Ah, pardon. I hadn't realized that there isn't yet a Universal Binary of Photoshop yet. Thus, you are right that many applications are as of yet faster on Windows XP, the fact remains that Mac OS X is a generally more efficient OS.
I'm sorry if I'm making you upset, but I am trying to be as accurate as possible. My understanding of the meaning of plagiarism, with which I think many dictionaries and encyclopedias agree, is the practice of copying material AND claiming it as one's own.
It is my understanding that neither Wikipedia, nor any of its contributors, lays any claim of authorship over its content. Thus, although it would be most courteous to attribute any content copied from the public domain, they are not obligated to do so.
Yes, it is hard to compare the two. You can, but it doesn't make sense to compare them, especially since alternatives are available. The only thing that this comparison has yielded is the fact that Rosetta is slower than PC-native, which has been known since Boot Camp.
Sorry, I can't see how your argument works. Photoshop runs faster on OS X, because they took the time to take full advantage of the OS. That's generally why Photoshop is used as a benchmark between the two OSes. Not all companies have the will or resources to fully optimize their products for a 'non=standard' OS, and so we can expect much worse performance from their Mac ports. I don't think you can even compare the two on this front without using different software, such as Final Cut.
Of course you can use it. But if you claim it as your own, that's plagiarism.
Exactly; it's a good thing that Wikipedia's content is also in the public domain, not claimed by any author.
"Public domain comprises the body of knowledge and innovation... in relation to which no person or other legal entity can establish or maintain proprietary interests within a particular legal jurisdiction. This body of information and creativity is considered to be part of a common cultural and intellectual heritage, which, in general, anyone may use or exploit, whether for commercial or non-commercial purposes."
That's not as important as the fact that even though he took a very large sample of articles, and even if the sample was biased, Wikipedia itself has more than 100 times that many articles, and so we should still expect more were those 142 came from.
On the other hand, if the sample was a good representative of the site's content, it's still less than 1% of actually plagiarized material, which is very reasonable if one considers how volatile Wikipedia is.
This is not black and white. The point is that Wikipedia is, for the most part, a reliable source of information, and where it isn't is usually obvious.
IE7 got 3M in 4 days, not 3. Also, Firefox downloads tend to escalate every day for the first week or so as the word spreads. Counting downloads, I would be stunned if IE7 ever caught up, by which I mean the first iteration version of each, not updates...IE7 might stick around, albeit in varied forms, for *ahem* another five YEARS.
But yes, you are very right that there will be an extremely larger number of IE7 copies in circulation at the end of this, and it will all happen invisibly. Imagine how surprised the clueless majority of PC owners will be when they can't get to the File menu anymore!
What kind of consistency are you waiting for? I haven't found Windows to be very consistent in functionality, except to consistently barf white-on-blue onto the screen at least once a week. The Mac platform has used the same intuitive keyboard shortcuts for years, if that's what you really care about. Not once has a Mac OS X machine completely crashed on me (excepting a hard disk failure). The worst I've got is a failure to save wireless network settings, which I have encoutered on every platform I've used, and which happened to be a simple security update bug, fixed within a month. There's also the spinning beach ball of death, easily remedied with Opt-Cmd-Esc, the one-handed Mac equivalent of Ctl-Alt-Del, without the system-crashing side effects. You will of course need to relearn shortcuts on a new platform, seeing as you unsuprisingly fall into the 90% pie slice of lifetime Windozers, but if that is all of which you complain, you have no reason to do so here.
You seem to gloss over the fact that many downloadable games on the PC (at least the decent ones) cost money as well. The only exceptions are mods, which I agree with are often fantastic and don't cost a dime.
Ahem, what about freeware? Ever heard of Battle for Wesnoth, or Nexuiz, or Quadra? (Er, maybe not.) The point is that there are still many games with little graphics requirements, good gameplay and zero cost.
OK, you're right, there. There are an awful lot of apps packed in DMGs, which include almost all Mac shareware and freeware, and which be run straight from the image. It is pretty ignorant not to take them into account.
the "equivalent" is a mish-mash of Netinfo, XML plist files dotted around the filing system, UNIX style config files and proprietary datastores.
Waitaminute. The plist and config files are not 'dotted around'. Preference files exist only in/Library and ~whoever/Library, organized very neatly into application-/OS-feature-specific folders. What relation do they have with the Windows Registry, anyway?
I think he means PKGs. They are opened by Installer.app and are nearly always installed in/Applications, and probably stick a few configs in/Library. Since these folders are owned by root, and the software cannot be installed any other way except as defined by the PKG file, they require admin privs.
Perhaps I'm biased, but some of the best PC games I've played where built for Linux. Globulation, Wesnoth, BZFlag and Quadra, for example, all have elements that make them much more intuitive and enjoyable for me than their commercial equivalents. As for the game console, although you are right that it is not a PC replacement, it is not designed to be one; it has different functionality. Xboxes and Wiis and such are there because they have better capability for new and inventive types of games. Take Chromehounds, for example: a game that is currently well beyond the processing power of the home computer. All of its intricacies are essential parts of its gameplay. Even old genres may be improved or changed: FPSs work fine on PCs, but because of the highly intuitive control scheme made possible with the Wiimote, Metroid Prime 3 almost seems an entirely new type of game. Since the PC will probably retain its current interface for some time, game developers don't have many chances to exploit new control schemes. Of course, because of the increasingly high price of consoles and games designed for them, it's perfectly reasonable for a casual gamer such as yourself not to bother with them, since, as you say, the PC still plays games, inculding some very good ones.
Oh jeez, cry me a river. First off, many of the best games are Linux-native; playing those that aren't on a dual-boot won't hurt the Linux gaming community. It's a far less exhausting solution, anyway. I understand that you wouldn't want to pay for another OS if your machine didn't come with it, though. Wine might be worth your time, in that case.
But don't dis game consoles simply because you don't have money for them. For those who want to game, they are generally a better investment than a PC, which is why I don't even bother with dual-booting. On my machine, I just toy around with Tetris and whatnot occasionally.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, pardon. I hadn't realized that there isn't yet a Universal Binary of Photoshop yet. Thus, you are right that many applications are as of yet faster on Windows XP, the fact remains that Mac OS X is a generally more efficient OS.
I'm sorry if I'm making you upset, but I am trying to be as accurate as possible. My understanding of the meaning of plagiarism, with which I think many dictionaries and encyclopedias agree, is the practice of copying material AND claiming it as one's own. It is my understanding that neither Wikipedia, nor any of its contributors, lays any claim of authorship over its content. Thus, although it would be most courteous to attribute any content copied from the public domain, they are not obligated to do so.
Yes, it is hard to compare the two. You can, but it doesn't make sense to compare them, especially since alternatives are available. The only thing that this comparison has yielded is the fact that Rosetta is slower than PC-native, which has been known since Boot Camp.
Sorry, I can't see how your argument works. Photoshop runs faster on OS X, because they took the time to take full advantage of the OS. That's generally why Photoshop is used as a benchmark between the two OSes. Not all companies have the will or resources to fully optimize their products for a 'non=standard' OS, and so we can expect much worse performance from their Mac ports. I don't think you can even compare the two on this front without using different software, such as Final Cut.
Of course you can use it. But if you claim it as your own, that's plagiarism. Exactly; it's a good thing that Wikipedia's content is also in the public domain, not claimed by any author.
Plagiarism is plagiarism, no matter what the source, even if it's public domain.
I beg to differ!From Public domain:
"Public domain comprises the body of knowledge and innovation ... in relation to which no person or other legal entity can establish or maintain proprietary interests within a particular legal jurisdiction. This body of information and creativity is considered to be part of a common cultural and intellectual heritage, which, in general, anyone may use or exploit, whether for commercial or non-commercial purposes."
Follow the link, my friend.
That's not as important as the fact that even though he took a very large sample of articles, and even if the sample was biased, Wikipedia itself has more than 100 times that many articles, and so we should still expect more were those 142 came from.
On the other hand, if the sample was a good representative of the site's content, it's still less than 1% of actually plagiarized material, which is very reasonable if one considers how volatile Wikipedia is.
This is not black and white. The point is that Wikipedia is, for the most part, a reliable source of information, and where it isn't is usually obvious.
Please read more carefully. That 142 was the number of articles found in the stated sample of 12000 articles.
99% of Firefox users don't even know what noscript is.
You could just turn JavaScript off in the options...
Even still, it's not a big deal. Browser users tend not to complain. They just start it up again and avoid that page.
IE7 got 3M in 4 days, not 3. Also, Firefox downloads tend to escalate every day for the first week or so as the word spreads. Counting downloads, I would be stunned if IE7 ever caught up, by which I mean the first iteration version of each, not updates...IE7 might stick around, albeit in varied forms, for *ahem* another five YEARS.
But yes, you are very right that there will be an extremely larger number of IE7 copies in circulation at the end of this, and it will all happen invisibly. Imagine how surprised the clueless majority of PC owners will be when they can't get to the File menu anymore!
What kind of consistency are you waiting for? I haven't found Windows to be very consistent in functionality, except to consistently barf white-on-blue onto the screen at least once a week. The Mac platform has used the same intuitive keyboard shortcuts for years, if that's what you really care about. Not once has a Mac OS X machine completely crashed on me (excepting a hard disk failure). The worst I've got is a failure to save wireless network settings, which I have encoutered on every platform I've used, and which happened to be a simple security update bug, fixed within a month. There's also the spinning beach ball of death, easily remedied with Opt-Cmd-Esc, the one-handed Mac equivalent of Ctl-Alt-Del, without the system-crashing side effects. You will of course need to relearn shortcuts on a new platform, seeing as you unsuprisingly fall into the 90% pie slice of lifetime Windozers, but if that is all of which you complain, you have no reason to do so here.
Great comments, but you goofed once:
You seem to gloss over the fact that many downloadable games on the PC (at least the decent ones) cost money as well. The only exceptions are mods, which I agree with are often fantastic and don't cost a dime.
Ahem, what about freeware? Ever heard of Battle for Wesnoth, or Nexuiz, or Quadra? (Er, maybe not.) The point is that there are still many games with little graphics requirements, good gameplay and zero cost.
OK, you're right, there. There are an awful lot of apps packed in DMGs, which include almost all Mac shareware and freeware, and which be run straight from the image. It is pretty ignorant not to take them into account.
the "equivalent" is a mish-mash of Netinfo, XML plist files dotted around the filing system, UNIX style config files and proprietary datastores. Waitaminute. The plist and config files are not 'dotted around'. Preference files exist only in /Library and ~whoever/Library, organized very neatly into application-/OS-feature-specific folders. What relation do they have with the Windows Registry, anyway?
I think he means PKGs. They are opened by Installer.app and are nearly always installed in /Applications, and probably stick a few configs in /Library. Since these folders are owned by root, and the software cannot be installed any other way except as defined by the PKG file, they require admin privs.
Perhaps I'm biased, but some of the best PC games I've played where built for Linux. Globulation, Wesnoth, BZFlag and Quadra, for example, all have elements that make them much more intuitive and enjoyable for me than their commercial equivalents. As for the game console, although you are right that it is not a PC replacement, it is not designed to be one; it has different functionality. Xboxes and Wiis and such are there because they have better capability for new and inventive types of games. Take Chromehounds, for example: a game that is currently well beyond the processing power of the home computer. All of its intricacies are essential parts of its gameplay. Even old genres may be improved or changed: FPSs work fine on PCs, but because of the highly intuitive control scheme made possible with the Wiimote, Metroid Prime 3 almost seems an entirely new type of game. Since the PC will probably retain its current interface for some time, game developers don't have many chances to exploit new control schemes. Of course, because of the increasingly high price of consoles and games designed for them, it's perfectly reasonable for a casual gamer such as yourself not to bother with them, since, as you say, the PC still plays games, inculding some very good ones.
Oh jeez, cry me a river. First off, many of the best games are Linux-native; playing those that aren't on a dual-boot won't hurt the Linux gaming community. It's a far less exhausting solution, anyway. I understand that you wouldn't want to pay for another OS if your machine didn't come with it, though. Wine might be worth your time, in that case. But don't dis game consoles simply because you don't have money for them. For those who want to game, they are generally a better investment than a PC, which is why I don't even bother with dual-booting. On my machine, I just toy around with Tetris and whatnot occasionally.
- living
in a world where people aren't all exactly like how you want them to be. Part of being a good parent is- having the ability to
teach your children how to deal with living in that same world.