Added would mean I get a laptop even wider than my 17" 4:3 one. I don't see this happening, and even if it did, it'd be a bit on the large side. Actually, come to think of it, if there's anything they could make it is taller, but not wider. I wouldn't object a taller one (e.g. 18" or 19" 1:1) as much as a shorter one (e.g. 17" or 15" 16:9).
Same goes for desktop monitors. My space, like almost everybody's, is horizontally limited, not vertically limited. There's nothing on top of my monitor, but there's the rest of my desk on the right and my speakers left and right of it. I wouldn't object a taller one (even though I still prefer 4:3), but I wouldn't like to have to get and pay for a wider one just to get to the same height as I have right now, and definitely I'm not metrosexual enough to want a shorter one with the same width just because uh... it fits my lifestyle? Argh.
Duke Nukem Forever? I wouldn't bet $5 on it. The Linux desktop was fun to include, and we all know it still has some usability issues (though it's great you can more or less fsck your girlfriend, as pointed out recently in another Slashdot news). Not that Windows doesn't have huge gaping issues the size of Mordor, but people are stupid enough to realize the former and not the later. PHP 6 and Perl 6 *might* show up, but if they don't act fast, Python will eat both. Perl 6 in particular: some existing Perl programmers aren't planning on migrating to Perl 6, some others already moved to Python, and Parrot is half dead, its main success to date being the implementation of... LOLCODE.
Lol, of course. I'm a Python programmer myself; it's just that I couldn't help but point at the four next versions of the major dynamic languages in widespread use, perhaps with a tiny bit of trolling intent. Bytecode-compiled Ruby is supposed to come soon as well, now that Sun is working on theirs.
I completely agree. I was replying to "maybe a retarded version for handhelds", guessing it'd be your average "lol luk my rig omg 124875 gazillion polygons per second" gamer (I'm very sorry if this isn't the case).
To me, all three gameplay, artistic value and technical quality are important, but they come in that order. I still play roguelikes, and I play some games which aren't particularly the bomb as games, but are beautiful. I don't play games who aren't too fun and aren't beautiful just because they're technically amazing for more than 3 minutes; this is why we have the demoscene.
Spore is about gameplay and perhaps AI. It's not about OMG PIXEL SHADERS REFLECTIVE SURFACES LULZ. It could prefectly well develop in an entirely 2D world made of curves and vectors, see flOw, LocoRoco and PataPon. I see how Spore could be a perfectly successful game on PSP that looks like any of those three, as long as it incorporates the same complex gameplay to the degree/size/number of objects they can afford with the handhelds' more limited RAM and processing power.
Rule of thumb: if they talk about an incredibly amazing AI that pretty much takes over your computer, checks your bank accounts and calls you a moron for having not invested in XYZ which has risen by 200% last month, and you think it may be true, you're in for a disappointment. See Oblivion.
On the other hand, if you expect an above-average AI with good gameplay dynamics giving an overall very pleasant experience, perhaps with a bit more of creativeness than the usual, you're in for an enjoyable experience. See Oblivion.
Windows is usable... for people used to Windows. Take my grandma, and she'll have about the same hard time using Windows or Linux. On the other hand, I can set a limited, simplified user account for her much more easily on Linux, customize Linux far more to her needs and desires, and then sleep comfortably while she uses it, which wouldn't be the case on Windows where I know she could get raped any second - even with a restricted user account.
Until Microsoft "set up us the bomb" and forces them to move to bad Vista through some scheme (such as digital restictions malware no longer working on XP). Then they'll be stupid enough to move to Vista, rather than to free themselves from the corporate malware.
You're not exactly lost. The fact KDE4 has one tenth the features of KDE3, especially in customization, and that its kicker bar sucks monkey balls makes you think you're lost, but you aren't - KDE, or at least its features, are.
> You are complaining that the same laptop has less height. Maybe itÃs that the same laptop now is wider. I wouldn't be as mad at that (other than the waste of energy on margins most of the time) if it weren't for the fact that it's not wider; I have yet to see one that's wider because of being widescreen within my range of laptops (I like big ones; don't care for weight, don't like to cry blood for reading ant legs on a screen, and don't like tiny, convoluted keyboards).
I'm outraged because 4:3 makes a lot more sense to me - not just to my working style in pretty much anything and everything (whether it's coding, playing games, reading books or browsing for porn), but to my field of vision, and unless I'm terribly un/lucky, I must not be the only one. It's infuriating that they're stopping producing 4:3 screens just because stylish Beckham lookalikes think widescreen is slick, and because some people (not all, not 99%, I know I'm not alone on this) think they're practical to their style of wasting space on things they aren't doing.
> Why are you maximizing your browser? Because that's what I'm using right now.
>ãI have my Pidgin buddy list on the upper right I don't need to look at my buddy list right now. If I started leaving anything I could need open, I'd have a browser window with my bank account, another with my email, another one with my daily porn, a ssh session to another computer, top/htop, another computer's top/htop, Midnight Commander, a Python interpreter, an extra terminal window (sometimes I use it), a text editor for notes, a text editor with a letter I was writing to my friend, and a video window to watch my stuff, which would be paused, and icons for about 50 other things (if I ever used icons; I prefer to launch stuff by name). And when playing games, I'd open a window the size of my cellular screen and play there, while I observe my beautiful icons, buddy list, letter to friend, and Python interpreter. Does it make *any* sense? I prefer to focus on what I do, and switch tasks if I need, and most of all, I prefer to
> This idea that browsers should be maximized is a disease. Do your part to eradicate it. That was a great point! Wait, was was your point? It's a disease why? Because you don't do it? Because you enjoy wasting screen space with things you aren't doing at the moment?
> People watch DVDs on their laptops. So? I do too. And for that, I prefer not to use a portion of my screen which I do use while coding. You don't have to chop it off just because it's not useful for movies.
> You're choosing to use it incorrectly. No. You are choosing to use it incorrectly. OMG! Could this be, perhaps, a matter of style and preference?
> Not scenery. Not cars. Not... well do I reaaaally need to put down a list of things people take pictures of that you failed to include in your list? Again, kinda pointless. No need to chop my screen weight just because you don't use it for some uses, just because it's so kewl and slick.
And, like I said in my other post, my sight must be either thinner or taller than yours, because 16:9 is nothing like what I see. I see something like 3:2 at most.
Then I must have some sort of birth bug/feature, because I've always been seeing in something that's only a bit wider than 4:3.
Moreover, the golden section is a bogus argument. It's really a matter of taste. A 4:3 rectangle looks better to me, and I don't have a strong preference for rectangle ratios.
And yes, they took my real estate because the screen is smaller. They're usually the same width as before, only shorter, just because it's so stylish. And I waste lines of text - I don't give a damn about the resolution; I'll use larger fonts if pixels are smaller, because I don't enjoy hurting my eyes looking at ant legs on a screen.
I'm not primarily a Windows user. I'm a Linux user, and, like I said, I don't want to waste an already small screen. I use all of the screen to work, and switch windows and/or desktops as I need to; for example, between an editor and a terminal. I also get rid of all the useless clutter, toolbars, file browsers, code explorers and crap editors tend to come with, as I want to edit text, not edit toolbars. See, I, for one, concentrate on getting my actual work done, and use keyboard combinations for everything else instead of having an freaking encyclopedia open and visible all the time.
Pixels are not all that matters. Size does, too. These screens are usually equally as wide, but shorter, which means I have less real space. I don't care about the resolution - it'll result in me using larger or smaller fonts, because I won't hurt my vision with tiny text. I'm still deprived of vertical space.
They kill animals to survive individually or as a closed group (besides mass-murdering them through several means as a species), and they kill humans to survive individually or as a closed group as well, though they rarely do it for nourishment. Nourishment would be a more honourable cause than theft, separatism or hatred though.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting. He's a bigger failure than I'd have thought.
Oh, add the loss of a probably expensive chair to the list.
Added would mean I get a laptop even wider than my 17" 4:3 one. I don't see this happening, and even if it did, it'd be a bit on the large side. Actually, come to think of it, if there's anything they could make it is taller, but not wider. I wouldn't object a taller one (e.g. 18" or 19" 1:1) as much as a shorter one (e.g. 17" or 15" 16:9).
Same goes for desktop monitors. My space, like almost everybody's, is horizontally limited, not vertically limited. There's nothing on top of my monitor, but there's the rest of my desk on the right and my speakers left and right of it. I wouldn't object a taller one (even though I still prefer 4:3), but I wouldn't like to have to get and pay for a wider one just to get to the same height as I have right now, and definitely I'm not metrosexual enough to want a shorter one with the same width just because uh... it fits my lifestyle? Argh.
Duke Nukem Forever? I wouldn't bet $5 on it. The Linux desktop was fun to include, and we all know it still has some usability issues (though it's great you can more or less fsck your girlfriend, as pointed out recently in another Slashdot news). Not that Windows doesn't have huge gaping issues the size of Mordor, but people are stupid enough to realize the former and not the later. PHP 6 and Perl 6 *might* show up, but if they don't act fast, Python will eat both. Perl 6 in particular: some existing Perl programmers aren't planning on migrating to Perl 6, some others already moved to Python, and Parrot is half dead, its main success to date being the implementation of... LOLCODE.
Lol, of course. I'm a Python programmer myself; it's just that I couldn't help but point at the four next versions of the major dynamic languages in widespread use, perhaps with a tiny bit of trolling intent. Bytecode-compiled Ruby is supposed to come soon as well, now that Sun is working on theirs.
I completely agree. I was replying to "maybe a retarded version for handhelds", guessing it'd be your average "lol luk my rig omg 124875 gazillion polygons per second" gamer (I'm very sorry if this isn't the case).
To me, all three gameplay, artistic value and technical quality are important, but they come in that order. I still play roguelikes, and I play some games which aren't particularly the bomb as games, but are beautiful. I don't play games who aren't too fun and aren't beautiful just because they're technically amazing for more than 3 minutes; this is why we have the demoscene.
Featuring multiplayer buttsecks that is not gay because balls don't touch.
While task number 14 would be to try backports. I'd love backporting her to the current version of my hardy hardon.
Spore is about gameplay and perhaps AI. It's not about OMG PIXEL SHADERS REFLECTIVE SURFACES LULZ. It could prefectly well develop in an entirely 2D world made of curves and vectors, see flOw, LocoRoco and PataPon. I see how Spore could be a perfectly successful game on PSP that looks like any of those three, as long as it incorporates the same complex gameplay to the degree/size/number of objects they can afford with the handhelds' more limited RAM and processing power.
Rule of thumb: if they talk about an incredibly amazing AI that pretty much takes over your computer, checks your bank accounts and calls you a moron for having not invested in XYZ which has risen by 200% last month, and you think it may be true, you're in for a disappointment. See Oblivion.
On the other hand, if you expect an above-average AI with good gameplay dynamics giving an overall very pleasant experience, perhaps with a bit more of creativeness than the usual, you're in for an enjoyable experience. See Oblivion.
The feel of Duke Nukem Forever, Linux desktop, GNU Hurd, Perl 6, PHP 6, Python 3000 and bytecode-compiled Ruby.
But it depends on new-shoes, social-status and libcreditcard.
Windows is usable... for people used to Windows. Take my grandma, and she'll have about the same hard time using Windows or Linux. On the other hand, I can set a limited, simplified user account for her much more easily on Linux, customize Linux far more to her needs and desires, and then sleep comfortably while she uses it, which wouldn't be the case on Windows where I know she could get raped any second - even with a restricted user account.
Until Microsoft "set up us the bomb" and forces them to move to bad Vista through some scheme (such as digital restictions malware no longer working on XP). Then they'll be stupid enough to move to Vista, rather than to free themselves from the corporate malware.
You're not exactly lost. The fact KDE4 has one tenth the features of KDE3, especially in customization, and that its kicker bar sucks monkey balls makes you think you're lost, but you aren't - KDE, or at least its features, are.
Signed: Angry KDE 3.5 user.
Hmm, sisters... I'd date my sister.
Oh, wait, were you talking about testing Linux?
> You are complaining that the same laptop has less height. Maybe itÃs that the same laptop now is wider.
I wouldn't be as mad at that (other than the waste of energy on margins most of the time) if it weren't for the fact that it's not wider; I have yet to see one that's wider because of being widescreen within my range of laptops (I like big ones; don't care for weight, don't like to cry blood for reading ant legs on a screen, and don't like tiny, convoluted keyboards).
I'm outraged because 4:3 makes a lot more sense to me - not just to my working style in pretty much anything and everything (whether it's coding, playing games, reading books or browsing for porn), but to my field of vision, and unless I'm terribly un/lucky, I must not be the only one. It's infuriating that they're stopping producing 4:3 screens just because stylish Beckham lookalikes think widescreen is slick, and because some people (not all, not 99%, I know I'm not alone on this) think they're practical to their style of wasting space on things they aren't doing.
That and because I'm an angry Internet man.
> Why are you maximizing your browser?
Because that's what I'm using right now.
>ãI have my Pidgin buddy list on the upper right
I don't need to look at my buddy list right now. If I started leaving anything I could need open, I'd have a browser window with my bank account, another with my email, another one with my daily porn, a ssh session to another computer, top/htop, another computer's top/htop, Midnight Commander, a Python interpreter, an extra terminal window (sometimes I use it), a text editor for notes, a text editor with a letter I was writing to my friend, and a video window to watch my stuff, which would be paused, and icons for about 50 other things (if I ever used icons; I prefer to launch stuff by name). And when playing games, I'd open a window the size of my cellular screen and play there, while I observe my beautiful icons, buddy list, letter to friend, and Python interpreter. Does it make *any* sense? I prefer to focus on what I do, and switch tasks if I need, and most of all, I prefer to
> This idea that browsers should be maximized is a disease. Do your part to eradicate it.
That was a great point! Wait, was was your point? It's a disease why? Because you don't do it? Because you enjoy wasting screen space with things you aren't doing at the moment?
> People watch DVDs on their laptops.
So? I do too. And for that, I prefer not to use a portion of my screen which I do use while coding. You don't have to chop it off just because it's not useful for movies.
> You're choosing to use it incorrectly.
No. You are choosing to use it incorrectly. OMG! Could this be, perhaps, a matter of style and preference?
> Not scenery. Not cars. Not... well do I reaaaally need to put down a list of things people take pictures of that you failed to include in your list?
Again, kinda pointless. No need to chop my screen weight just because you don't use it for some uses, just because it's so kewl and slick.
And, like I said in my other post, my sight must be either thinner or taller than yours, because 16:9 is nothing like what I see. I see something like 3:2 at most.
Then I must have some sort of birth bug/feature, because I've always been seeing in something that's only a bit wider than 4:3.
Moreover, the golden section is a bogus argument. It's really a matter of taste. A 4:3 rectangle looks better to me, and I don't have a strong preference for rectangle ratios.
And yes, they took my real estate because the screen is smaller. They're usually the same width as before, only shorter, just because it's so stylish. And I waste lines of text - I don't give a damn about the resolution; I'll use larger fonts if pixels are smaller, because I don't enjoy hurting my eyes looking at ant legs on a screen.
I'm not primarily a Windows user. I'm a Linux user, and, like I said, I don't want to waste an already small screen. I use all of the screen to work, and switch windows and/or desktops as I need to; for example, between an editor and a terminal. I also get rid of all the useless clutter, toolbars, file browsers, code explorers and crap editors tend to come with, as I want to edit text, not edit toolbars. See, I, for one, concentrate on getting my actual work done, and use keyboard combinations for everything else instead of having an freaking encyclopedia open and visible all the time.
I almost never waste visual space by running anything side by side, except when it's inherently required. I prefer to use all of my screen to work.
Pixels are not all that matters. Size does, too. These screens are usually equally as wide, but shorter, which means I have less real space. I don't care about the resolution - it'll result in me using larger or smaller fonts, because I won't hurt my vision with tiny text. I'm still deprived of vertical space.
Why not? If it's not a separate being with his own mind (for which he requires a brain), then I don't see how would that be an issue.
They kill animals to survive individually or as a closed group (besides mass-murdering them through several means as a species), and they kill humans to survive individually or as a closed group as well, though they rarely do it for nourishment. Nourishment would be a more honourable cause than theft, separatism or hatred though.