This is true. I've called bullshit on this exact argument *so many times* in the past, having owned phones from pretty much every manufacturer other than Samsung (I did, at least, recognize the pile of shit they smeared all over Android). I picked up a Nexus 6 a couple weeks ago and the experience is just... better. Smoother, cleaner, definitely easier than my wife's iPhone out of the box; though you can customize that ease of use away if you really want to (or, you know, customize it to work better for you, who gives a fuck if that makes it more difficult for someone else; after all, it's your phone). Which, of course, is why I've always liked Android over iOS on my phones; I want to use the phone the way I want to use it, not the way Apple or Google wants me to. Google lets me do that; Apple does not.
For some reason, I don't feel the same way about tablets. I actually really like the iPad and really regret having given my iPad Air to my wife. I have 2 different Android tablets I can pick up at any time (I've had 3 others over time) and I still find myself borrowing the iPad back more frequently than I use either Android tablet.
no one wants a big buzzing PC in their living room that takes a bit of time to boot up, typically requires navigation with a mouse and keyboard and so forth when they can just chuck a console under the TV,
still have the fan noise and spinning-disc buzzing, wait longer for it to boot, and still have to navigate menus, but with an inferior (for that particular task) input device.
We've got 4k TVs now. We had them when the current gen of consoles launched, and yet those consoles, which they want us to believe are high-end machines, only output 1080p; except that they don't even do that because in this, the age of 3840×2160, the best they can give us is 1600x900. I mean, hell, my nearly decade old Xbox 360 and 8 year old PS3 can belt out 1080p@30 for a large number of games. True, many titles on those systems suffer the same "not quite 1080p" issues, but really, did the new generation of consoles simply tack on different hardware with minimal increase in processing power? Were they trying to make as little progress as possible?
Take Advanced Warfare as an example. On the Xbox 360 it runs at (give or take) 1600x900@30 (1.44MP/frame, 43.2MP/sec), while the Xbox One switches between 1360x1080@60 (1.47MP/frame, 88.13MP/sec) and 1920x1080@60 (2.07MP/frame,124.24MP/sec). Are you telling me that, over the course of nearly a decade, and with the ability to offload some processing to the cloud, we haven't seen even a three-fold increase in processing power?
Yes, I understand the difference between CPU and GPU, and it appears that the Xbox One is being hamstrung by its CPU, not its GPU, in this case; Sledgehammer's engine renders at the anamorphic resolution when the data arrives late (because the CPU wasn't keeping up) and it doesn't have time to render the full frame. Of course, a faster GPU would help here, as well, but we all know a faster CPU is often cheaper, especially when we're talking about the difference between processing some data in.014s vs.015s (a 7% increase in performance), compared to pumping out a frame in.002s vs.003s (a 50% increase in performance). It's not like faster CPUs in the same class, with similar power consumption, didn't exist at launch time, and they're commodity desktop CPUs so there's literally no reason they couldn't have developed with the best chips available when development started and shipped with the best chips available when the first production run was set to begin; within the same class and power range, of course. That would have easily netted at least a 10% performance increase for, maybe, another $2 per unit. Which I'm sure most gamers would happily pay, ten-fold, for a machine that actually, and consistently, performs like the back of the box says it can.
The same may or may not have been possible with the GPU since, even within the same product line, typically more than just the clock speed is changed from one GPU model to the next, and we haven't seen a 50% bump in graphics performance in the power range these consoles are aiming for in much longer than it took to develop either of them. That's why I'm focusing on CPU, rather than GPU; and the cloud was supposed to make all of that better, for the Xbox One at least.
For what it's worth, the PS4 spits out Advanced Warfare and a solid 1920x1080@60, so maybe Sony followed my formula.
Actually... I decided to spend 30 seconds googling before posting this and... well, I'm gonna post my rant anyway, for all to see, because, as it turns out, Microsoft actually did follow my formula and increased the CPU clock by about 10% before production, while the PS4 has a (roughly 40% faster) GPU. I'm betting another 10% would've done the trick, though; and reducing the number of cores from 8 to 6 would have kept the power consumption and cost down. After all, studios want to be able to port to PC and they largely haven't figured out how to utilize more than a couple of cores at a time, anyway, so fewer and faster cores would seem to provide better performance, at least for this generation.
Now, please tell me how I'm wrong. Because I know I am, I just don't know how, yet.
Hover over the link and the URL pops up. Been that way for over a decade. Also, what makes you think it was me who fixed it? Clearly, I don't post anon, Anon.
Highlight, right click, click, that's two extra steps that everyone has to do, just to save one person one extra step. You're not, by chance, a shade efficiency consultant, are you?
Might want to look into finding some way to indicate that; the tone of voice you used in your head doesn't come through in text. Personally, I find that seems to do the trick.
False. I don't want to be tracked, but I'm willing to accept it as the current status-quo. People not willing to do that shouldn't go out in public. Those of us willing to accept it currently, however, don't necessarily want it; many of us are acting to change it.
And even if they did, it the SWAT team wouldn't respond, it would be a wellfare check, 2 street cops knocking on the door. That's all. And they'd have a good chuckle.
To clarify, the tools are somewhat of an image forensics suite, useful for organizing images of varied types, from varied sources, with varied levels and types of metadata and varied naming schemes, some of which may have incorrect extensions, additional embedded or appended data (e.g. zip files), and even stegonographically hidden data.
And no, not for porn (though it would be useful there, as well).
Yes, I was an IrfanView user in my Windows days, even had it running in Wine on OSX for some time. I've since written my own tools for managing large multi-faceted image libraries. I may, someday, share those tools with the world, but they're a bit quirky (built around how I needed to manage a specific set of images when I wrote them) and need some refinement before I do so.
Oh, I get the argument, you missed the point by about a mile. I was throwing out an argument in support for, at the very least, keeping file extensions in addition to other methods. If I remove the extension from a JPEG altogether, OSX will still manage to open it in an image viewer; clearly, OSX uses other methods to identify the file type. That's all fine and dandy, and I'm glad it works.
I'm also glad OSX looks at the extension first, for the reasons mentioned in the post above. Allow me to rephrase, since you missed it the first time:
I use the file extension to easily tell the OS which application to use when opening certain files of the same type. For example,.sjpg and.spng open in a photo editor, while.jpg and.png open in an image viewer. The same files, all that's changing is the extension. When I import images from my camera, or add stock photos (which will need to be edited later) to my collection, I run a script that renames them accordingly, so all of my archive images open in an editor. Then, once edited, I save the result with the "proper" extension and the image will, from then, open in my image viewer.
It's a simple way to not only identify which images I have and have not yet edited, but to also not need to put any thought into remembering to right click and "Open With" when I need to edit an image from my archives.
I do agree that OSes need to utilize better methods for helping users identify files. I've posted my ideas for that several times in this discussion already, so I won't repeat them here. What I'm proposing is keeping file extensions as a way for users to easily tell their OS which program, of several they may have available to handle a certain type of file, should be used for a given file.
I really hate typing novel-length posts (like this one) to express simple concepts, so please excuse me for relying on the ability of my peers to comprehend concisely-written text.
Already knew about those and can't stand mission control. Among the first things I figured out in OSX, actually.:)
Cmd-Delete deletes the file
That's what confused me, because I thought when you said "deletes the file" you meant, well... deletes... the file. CMD-Delete moving to trash, also one of the first things I learned in OSX, is the behavior I was already familiar with.
Derp. Yeah, I tried it with an empty trash. CMD-Delete still sends files to trash, though; doesn't direct-delete as you said. That has to be a 3rd-party utility on your systems.
That's all good and well, if you also couple it with color-coding of filenames, for cases where the icon is not displayed, or is too small to be useful (think list views), and you leave my file extensions the hell alone, because I use them to tell my OS to open some JPEGs in my editor by default and other in me viewer (I name stock photos.sjpg and leave everything else as.jpg, then have.sjpg always open in my editor, so I don't even have to think about it, just open the file, edit, and it's ready for the project I need it for).
That almost works. Now, set Explorer to list view. Icon still big enough for that to be useful? Nope, need color-coding of the file name, as well. You're on the right path, though.
Slashdot Mirror
Oops, I did not mean for the entire bottom half of my post to be italicized, just the I.
This is true. I've called bullshit on this exact argument *so many times* in the past, having owned phones from pretty much every manufacturer other than Samsung (I did, at least, recognize the pile of shit they smeared all over Android). I picked up a Nexus 6 a couple weeks ago and the experience is just... better. Smoother, cleaner, definitely easier than my wife's iPhone out of the box; though you can customize that ease of use away if you really want to (or, you know, customize it to work better for you, who gives a fuck if that makes it more difficult for someone else; after all, it's your phone). Which, of course, is why I've always liked Android over iOS on my phones; I want to use the phone the way I want to use it, not the way Apple or Google wants me to. Google lets me do that; Apple does not.
For some reason, I don't feel the same way about tablets. I actually really like the iPad and really regret having given my iPad Air to my wife. I have 2 different Android tablets I can pick up at any time (I've had 3 others over time) and I still find myself borrowing the iPad back more frequently than I use either Android tablet.
no one wants a big buzzing PC in their living room that takes a bit of time to boot up, typically requires navigation with a mouse and keyboard and so forth when they can just chuck a console under the TV,
still have the fan noise and spinning-disc buzzing, wait longer for it to boot, and still have to navigate menus, but with an inferior (for that particular task) input device.
A console gamer just fixed that for you.
Verwendung Grammatik
Wait... people on 4chan grow up?
We've got 4k TVs now. We had them when the current gen of consoles launched, and yet those consoles, which they want us to believe are high-end machines, only output 1080p; except that they don't even do that because in this, the age of 3840×2160, the best they can give us is 1600x900. I mean, hell, my nearly decade old Xbox 360 and 8 year old PS3 can belt out 1080p@30 for a large number of games. True, many titles on those systems suffer the same "not quite 1080p" issues, but really, did the new generation of consoles simply tack on different hardware with minimal increase in processing power? Were they trying to make as little progress as possible?
.014s vs .015s (a 7% increase in performance), compared to pumping out a frame in .002s vs .003s (a 50% increase in performance). It's not like faster CPUs in the same class, with similar power consumption, didn't exist at launch time, and they're commodity desktop CPUs so there's literally no reason they couldn't have developed with the best chips available when development started and shipped with the best chips available when the first production run was set to begin; within the same class and power range, of course. That would have easily netted at least a 10% performance increase for, maybe, another $2 per unit. Which I'm sure most gamers would happily pay, ten-fold, for a machine that actually, and consistently, performs like the back of the box says it can.
Take Advanced Warfare as an example. On the Xbox 360 it runs at (give or take) 1600x900@30 (1.44MP/frame, 43.2MP/sec), while the Xbox One switches between 1360x1080@60 (1.47MP/frame, 88.13MP/sec) and 1920x1080@60 (2.07MP/frame,124.24MP/sec). Are you telling me that, over the course of nearly a decade, and with the ability to offload some processing to the cloud, we haven't seen even a three-fold increase in processing power?
Yes, I understand the difference between CPU and GPU, and it appears that the Xbox One is being hamstrung by its CPU, not its GPU, in this case; Sledgehammer's engine renders at the anamorphic resolution when the data arrives late (because the CPU wasn't keeping up) and it doesn't have time to render the full frame. Of course, a faster GPU would help here, as well, but we all know a faster CPU is often cheaper, especially when we're talking about the difference between processing some data in
The same may or may not have been possible with the GPU since, even within the same product line, typically more than just the clock speed is changed from one GPU model to the next, and we haven't seen a 50% bump in graphics performance in the power range these consoles are aiming for in much longer than it took to develop either of them. That's why I'm focusing on CPU, rather than GPU; and the cloud was supposed to make all of that better, for the Xbox One at least.
For what it's worth, the PS4 spits out Advanced Warfare and a solid 1920x1080@60, so maybe Sony followed my formula.
Actually... I decided to spend 30 seconds googling before posting this and... well, I'm gonna post my rant anyway, for all to see, because, as it turns out, Microsoft actually did follow my formula and increased the CPU clock by about 10% before production, while the PS4 has a (roughly 40% faster) GPU. I'm betting another 10% would've done the trick, though; and reducing the number of cores from 8 to 6 would have kept the power consumption and cost down. After all, studios want to be able to port to PC and they largely haven't figured out how to utilize more than a couple of cores at a time, anyway, so fewer and faster cores would seem to provide better performance, at least for this generation.
Now, please tell me how I'm wrong. Because I know I am, I just don't know how, yet.
Hover over the link and the URL pops up. Been that way for over a decade. Also, what makes you think it was me who fixed it? Clearly, I don't post anon, Anon.
Microsoft cookies... would those be like Chips-Ahoy Soft Batch Minis, but smaller? Take my paycheck. All of it. Now.
Really kinda wanna know this, too, as I'm still considering a Chromebook Pixel, but it this breaks Crouton, I'll pass.
I worked in fast food for 3 years (not a point of pride, just a fact) and I can tell you they don't clean those things...
TYPOS! DAMN! shade == shady.
Highlight, right click, click, that's two extra steps that everyone has to do, just to save one person one extra step. You're not, by chance, a shade efficiency consultant, are you?
Might want to look into finding some way to indicate that; the tone of voice you used in your head doesn't come through in text. Personally, I find that seems to do the trick.
False. I don't want to be tracked, but I'm willing to accept it as the current status-quo. People not willing to do that shouldn't go out in public. Those of us willing to accept it currently, however, don't necessarily want it; many of us are acting to change it.
And we all know exactly how thoroughly this was all screened for security and intruder resistance.
Somehow, I first read that as "intruder assistance".
And even if they did, it the SWAT team wouldn't respond, it would be a wellfare check, 2 street cops knocking on the door. That's all. And they'd have a good chuckle.
Source: Best friend's stepfather, a retired cop.
Yup, taking a shift right now. Wait, do I have those two backwards? Well, shift!
To clarify, the tools are somewhat of an image forensics suite, useful for organizing images of varied types, from varied sources, with varied levels and types of metadata and varied naming schemes, some of which may have incorrect extensions, additional embedded or appended data (e.g. zip files), and even stegonographically hidden data.
And no, not for porn (though it would be useful there, as well).
Yes, I was an IrfanView user in my Windows days, even had it running in Wine on OSX for some time. I've since written my own tools for managing large multi-faceted image libraries. I may, someday, share those tools with the world, but they're a bit quirky (built around how I needed to manage a specific set of images when I wrote them) and need some refinement before I do so.
Oh, I get the argument, you missed the point by about a mile. I was throwing out an argument in support for, at the very least, keeping file extensions in addition to other methods. If I remove the extension from a JPEG altogether, OSX will still manage to open it in an image viewer; clearly, OSX uses other methods to identify the file type. That's all fine and dandy, and I'm glad it works.
.sjpg and .spng open in a photo editor, while .jpg and .png open in an image viewer. The same files, all that's changing is the extension. When I import images from my camera, or add stock photos (which will need to be edited later) to my collection, I run a script that renames them accordingly, so all of my archive images open in an editor. Then, once edited, I save the result with the "proper" extension and the image will, from then, open in my image viewer.
I'm also glad OSX looks at the extension first, for the reasons mentioned in the post above. Allow me to rephrase, since you missed it the first time:
I use the file extension to easily tell the OS which application to use when opening certain files of the same type. For example,
It's a simple way to not only identify which images I have and have not yet edited, but to also not need to put any thought into remembering to right click and "Open With" when I need to edit an image from my archives.
I do agree that OSes need to utilize better methods for helping users identify files. I've posted my ideas for that several times in this discussion already, so I won't repeat them here. What I'm proposing is keeping file extensions as a way for users to easily tell their OS which program, of several they may have available to handle a certain type of file, should be used for a given file.
I really hate typing novel-length posts (like this one) to express simple concepts, so please excuse me for relying on the ability of my peers to comprehend concisely-written text.
Cmd-Delete deletes the file
That's what confused me, because I thought when you said "deletes the file" you meant, well... deletes... the file. CMD-Delete moving to trash, also one of the first things I learned in OSX, is the behavior I was already familiar with.
Adobe Acrobat icon = PDF, or malware executable masquerading as a PDF by co-opting the Acrobat icon.
Fixed that for you.
Derp. Yeah, I tried it with an empty trash. CMD-Delete still sends files to trash, though; doesn't direct-delete as you said. That has to be a 3rd-party utility on your systems.
That's all good and well, if you also couple it with color-coding of filenames, for cases where the icon is not displayed, or is too small to be useful (think list views), and you leave my file extensions the hell alone, because I use them to tell my OS to open some JPEGs in my editor by default and other in me viewer (I name stock photos .sjpg and leave everything else as .jpg, then have .sjpg always open in my editor, so I don't even have to think about it, just open the file, edit, and it's ready for the project I need it for).
That almost works. Now, set Explorer to list view. Icon still big enough for that to be useful? Nope, need color-coding of the file name, as well. You're on the right path, though.