For example many of what people consider the "Windows" API are actually shell APIs.
According to a blog about Windows 7 one of the improvements of that OS is to move stuff out of shell32 so that components that are supposed to be beneath don't call into it.
That's one advantage Linux has held long. Nothing in and around the Kernel expects KDE to be there, so the temptation to make a call into KDE is less. Learning that KDE meddle with the Bluetooth stack was therefore surprising, but I assume they're not exactly meddling with the stack itself but instead handles stuff like authorizing devices.
Well read until you're less confused. This isn't rocket science.
They clearly state that they don't have a clear definition of what a Desktop Environment is. Nor do they state what makes the "shell" part of KDE. You mentioned that I confused the shell definition with a File Manager but my definition held up according to Wikipedia (ie. Finder and Explorer are shells. From what I read KDE and Gnome are considered shells too - just a bit more encompassing by apparently being a Window Manager with extra software).
Explorer can act as a file manager, so can finder. A file manager and (according to Wikipedia) a browser can act as a shell as long as it can give access to underlying services. Clearly there is no clear definition of what makes a shell or a desktop environment, they are gray definition with the understanding that they interface with humans somehow.
It's not rocket science, its human language. Guess which is harder?
Yes, you can use many shells on top of KDE. You're quite confused about terminology, and seem to mean "file manager" when you say shell. KDE is not a file manager either. Wikipedia should help straighten out the definitions for you.
Let's see....
Wikipedia on Explorer: The default Windows shell is called Explorer
So I was right that Explorer is a shell.
Wikipedia on Finder: As such the Finder acts like the shell on other operating systems, but using a graphical user interface, and is described in its 'About' window as The Macintosh Desktop Experience.
Finder isn't quite a shell but is the closest equivalent on Mac OS X
Wikipedia on Desktop Environment: However a program, or set of programs which simulate a desktop environment may sometimes themselves be referred to as a desktop environment, with a desktop environment being considered either a window manager, or a suite of programs which includes a window manager. There is some disagreement on precisely what constitutes a desktop environment, and how one distinguishes one from a window manager.
So KDE is a Window manager or a suite of programs which includes a window manager?
Odd. I've always thought Gnome and KDE to be equivalent with Explorer and Finder. I understand they come bundled with a Window manager and an X server, but I thought that was just for convenience.
Can you then use different "shells" on top of KDE?
Having used Aero for a year I've also wondered about that, both points. Though Compiz, Beryl or whatever they end up calling it is not exactly production worthy yet. I'm not sure if Apple has activated Quartz Extreme in Mac OS X, but it was off in 10.4
Aero was in that sense actually first out of the gate with hardware accelerated composition.
While we're at it... is it just me or is Aero completely underwhelming anyway? All I see is transparent window borders, a 3D task switcher and a little zoom effect when windows appear. You could probably do that in software if you wanted to.
The best thing about Aero, for me, is that it fixes most redrawing bugs that has plagued Windows since version 1.0. Most people don't notice them, but they've always annoyed me so Aero has been a nice upgrade just for that.
It also fix annoyances such as limited overlays (I think most GFX cards only has two overlays these days, just try playing three videos at the same time and see if they're filtered), screen capture problems (if you see it in Aero you can make a screenshot off it, which is great for stuff like VNC and remote desktop) and of course tearing (I've always hated that about Windows, try shaking a window to see it)
Kubuntu has done spectacularly bad as well. My mouse didn't work. Why? Because they included an update to the Bluez stack, to support a change to the kernel, but the KDE4 Bluetooth support hadn't been updated to support that new Bluez stack. Their solution? Drop bluetooth support in Kubuntu Intrepid. WTF?
Eum, isn't KDE a shell? Why does it need to support Bluetooth, isn't that the job for the OS?
Vista was made "D3D10 only" for political reasons, not technical reasons
Aero needs pixel shader 2.0 hardware and 128+ RAM (I think), not Dx10.
A window compositor only needs very basic hardware to do its thing, eg. Linux/Compiz can do it on a TNT2.
Actually you don't need hardware for window composition, Mac OS X did it in software up to 10.5
One problem Areo face is the need to run GDI, overlay and whatever else crufty APIs are left over from older Windows variants. What this does to the engineering I'm not sure, but if those old APIs give direct frame buffer access I guess things can get tricky fast.
...the Vista Premium license? I'm assuming these laptops/desktops came with Windows XP or Vista Basic, which means the user have to buy Vista Premium to be affected by this.
For $8 billion MS can probably make Aero run on 513 MB RAM and Pixel Shader 1.0 hardware.
Strange, most alternative media players had more codecs enabled than the original plain MS media player.
I don't know about numbers but games use the built in codecs for audio and video, so even if an alternate media player has more codecs you will still have trouble with software that want to use the MS codecs. Some software use QuickTime instead, which requires you to have quick time installed. Don't know about any windows app that use other media players.
Of course, having to install QuickTime/WMP/Whatever just to play a game or use an app is droll.
MS-DOS 1.0 was faithful port of CP/M to the 8088 and ran in 16 kiB of RAM.
MS-Dos can't run CP/M software, nor read CP/M floppies, not even process the same command line commands. MS-Dos is in that light somewhat like what PPC-Linux bundled with WINE and no filesystem drivers for FAT/NTFS is to Windows. DOS is close but not quite a faithful port IMHO.
The problem with Windows is that sometimes it will realise it already has a driver for the device and "install" it for the "new" USB port.
Actually, if you plug two identical (down to the serial number) USB devices into a Windows machine, Windows shuts down! See The Old New thing, comments section.
Thanks for the clarification. Duly educated. So you have a line doubler in there that makes x256 resolutions into x512 resolutions.
Once upon a time I thought the Amiga could display multiple resolutions unrestricted. I was a little disappointed when I learned that you can only show multiple resolutions by dividing the screen horizontally. You can't split it vertically or "box" it in so that a small window on the desktop has a different resolution from the rest.
I looked into how monitors worked and learned the Amiga can't split the screen vertically due to lack of interrupts triggering in the middle of lines, whilst while the screen can be changed across a horizontal split of 8 lines one can't change the vertical resolution as that causes monitors to flicker for a second as they need to reacquire the synch (making such a feature unusable).
Vertical resolution was always the same, 480 lines (NTSC, no overscan... more in PAL, naturally). However, you could set up a 240 line mode that just automatically scan-doubled.
So in your examples the vertical synch stays the same since the Amiga doubles the line output on *x256 resolutions. When you change to *x512 resolution the Amiga stops doubeling the resolution, but to the monitor there is no difference as it gets *x512 lines either way.
Try showing a PAL (512 lines) and NTSC (480 lines) screen at the same time. It would force the monitor to resynch every frame, possibly destroying the monitor because it's not built for such use.
Arguably? There ain't no "arguably" or "theoretically" about it.
On the Amiga an application can have a screen all to itself (in memory), while on Windows XP and downwards there's a single screen shared by all applications. Since only one full screen application can be shown at a time it hardly matters.
If you wanted to switch between full screen applications quickly - or show multiple full screen applications at the same time - the Amiga has the advantage. Like how changing between multiple desktops in Linux is much quicker than in Windows - since each Linux desktop has its own screen while the Windows desktop shares the same screen.
Arguably you can have different fullscreen resolutions on DOS/Windows/Linux too. What the Amiga had over them was the ability to show multiple screens at the same time, but since only the horizontal resolution could change you would not be able to use this for 320x200 and 720x480.
1440x480 and 720x480 works, 640x200 and 320x200 works, but not 320x480 and 320x200.
This limitation comes from CRT monitors. They have to resynch to change vertical resolution, this because images are drawn from top to bottom in a series of lines going from left to right. The end of a line is technically ended by a synch signal, so to change vertical resolution (the amount of lines) you have to change this synch signal - which cause the monitor to go 'boink' as it resynchs to the new synch signal.
Horizontal resolution is, OTOH, simply a product of how fast the Amiga can change its color output - which tops out at something like 1280 pixels.
Hopefully nobody ever bought their crap. I've always gone with ASUS or Gigabyte. Good motherboards.
Of those three brands I know that ABIT has the best fan speed controller. I got my PC making less noise than the Wii, and faaar less than the Xbox360, simply by adjusting the fan speeds in the BIOS.
With Asus you have to use "Speedfan", giving you another annoying tray icon, and if you're not running Windows... too bad.
Just to drag this thread back on-topic, it is my suspicion that spell-checking is EXACTLY what will cause the computer to "fail" the test. In a 15-minute typed discussion, a human is virtually guaranteed to spell at least one word incorrectly. The computer will be the subject with the perfect spelling.
Programming in occasional spelling errors isn't exactly difikult.
Issue is not the hardware so much as it is the firmware on hardware devices. That's where the danger is.
Both Hardware and Firmware can have security exploits. Take a CPU, Intel can include instructions that lets you break into kernel mode from user mode or a network card can have a DMA controller that lets you snoop kernel memory - without exposing these features in firmware.
Putting a security exploit in hardware is trickier, but don't forget that hardware is at the end of the day turing complete.
I'm playing through Warhead right now, it's a fun game but I'll have to agree - the AI isn't too hot. I've seen enemies run into objects and keep running, and I suspect there is spawning involved (enemies just popping out of nowhere - like on top of you... had me confused for a while)
Of the games I've played the best AI falls to either F.E.A.R or Halo 1, though level design does make a difference on how we gamers perceive the AI. Max Payne, for instance, has horrid AI - worse than Doom in some ways - but I never noticed during my first playthrough.
Re:Crysis, the affirmative answer to the old quest
on
Review: Crysis Warhead
·
· Score: 1
but the very fact that all you have to do is back off a bit and wait for you health to reappear with no effort on your part is the single stupidest thing I've seen in an FPS
Hunting for healtpacks is one thing I've never enjoyed, be it hearts in Zelda, meat in Caslevania, Pizza in Turtles, painkillers in Max Payne, or whatever.
Slashdot Mirror
Listen to dudes that makes statements like "And yes, desktop environments need to know about bluetooth".
No thanks.
For example many of what people consider the "Windows" API are actually shell APIs.
According to a blog about Windows 7 one of the improvements of that OS is to move stuff out of shell32 so that components that are supposed to be beneath don't call into it.
That's one advantage Linux has held long. Nothing in and around the Kernel expects KDE to be there, so the temptation to make a call into KDE is less. Learning that KDE meddle with the Bluetooth stack was therefore surprising, but I assume they're not exactly meddling with the stack itself but instead handles stuff like authorizing devices.
Well read until you're less confused. This isn't rocket science.
They clearly state that they don't have a clear definition of what a Desktop Environment is. Nor do they state what makes the "shell" part of KDE. You mentioned that I confused the shell definition with a File Manager but my definition held up according to Wikipedia (ie. Finder and Explorer are shells. From what I read KDE and Gnome are considered shells too - just a bit more encompassing by apparently being a Window Manager with extra software).
Explorer can act as a file manager, so can finder. A file manager and (according to Wikipedia) a browser can act as a shell as long as it can give access to underlying services. Clearly there is no clear definition of what makes a shell or a desktop environment, they are gray definition with the understanding that they interface with humans somehow.
It's not rocket science, its human language. Guess which is harder?
Yes, you can use many shells on top of KDE. You're quite confused about terminology, and seem to mean "file manager" when you say shell. KDE is not a file manager either. Wikipedia should help straighten out the definitions for you.
Let's see....
Wikipedia on Explorer:
The default Windows shell is called Explorer
So I was right that Explorer is a shell.
Wikipedia on Finder:
As such the Finder acts like the shell on other operating systems, but using a graphical user interface, and is described in its 'About' window as The Macintosh Desktop Experience.
Finder isn't quite a shell but is the closest equivalent on Mac OS X
Wikipedia on Desktop Environment:
However a program, or set of programs which simulate a desktop environment may sometimes themselves be referred to as a desktop environment, with a desktop environment being considered either a window manager, or a suite of programs which includes a window manager. There is some disagreement on precisely what constitutes a desktop environment, and how one distinguishes one from a window manager.
So KDE is a Window manager or a suite of programs which includes a window manager?
:(
I'm confused now
No, KDE is not a shell.
Odd. I've always thought Gnome and KDE to be equivalent with Explorer and Finder. I understand they come bundled with a Window manager and an X server, but I thought that was just for convenience.
Can you then use different "shells" on top of KDE?
So what graphics chips doesn't it run on?
Having used Aero for a year I've also wondered about that, both points. Though Compiz, Beryl or whatever they end up calling it is not exactly production worthy yet. I'm not sure if Apple has activated Quartz Extreme in Mac OS X, but it was off in 10.4
Aero was in that sense actually first out of the gate with hardware accelerated composition.
While we're at it ... is it just me or is Aero completely underwhelming anyway? All I see is transparent window borders, a 3D task switcher and a little zoom effect when windows appear. You could probably do that in software if you wanted to.
The best thing about Aero, for me, is that it fixes most redrawing bugs that has plagued Windows since version 1.0. Most people don't notice them, but they've always annoyed me so Aero has been a nice upgrade just for that.
It also fix annoyances such as limited overlays (I think most GFX cards only has two overlays these days, just try playing three videos at the same time and see if they're filtered), screen capture problems (if you see it in Aero you can make a screenshot off it, which is great for stuff like VNC and remote desktop) and of course tearing (I've always hated that about Windows, try shaking a window to see it)
Kubuntu has done spectacularly bad as well. My mouse didn't work. Why? Because they included an update to the Bluez stack, to support a change to the kernel, but the KDE4 Bluetooth support hadn't been updated to support that new Bluez stack. Their solution? Drop bluetooth support in Kubuntu Intrepid. WTF?
Eum, isn't KDE a shell? Why does it need to support Bluetooth, isn't that the job for the OS?
Vista was made "D3D10 only" for political reasons, not technical reasons
Aero needs pixel shader 2.0 hardware and 128+ RAM (I think), not Dx10.
A window compositor only needs very basic hardware to do its thing, eg. Linux/Compiz can do it on a TNT2.
Actually you don't need hardware for window composition, Mac OS X did it in software up to 10.5 One problem Areo face is the need to run GDI, overlay and whatever else crufty APIs are left over from older Windows variants. What this does to the engineering I'm not sure, but if those old APIs give direct frame buffer access I guess things can get tricky fast.
...the Vista Premium license? I'm assuming these laptops/desktops came with Windows XP or Vista Basic, which means the user have to buy Vista Premium to be affected by this.
For $8 billion MS can probably make Aero run on 513 MB RAM and Pixel Shader 1.0 hardware.
I'm curious, will it not play on the built in monitor?
Strange, most alternative media players had more codecs enabled than the original plain MS media player.
I don't know about numbers but games use the built in codecs for audio and video, so even if an alternate media player has more codecs you will still have trouble with software that want to use the MS codecs. Some software use QuickTime instead, which requires you to have quick time installed. Don't know about any windows app that use other media players.
Of course, having to install QuickTime/WMP/Whatever just to play a game or use an app is droll.
MS-DOS 1.0 was faithful port of CP/M to the 8088 and ran in 16 kiB of RAM.
MS-Dos can't run CP/M software, nor read CP/M floppies, not even process the same command line commands. MS-Dos is in that light somewhat like what PPC-Linux bundled with WINE and no filesystem drivers for FAT/NTFS is to Windows. DOS is close but not quite a faithful port IMHO.
The problem with Windows is that sometimes it will realise it already has a driver for the device and "install" it for the "new" USB port.
Actually, if you plug two identical (down to the serial number) USB devices into a Windows machine, Windows shuts down! See The Old New thing, comments section.
Thanks for the clarification. Duly educated. So you have a line doubler in there that makes x256 resolutions into x512 resolutions.
Once upon a time I thought the Amiga could display multiple resolutions unrestricted. I was a little disappointed when I learned that you can only show multiple resolutions by dividing the screen horizontally. You can't split it vertically or "box" it in so that a small window on the desktop has a different resolution from the rest.
I looked into how monitors worked and learned the Amiga can't split the screen vertically due to lack of interrupts triggering in the middle of lines, whilst while the screen can be changed across a horizontal split of 8 lines one can't change the vertical resolution as that causes monitors to flicker for a second as they need to reacquire the synch (making such a feature unusable).
Thanks
Vertical resolution was always the same, 480 lines (NTSC, no overscan... more in PAL, naturally). However, you could set up a 240 line mode that just automatically scan-doubled.
So in your examples the vertical synch stays the same since the Amiga doubles the line output on *x256 resolutions. When you change to *x512 resolution the Amiga stops doubeling the resolution, but to the monitor there is no difference as it gets *x512 lines either way.
Try showing a PAL (512 lines) and NTSC (480 lines) screen at the same time. It would force the monitor to resynch every frame, possibly destroying the monitor because it's not built for such use.
Arguably? There ain't no "arguably" or "theoretically" about it.
On the Amiga an application can have a screen all to itself (in memory), while on Windows XP and downwards there's a single screen shared by all applications. Since only one full screen application can be shown at a time it hardly matters.
If you wanted to switch between full screen applications quickly - or show multiple full screen applications at the same time - the Amiga has the advantage. Like how changing between multiple desktops in Linux is much quicker than in Windows - since each Linux desktop has its own screen while the Windows desktop shares the same screen.
Arguably you can have different fullscreen resolutions on DOS/Windows/Linux too. What the Amiga had over them was the ability to show multiple screens at the same time, but since only the horizontal resolution could change you would not be able to use this for 320x200 and 720x480.
1440x480 and 720x480 works, 640x200 and 320x200 works, but not 320x480 and 320x200.
This limitation comes from CRT monitors. They have to resynch to change vertical resolution, this because images are drawn from top to bottom in a series of lines going from left to right. The end of a line is technically ended by a synch signal, so to change vertical resolution (the amount of lines) you have to change this synch signal - which cause the monitor to go 'boink' as it resynchs to the new synch signal.
Horizontal resolution is, OTOH, simply a product of how fast the Amiga can change its color output - which tops out at something like 1280 pixels.
Hopefully nobody ever bought their crap. I've always gone with ASUS or Gigabyte. Good motherboards.
Of those three brands I know that ABIT has the best fan speed controller. I got my PC making less noise than the Wii, and faaar less than the Xbox360, simply by adjusting the fan speeds in the BIOS.
With Asus you have to use "Speedfan", giving you another annoying tray icon, and if you're not running Windows... too bad.
Drats.
I have a feeling they over rate how much power stuff pulls.
They rate for the worst case. In the case of CPUs they actually rate for the warmest CPU that fits into the socket.
Also, no software keeps your CPU/GPU/Hard Drive/Sound system/Monitor/etc. at 100% power draw simultaneously.
Says you. I say IE is the alternative, and a poor one at that.
I see people switching from Firefox to IE nowadays and with a bit more polish on the UI I could see myself switching to IE8 from Firefox.
Opera, Chrome, etc, aren't vastly superior to IE7 for the common fool anyway,
Just to drag this thread back on-topic, it is my suspicion that spell-checking is EXACTLY what will cause the computer to "fail" the test. In a 15-minute typed discussion, a human is virtually guaranteed to spell at least one word incorrectly. The computer will be the subject with the perfect spelling.
Programming in occasional spelling errors isn't exactly difikult.
Issue is not the hardware so much as it is the firmware on hardware devices. That's where the danger is.
Both Hardware and Firmware can have security exploits. Take a CPU, Intel can include instructions that lets you break into kernel mode from user mode or a network card can have a DMA controller that lets you snoop kernel memory - without exposing these features in firmware.
Putting a security exploit in hardware is trickier, but don't forget that hardware is at the end of the day turing complete.
With Closed Source, you HAVE to trust the company.
In case of hardware you still have to trust the company. Programming backdoors in Verilog may be trickier, but far from impossible.
The Crysis AI was awful.
I'm playing through Warhead right now, it's a fun game but I'll have to agree - the AI isn't too hot. I've seen enemies run into objects and keep running, and I suspect there is spawning involved (enemies just popping out of nowhere - like on top of you... had me confused for a while)
Of the games I've played the best AI falls to either F.E.A.R or Halo 1, though level design does make a difference on how we gamers perceive the AI. Max Payne, for instance, has horrid AI - worse than Doom in some ways - but I never noticed during my first playthrough.
but the very fact that all you have to do is back off a bit and wait for you health to reappear with no effort on your part is the single stupidest thing I've seen in an FPS
Hunting for healtpacks is one thing I've never enjoyed, be it hearts in Zelda, meat in Caslevania, Pizza in Turtles, painkillers in Max Payne, or whatever.
Incidentally I'm enjoying Warhead quite a lot.