's a whole new level of badness. If Under Siege or even Under Siege 2 are on TV, I'll usually watch them, or at least have the TV on while I do something productive.
But I saw On Deadly Ground for the first time the other week - it's so bad. The only redeeming feature is Michael Caine hamming it up in one of his obvious "just for the money" movies.
Also, this is one of the few films that I feel really does glorify violence. See the bar fight 'duel' scene near the beginning for a good example of this. It just makes you feel pretty uncomfortable about the whole thing. And I'm someone who will quite happily sit through violent films such as Alien, Predator, even Fight Club - well, maybe happily is not the word, but I'll be able to watch them without feeling the same way as I did about the violence in On Deadly Ground. It's just the whole feeling it gives you of "violence is the first and only way to solve problems" that really made me feel queasy. You probably have to watch the film to understand.
And the dialogue, script, plot etc are hideous. It makes me sad that a great actor like John C. McGinley is in it. (And he got one of the worst lines in cinema history!) As an example, just listen to the comments in the background from the oil workers when Seagal's character shows up to put out a fire. It's so cringeworthy - you just want to curl up and disappear.
On a related note, are there any Seagal films where he isn't an ex-CIA agent/Navy Seal/whatever?
It was rewarding to watch Seagal in Executive Decision, but that's for obvious reasons, as those who've seen it will recall.
If you release how you do the ranking function, suddenly every web scrambler in the world screws up the rank and Google search becomes useless. We don't want to do that.
So, if some competing company pays someone to get a job at Google, get the source for the PageRank algorithm, and leaks it onto the internet, then Google is basically toast?
I'm not sure that's something I'd admit to in public...
Slashdot Mirror
It's not so bad on Windows - at least in terms of look and feel. It's definitely the least hideous Java app I've seen - in fact the only one I've ever carried on using after trying it. It has some non-standard appearance here and there (e.g. tabs).
But it still manages to, e.g. fail to redraw the main list view controls properly when you drag other windows over it. Like, really badly. Like great swathes of window area being left empty and unrendered. I'm not sure how you manage to screw up something as basic as that so badly.
Which doesn't fill me with confidence about SWT, tbh.
In other words, until drives are available that read and write both Blu-Ray and HD DVD for less than $100, I'll pass, thanks.
Of course, I expect dual format drives are 'impossible', but then I seem to remember a lot of bleating about that from manufacturers about DVD+R/W vs DVD-R/W too, and yet dual-layer multi-format burners are like $40 now, so forgive me if I don't believe it this time either.
If it takes a couple of years that's fine - I certainly don't intend buying any movies in these formats until I know which one has 'won' anyway.
Here's the data as of Jan 2004:
PS2 = 70 million sold
Xbox = 10 million sold
GCN = 10 million sold
By November of 2005, PS2 had reached 100 million units shipped.
I doubt that Xbox has caught up since in the meantime. I severely doubt that GCN has, given that e.g. here in the UK, you virtually can't even buy a GCN in a shop any more.
HTH.
I'm with the person who likes the iPod but not so much with the iTunes. My iPod is not large enough to hold all my mp3s, so I choose which ones I want by selecting them, and enabling the 'sync selected tunes' option (or whatever it's called).
Despite playing around with iTunes, I find it's really cumbersome when size of your mp3 library > size of your iPod. For example, if I want to select all tracks on an album, I have to manually select them in the list, and then 'tick' them. I can't just say 'sync this album'.
The main issue I have though is that when iTunes does its sync routine, it takes about 7 minutes. And that's a best case scenario - i.e. when there are no tunes that it actually has to copy. It takes 7 minutes to check the sync list (my PC is a 3.2GHz P4 with 2Gb RAM btw). And for much of this time iTunes appears unresponsive/appears to have crashed. So when I quickly want to add a couple of albums before going out, it takes ages. In fact I've stopped using iTunes.
Yeah, yeah, I know - all the usual excuses - I must have it set up wrong, there 'must be something wrong' with my setup/computer/religious dogma etc. The long and the short of it is that iTunes is slow and clunky enough that I don't want to use it. And it's not like I'm an inexperienced computer user.
As for the iPod itself, it's great.
You mispelt '/cluelesslymissingthepoint'.
HTH.
This one.
Time I have, but I mean, I need some special skills. You know, like nunchuck skills, bowhunting skills, computer hacking skills...girls only want boyfriends who have great skills.
Never mind with 10.0 - try using Tiger with the dashboard - that ripple effect is the most overblown piece of UI eye candy I've ever seen (possibly excluding email programs in Hollywood blockbusters).
A backup? Ah, to be young and naive again...
Well, their compilers and interpreters tell them when they make mistakes. How do you know they don't flame their compilers too, whenever it points out a syntax error?
Come to think of it, there was one guy I studied with who would shout insults at the computer, and jab his finger at the monitor when it wasn't going well. Hm.
That's ok. If grammar, spelling and diction aren't important, I fail to see why layout should be. We all understood what you meant anyway.
Well, I'd have thought not, but apparently you did.
First, the OP claimed MS was 'first' to do this. Either they are or they aren't, but I'd say Apple shipping an OS that did this about 18 months before Vista is due to ship is evidence that MS weren't the first.
Second, as another poster has mentioned, this is not the first instance of OS X using the 3D hardware for the GUI. Again, I'd assumed most people would know this tech did not originate in Tiger, but earlier. Guess I was wrong.
I mean, just look at the previous page in the review that I linked to. It describes how Apple have previously used 3D hardware to render the GUI in Jaguar (back in 2002, at least).
I knew I should have linked to that page instead, but I refused to dumb down...
And no, I'm not a Mac fan.
...because everyone knows that random hacked EXEs downloaded off of the webatron are safe as houses!
Duh.
Do you mean Quake 4? Because I've got a Libretto 100CT and it plays Quake just fine.
And by no stretch of the imagination could that Libretto be called a 'pretty ripping laptop'. It barely runs Windows 2000.
How is that different to admitting fault?
Gosh, that's got to be embarrassing for you.
Similar instances of cognitive dissonance can be found in relation to other features and other OSs.
So my point is, in case it's not clear, if you can get the user to run a program in this fashion, then the program can propogate across the internet without needing admin privileges?
"The Unions - The People Who Brought You The Weekend!"
If instead of failing to do something to Fire.app, the trojan had scurried through the Mac OS X address book, and then sent the file as an attachment in an email to all your contacts, and some of them had opened the attachment, etc. and so it had propogated like that, then would the Mac zealots admit there was a problem then?
My main question is - what actually causes the admin authentication dialog to open? Is it just the fact that you're trying to run a program that Mac OS X hasn't seen before? If not, then would trying to open a TCP/IP socket (e.g. to a mail server) cause the user to have to authenticate as admin? If not, then this seems like a lucky escape to me - this could have spread quite widely amongst Mac users.
Btw, Windows has a system for marking EXEs as untrusted (in some way - using a special stream, iirc) - IE and FF do this, I believe. So the first time you try to run the EXE, Windows asks if you're sure, and explains why. Does Mac OS X do this? Is this why the admin dialog appears?
Enquiring minds want to know. :-)
(BTW, anyone claiming Mac users wouldn't fall for social engineering in the first place needs to get a grip)
But I saw On Deadly Ground for the first time the other week - it's so bad. The only redeeming feature is Michael Caine hamming it up in one of his obvious "just for the money" movies.
Also, this is one of the few films that I feel really does glorify violence. See the bar fight 'duel' scene near the beginning for a good example of this. It just makes you feel pretty uncomfortable about the whole thing. And I'm someone who will quite happily sit through violent films such as Alien, Predator, even Fight Club - well, maybe happily is not the word, but I'll be able to watch them without feeling the same way as I did about the violence in On Deadly Ground. It's just the whole feeling it gives you of "violence is the first and only way to solve problems" that really made me feel queasy. You probably have to watch the film to understand.
And the dialogue, script, plot etc are hideous. It makes me sad that a great actor like John C. McGinley is in it. (And he got one of the worst lines in cinema history!) As an example, just listen to the comments in the background from the oil workers when Seagal's character shows up to put out a fire. It's so cringeworthy - you just want to curl up and disappear.
On a related note, are there any Seagal films where he isn't an ex-CIA agent/Navy Seal/whatever?
It was rewarding to watch Seagal in Executive Decision, but that's for obvious reasons, as those who've seen it will recall.
Illiad? Is that you?
You assume they'd be able to find out who did it.
So, if some competing company pays someone to get a job at Google, get the source for the PageRank algorithm, and leaks it onto the internet, then Google is basically toast?
I'm not sure that's something I'd admit to in public...