Putting tiny icons in all four corners at the same time is not an example of Fitt's law.... "Flicking" a mouse only counts as a shortcut where you can't overshoot the target and won't have to reposition it afterwards. You're contradicting yourself: your latter statement above is exactly why Fitt's law does apply.
More precisely: a basic consequence of Fitt's law is that the five areas of the screen easiest for the user to aquire by mouse are the current cursor position and the four corners of the screen. Hence, having useful functions in the four corners is indeed an application of Fitt's law.
As you correctly say, this is why the target areas for the Apple and Spotlight logos (on a Mac) and the Start menu, window menu, and close button (on Windows) extend right into the corners.
I wonder why MS put it at the bottom - was it just to be different from the Mac? Obviously I don't know for sure, but my guess would be Fitt's law. The four corners of the screen are the easiest to reach with a mouse -- you just fling it in the general direction. With the task bar at the bottom of the screen, you get (for maximised windows) the window menu at the top left; the close button at the top right, and the start menu bottom left. If the task bar were at the top of the screen, the bottom two corners would be wasted, and you would lose quick access to window functions of a maximised window.
In Mac OS there is no concept of maximising a window, so the same reasoning does not apply.
Wether you believe it or not, when people started using Vista, the complaints started rolling in over UAC. These complaints don't occur in OS X, nor distros of Linux, such as Ubuntu, which use the same concept. So either there's a global conspiracy to badmouth Vista, and only Vista, or perhaps, just perhaps, there is something wrong with UAC in Vista. Actually, neither. The problem stems from the fact that, on Windows, people have historically almost always run as administrator. So a lot of programs not written specifically for Vista mindlessly assume they have admin privileges and use them, even when they don't actually need them (e.g. writing preferences in a system-wide rather than per-user fashion). Hence the UAC prompts. On OS X and Linux, there has always been a culture of privilege seperation, and programmers have always known not to do anything that requires root privileges unless absolutely necessary; hence fewer unnecessary prompts. This will improve with time as Windows programmers adapt to a culture of LUA.
Another problem is that a lot of the people badmouthing Vista only ever used the beta or one of the release candidates and not RTM; the number of prompts drastically reduced for RTM due to file & registry virtualization (no, Microsoft doesn't know what "release candidate" means). No 'global conspiracy', just outdated information.
Copy a file to a folder in Program Files. You get 3 dialog boxes asking you various questions, 3! I count 2, one to say "You don't have the necessary privileges to write to this directory, do you want to elevate to administrator?", and, if you say yes, a UAC prompt. The first one isn't strictly necessary, but seems to have been added to improve interface predictability (i.e. so users don't get shifted to secure desktop when they didn't expect it). But, of course, I'm sure you know far more about good UI design than Microsoft's UI design experts. Now, what's this mysterious third dialogue to which you refer?
How about if you ignore upgrade versions and go for full versions Umm, you can't buy Leopard as a full, standalone version. You've never been able to buy full versions new versions of Mac OS, only upgrades. The price you quote is the same price I quoted, which is the price for the upgrade.
My wife is thinking about getting a new laptop. I said to her "Make sure you don't get Vista, it's really screwed up" and you know what she said? "Oh, yeah I know. Apple runs these TV ads with a young guy who's supposed to be a Mac, and a guy who looks like Bill Gates who's supposed to be a PC. And whenever they try to talk to each other, this Secret Service agent interrupts them to make sure it's OK." You mean that Apple advertisments claim Vista is bad? Really? Say it isn't so! Ah well, that settles the issue then: everyone knows that marketing and advertisments never lie.
Obviously. The "Basic" version... is crippled to the point of ridiculous. It doesn't even come with the ability to play DVD's... No version of Windows XP came with the ability (i.e. a codec) to play DVDs. Nor does any version of Linux that remains simultaneously free and legal. That doesn't mean Windows XP & Linux are "crippled to the point of ridiculous", it's just a licensing issue.
BTW, I don't know what strange maths you use to reach the conclusion that "The "Basic" version... is still considerably more expensive than Mac OS X Leopard":
Vista Home Basic upgrade: List Price - $100; Amazon.com price - $59. Leopard upgrade: List price - $130; Amazon.com price: $110.
I make that as Leopard being just under double Vista Basic's price from Amazon.
I'm running Ultimate on a few computers and can't for the life of me think what features are worth paying the extra for. Presuming you're comparing with Home Premium rather than Business, the most obvious things which come to mind are dual processor support (*cough*Artifical-Market-Segmentation*/cough*), and Volume Shadow Copy (i.e. Windows' version of Leopard's Time Machine, sans fancy interface). VSC can actually be pretty damn useful even if you have a proper backup system, if only for its ability to be used as an ad-hoc file versioning system.
Then there's the enterprise & semi-server stuff like ability to join a domain and IIS, but if you're considering Ultimate against HP, that's probably not relevent to you.
Your source is filled with typical Microsoft bullpuck. Ummm... No duh. You were expecting a source named "XBox team official MSDN Blog" to be an independent analyst or something?
Note how the blogger says that Windows needs "explorer.exe" as if that were part of the OS and not an application nested within. An operating system is not just a kernel. Hence, for example, RMS's drive to persuade us to stop referring to the GNU/Linux OS Ecosystem as "Linux". Explorer.exe is part of the OS; specifically, the shell: an operating system is something which allows users to access the resources of a computer, and I'd like to see you try to operate a computer with no shell. The fact that it's in the form of an application, and is replacable, in no way stops it from being part of the OS, in the same way that the Bash shell (equally replacable, equally an application) is part of most modern Linux-kernel-based OS distributions.
Much like our current administration tries to redefine victory in Iraq as it suits them to support their choice to go to war, Microsoft tries to redefine what an OS is at every turn to support their monopoly. You're seriously suggesting that Microsoft's use of "operating system" to describe an operating system rather than a kernel is an evil anticompetitive practice morally equivalent to the US gov't's quagmire in Iraq? Uh-huh, sure. (Re: "our administration", for the record, I am not American).
plenty of right/verified science out there (quantum gravity being one of them) Presumably you mean quantum mechanics here, or general relativity; rather than quantum gravity?
I upgraded my video card just fine and I have Windows Vista. So I don't really know what everyone is talking about. If it happens in certain situations then its not a huge deal. If I have unprotected sex and don't happen to contract an STD, does that mean that unprotected sex "isn't a big deal"?
You are correct, all the major operating systems now have antialiasing. And personally, I do prefer reading antialiased (and, if possible, sub-pixel rendered) text. But there are a minority of people who don't, who actually prefer ultra-sharp-but-pixellated text; and presumably the person I replied to who asked what consolas looked like without antialiasing was one of them. Here's another one.
"To Listen Live, or Listen Again to shows you have missed, on the BBC Radio Player you will need to have... RealPlayer installed on your computer." (source: The BBC)
I don't think you understand. Playing media files in realplayer would not require elevation, since playing a song doesn't need root privileges. Playing media files in internet explorer would not require elevation either, since though IE is sandboxed, playing media files wouldn't require IE to write to anything other than the 'temproary internet files' directory. But if a webpage tries to install malware, that would require writing to a directory other than temporary internet files (so needs user privileges), so you *would* need to elevate; hence the GP's post.
Are you certain of this? On the clean vanilla copy of Vista Basic I recently purchased on a new Dell PC, the original fonts were not installed by default -- just the Vista fonts. That's very strange. I was pretty certain of it, yes: from a sample size of two -- an OEM copy of Home Premium bought from Amazon (used on a freshly formatted hard drive, not upgrading XP), and a new IBM (Lenovo) Thinkpad with Vista Business. I did install Microsoft Office 2007 on both, so it is possible that they weren't there before I did that, but that's rather unlikely, since IE7 (on both machines) was set to use Times New Roman as its default font (and Courier New as its default monospace font); and I very much doubt that the Office installer would change the default font setting from two of the new fonts to TNR/Courier.
The only thing I can think of is that maybe they're not bundled with Vista basic, only HP/Business or higher -- but I can't think why that would be so. What's IE7 set to use as its default font on your machine?
You're assuming that all web designers explicitly set fonts. If these are the default fonts for IE on Vista then clients who already have two strikes against them will also see more relaxed pages rendered in the wrong font. They're not. IE7 in Vista still uses Times New Roman as its default font, and Courier New as its default monospace font.
If you use these fonts as a web developer you are flipping the bird the everyone else that don't have these fonts. Not necessarily. It is perfectly possible to specify more than one font -- for example, Google specifies {font-family:arial,sans-serif}; i.e. "Use Arial, and if Arial isn't available, use the default sans-serif font". As long as you test your web page and make sure that it works with, say, both Calibri and Arial, there's no reason you shouldn't specify {font-family:calibri,arial,sans-serif}, so people with Calibri will see it and everyone else will see Arial (and Linux users will see Bitstream Vera sans, etc.).
Testing pages in IE7 with xp is enough, no need to waste more space with a huge vm disk for vista just for fonts that no one has. Or you could just, you know, download the fonts for free and install them on XP (e.g. as part of the Office compatibility pack). Might be a bit easier than using Vista on a VM. Just a thought.
because Vista forces users to view the web in only those fonts? No, it doesn't. It shows whatever font the web designer specifies, and that includes all the usual web standard fonts.
it defaults to them when no explicit font is specified in the web page No, it doesn't. IE7 in Vista actually still uses Times New Roman as its default font.
Why would web designers want to use fonts that require the use of Windows Vista to render? Oh, the fonts require Windows Vista to render? I must have imagined them rendering perfectly well in XP and Ubuntu.
(I suspect what you meant was "Why would web designers want to use fonts that people not running Vista or Office 2007 will probably not have". In which case you have an excellent, if rather obvious, point. In future, say what you mean).
Painful, isn't it? All the new fonts are apparently designed and specially hinted to make use of Cleartype (Microsoft's antialiasing & subpixel rendering algorithm). So they look beautiful with Cleartype on, alright with non-cleartype greyscale antialiasing (example), and "Aah! My eyes! The googles, they do nothing!" with no antiaiasing.
We developers wont be fooled into being forced into vista just for 3-4 fonts. Ummm... You do realise that you can download the fonts for XP (/2000, etc.) for free? E.g. as part of the Office compatibility pack.
Times new roman is one of the ugliest fonts ever (actually, to be fair comic sans is ugliest) so it is good to know that it is being replaced. Actually, Times and Times new Roman are perfectly nice fonts when used as they were intended to be used: as a Newspaper body typeface. They look horrible on screen, certianly; but they was never originally designed to be used on-screen. Fonts which look good in print often look terrible on screen, and vice versa. For example, subtle serifs that look beautiful at 300dpi in a book, or at large sizes on screen, can look awful when rendered at 12pt on a 96dpi screen.
Slashdot Mirror
More precisely: a basic consequence of Fitt's law is that the five areas of the screen easiest for the user to aquire by mouse are the current cursor position and the four corners of the screen. Hence, having useful functions in the four corners is indeed an application of Fitt's law.
As you correctly say, this is why the target areas for the Apple and Spotlight logos (on a Mac) and the Start menu, window menu, and close button (on Windows) extend right into the corners.
In Mac OS there is no concept of maximising a window, so the same reasoning does not apply.
Another problem is that a lot of the people badmouthing Vista only ever used the beta or one of the release candidates and not RTM; the number of prompts drastically reduced for RTM due to file & registry virtualization (no, Microsoft doesn't know what "release candidate" means). No 'global conspiracy', just outdated information. Copy a file to a folder in Program Files. You get 3 dialog boxes asking you various questions, 3! I count 2, one to say "You don't have the necessary privileges to write to this directory, do you want to elevate to administrator?", and, if you say yes, a UAC prompt. The first one isn't strictly necessary, but seems to have been added to improve interface predictability (i.e. so users don't get shifted to secure desktop when they didn't expect it). But, of course, I'm sure you know far more about good UI design than Microsoft's UI design experts. Now, what's this mysterious third dialogue to which you refer?
BTW, I don't know what strange maths you use to reach the conclusion that "The "Basic" version
Vista Home Basic upgrade: List Price - $100; Amazon.com price - $59.
Leopard upgrade: List price - $130; Amazon.com price: $110.
I make that as Leopard being just under double Vista Basic's price from Amazon.
Then there's the enterprise & semi-server stuff like ability to join a domain and IIS, but if you're considering Ultimate against HP, that's probably not relevent to you.
"I am honestly not sure where the Win2K misperception comes from, but Xbox runs a custom operating system built from the ground up."
Source: XBox team official MSDN Blog.
You are correct, all the major operating systems now have antialiasing. And personally, I do prefer reading antialiased (and, if possible, sub-pixel rendered) text. But there are a minority of people who don't, who actually prefer ultra-sharp-but-pixellated text; and presumably the person I replied to who asked what consolas looked like without antialiasing was one of them. Here's another one.
"To Listen Live, or Listen Again to shows you have missed, on the BBC Radio Player you will need to have ... RealPlayer installed on your computer." (source: The BBC)
I don't think you understand. Playing media files in realplayer would not require elevation, since playing a song doesn't need root privileges. Playing media files in internet explorer would not require elevation either, since though IE is sandboxed, playing media files wouldn't require IE to write to anything other than the 'temproary internet files' directory. But if a webpage tries to install malware, that would require writing to a directory other than temporary internet files (so needs user privileges), so you *would* need to elevate; hence the GP's post.
The only thing I can think of is that maybe they're not bundled with Vista basic, only HP/Business or higher -- but I can't think why that would be so. What's IE7 set to use as its default font on your machine?
On re-reading, you're right, it was a rather obnoxious way of putting it -- apologies.
Testing pages in IE7 with xp is enough, no need to waste more space with a huge vm disk for vista just for fonts that no one has. Or you could just, you know, download the fonts for free and install them on XP (e.g. as part of the Office compatibility pack). Might be a bit easier than using Vista on a VM. Just a thought.
(I suspect what you meant was "Why would web designers want to use fonts that people not running Vista or Office 2007 will probably not have". In which case you have an excellent, if rather obvious, point. In future, say what you mean).
You must be new here.
... ;-)
Consolas with no antialiasing
Painful, isn't it? All the new fonts are apparently designed and specially hinted to make use of Cleartype (Microsoft's antialiasing & subpixel rendering algorithm). So they look beautiful with Cleartype on, alright with non-cleartype greyscale antialiasing (example), and "Aah! My eyes! The googles, they do nothing!" with no antiaiasing.