I'd love to buy the new Acer Aspire One model 1447, but where in hell do I actually get one? It's been "released" now by Acer for over two weeks, and I can't find a single retailer anywhere with one to sell. (I started with Acer's own "where to buy" list.) It's just ridiculous; don't announce, then release, products that people can't actually buy.
1. American workers are less educated than others.
You can't spout shit like that with no evidence. Prove it, please.
2. American companies are very hierarchial, making adaptations to new circumstances slow.
Only the shitty East-coast ones. IBM, for example. They're huge, slow, and they make crappy products. They're also the exception, not the rule. The vast majority of American IT companies are very nimble.
4. Poor IT infrastructure.
Don't believe everything you read on Slashdot. Our IT infrastructure is fine.
5. The fact that driving people to work 60h/week with no sick leave and minimal vacations is worse for efficiency than having your staff working regular 40h/week schedules.
First of all, if someone is stupid enough to work for a company that requires 60 hours a week, doesn't pay sick leave and gives minimal vacations, they deserve whatever happens to them. Those people made their bed, and now they have to lie in it. This is called "self-determination" and it's kind of big here in the States.
Secondly, very few companies meet the above template. Some industries have un-avoidable crunch time, and may get into that mode a few weeks a year (for instance, anything in the video games industry), but those companies make up for it by far during their regular hours. Most (again, non-shitty) IT companies in the US have uncountable minor benefits, ranging from team activities and events, to free soft drinks and/or food, free gym time or in-house exercise equipment, to discounts on pet insurance! (Yes, my employer just added the last benefit to the list.)
Anyway, as another poster implied, you're probably just a Euro-snob with no experience or understanding about the US trying to say we suck in a somewhat more veiled fashion, but I had to reply.
Here's a list of people doing well in unions... Teachers
Teachers?! Teachers! Don't we have a story on Slashdot every week about the sorry state of education in the US? If teachers are doing so well, how come so many districts need to bribe teachers to come work for them? How come my mom, working as a teacher for 20 years, makes less per year than I make in IT with my 5 years of experience? Why did my mom and dad, both union teachers, insist that no matter what I did with my education and future *not* go into teaching?
Yes a good patriot should dump all his garbage over the neighboors fence and do everything in their power to turn the country into a toxic dump./sarcasm
It's not a binary black/white issue. If the environmental movement was focused on encouraging VOLUNTARY action from people, I'd be perfectly fine with it.
Look at, for example, how the movie content rating works-- people were upset at violent rules, so the MPAA voluntarily created a voluntary content rating system. The government has zero involvement, and everybody's happy. That's how the environmentalism movement should work. and would work, if it weren't full of shrill harpies that love bossing other people around.
Even if the number is 1-in-3, you just wrote a comment specifically designed to make it sound like it was much higher (In your case, 2-5 Xbox failures per person.) That's the kind of exaggeration I'm talking about.
Yes, I know that my working Xbox isn't really relevant to the discussion as an anecdote, but if the real number is 1-in-3, then I represent 66% of customers and your "everyone I know" represents 33%, and that puts me ahead.:)
I suspect he didn't have to "prove" anything about plastic bags, any more than he'd have to prove the sky's blue.
So you just pass legislation based on gut instinct, and everybody feels really happy and fuzzy because there's no actual accountability whatsoever?
As far as your forcing comment goes, the old adage is "Your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose".
Ok, so my using a plastic bag is equivalent to punching you in the face.
Unless you're polluting private property, you can't reasonably have the expectation that people aren't going to tell you to refrain from certain polluting acts.
We already have (here in the US at least) anti-littering laws. There's no need to ban a specific product when the only reason your MP objects to it is already covered by existing laws!
(Well, to be fair, I don't know for sure that SA has anti-littering laws, but I'd be extremely surprised if it did not. In any case, banning plastic bags just means the streets will be full of some other kind of litter, so the response is ineffective.)
The terrible communistic liberal dictators are also forcing you to not shit in the street. How'dya feel about that?
If you live in a country with 'communistic liberal dictators', that doesn't really seem relevant to this discussion. On the other hand, I live in the United States, where we have rights *by default* until the government takes them away-- in fact, I'm reasonably sure that it's probably perfectly legal to take a nice steaming dumb in the middle of the street in Washington State. You might be cited for obstructing traffic (which is illegal), but the street-shitting is legal by default.
The solution as far as plastic bags mentioned above goes makes perfect sense to me: pollution ends up having a direct cost to the polluter which is in-proportion to the affect they're having.
PROVE it to me. I'm not even saying it doesn't, I'm saying that I need proof of it before I'm going to sign away any of my rights and have the government force me to do anything.
With this law change, it's easier to not pollute, because the bags are now reusable, and lower grocery costs more than off-set the temporary increase in carrier costs.
It does? You've run all the numbers, I expect, and can present a full report PROVING the claim you just made?
We go from a situation where the responsible are no longer subsidizing the irresponsible.
Only if you assume that throwing away plastic bags has any impact whatsoever, which you haven't proven-- you're just assuming it because the environmentalists tell you so.
Only someone who wants to pollute and who wants others to pay for that could possibly complain.
You have to prove there's a cost before you say I'm making others "pay" for it. Give me the numbers, I'd love to see them.
Here in SA we had a huge problem with plastic bag litter. So much so that one MP described them as 'our new national flower'.
So one MP has a pet project and a cute phrase, and everybody in the country has to pay more when they shop. And you somehow make it sound like that's a good thing. Let me ask you this, did your MP with the cute phrase actually *prove* that those plastic bags harm the environment? Or did they just show you photos of plastic bags in streets? If they did prove it, could you link me to the research? Because so far, in my state which is moving quickly down the slippery slope of this same moronic legislation, no politicians had bother to actually make a case for it any more compelling then your MP's cute little phrase.
What I react to is people convincing the government to FORCE me to act in a certain way. Environmentalists would be foaming at the mouth if some religious group tried to pass a law requiring every consumer to pray to their God when they entered a grocery store, but it's OK if you pass a law requiring the store to spend more money and charge me more. Of course the difference here is that if I am an atheist, then spending time talking to an imaginary God doesn't hurt me any, whereas the environmentalist "cause" costs me money.
If you want to convince me, convince me. Don't FORCE me, because I have a natural knee-jerk reaction to being told what to do and I'm more likely to actually pollute more out of spite than quietly accept commands from the environmentalist elite. You know, the multi-millionaires who fly their private jets to Bali so they can talk about forcing me to turn off my lights. Screw that.
No, plastic shopping bags are estimated to take 500-1000 years to decompose under optimal conditions. Some report that they actually never decompose, but end up leaving a plastic "dust" residue.
If you say so. I've always heard that they break down very quickly when exposed to sunlight, and I know from personal experience that those plastic bags, even ones that have been sitting in my basement, basically fall apart after only a few years... the old bags aren't worth trying to use, because they're breaking down.
In any case, you're also ignoring my other point, which is that plastic bags are currently one of the easiest things to reuse and recycle (other than maybe aluminum cans), and thus by banning them you're basically stopping tons of people from doing any reusing and recycling at all.
And in any case, I've still seen NO actual research that it makes any kind of difference whatsoever. I highly, strongly, doubt it does. I'd gladly change my mind should somebody present that research, but frankly I don't think that research even exists.
While you may view conservation of resources as someone being bossy and telling you shouldn't do something, others view it as their duty to minimize their impact on the Earth so that future generations may also enjoy Earth's resources and beauty.
Then they should do their duty, then fuck off and leave me alone.
Wanting the "save the planet" does not give you the right to tell other people how to live their lives. In fact, I'd go as far as saying that the environmental movement is about the most un-American aspect of the US today.
Don't believe everything you read on Slashdot. I have a launch-day 360 that I've played at least 10 hours a week for the last few years, and it's never given me a second of trouble. Obviously, there have been hardware problems, but it's not even close to as bad as people make it sound.
It's also a nice way for bossy people to tell other people how to live their lives.
Does banning those plastic shopping bags in cities (the new environmentalist trend in hip cities) actually stop any pollution? At all? They're already pretty much bio-degradable, and as somebody who gives not one crap about the environment, I can say that those are the *only* things in my entire house that I ever reuse or recycle. (The supposedly-better paper ones I just throw away. In the trash.) I seriously doubt it.
But if you're the kind of person who enjoys telling other people what to do, this is great for you! You can make their lives more annoying while pretending to be fighting for some vague cause! It doesn't matter whether you can actually prove it makes a difference or not, bossiness is its own reward!
It's just the 21st century version of Prohibition, and I'm sure it'll end just as well.
It's called "weather." The reason it's an issue now is because we have a lot of people who have a lot of money, hate a lot of corporations, and have the vague desire to "do good," and we have a lot of 24-hour news networks trying to cope with the fact that the average day contains, at best, half an hour of actual news.
In twenty years, we'll all look back on this and laugh, like we do now when we read old articles about how Africanized killer bees are going to kill everybody in the US.
The day the NWP is a reality is the last day of Canada as an independant country.
Is Canada an independent country now? I thought you had some of that weird "UK Territory" crap going on up there.:)
But seriously, do you seriously think anything will happen to Canada if a passage does open up? Other than, potentially, more tax revenue? Even if Russia, China or the US (as if!) decided to invade to secure the passage, they'd leave the 95% of Canada they don't care about alone. But imagine the resources it would take to actually secure that border! Unless Canada wants to charge a million bucks a ship, I doubt invasion would be better than just paying the toll.
The link-ee is responsible for keeping the same content at the same URL, not the link-er. It couldn't possibly work any other way.
The government in this case farked-up. They could easily have used a few redirects to make sure their links still worked correctly, at least they could have if they were competent at keeping a domain name registered.
In IE, the menus are outside of the tab. In Chrome, the menus are inside of the tab. (On Firefox, they're all outside of the tabs.)
The most correct solution would be to put the menus that apply only to the current tab inside of it, and the menus that apply to the entire browser outside of it. Both browsers fail at that, but err in different directions.
The inspect element tool is awesome, lets you see the tree and go to any element you can right click on.
IE Developer Toolbar does that in IE, and Firebug does that in Firefox. Nothing new there, you've just never bothered to install a browser plug-in that does it before.:)
The tweaked tab system is great. Create new windows from tabs, drag tabs between windows, consolidate windows into tabs.
All features from BeOS' original tabbed window implementation. I agree it's handy, but it's also simply sad that other applications ripping-off the tabbed windows from BeOS get it so damned wrong.
- Safari didn't follow many of the standard windows app behaviors, another snafu. You can't stuff OS X app behaviors down the throats of Windows users, and vice versa.
Chrome doesn't either, BTW.
* It doesn't respond to any of the normal contextual menu window actions, nor does it include the "icon" window management menu on the upper left (and yes, this is still present in Vista, just invisible). * It doesn't follow your Windows theme or colors at all (sure, it probably fits in in Vista, but it looks like ass in XP.) * It has major issues when used over Remote Desktop (I got really funky color rendering, like it was running in 256-color mode using the wrong palette or something.) * Drag&drop doesn't work correctly (dragged&dropped images are saved corrupted, but right-clicking one and choosing Save As saves them correctly.) * Scrolbar rendering fails on full-screen Flash pages. * When both scrollbars are visible, there's a strange mystery-square inbetween them-- it's not a resize widget, and when you double-click it it selects the content of the page. I have no clue what that's supposed to be.
I haven't yet tried multi-monitor support, but I expect it to get that one wrong since virtually all quick-and-dirty ports do.
Also, they somehow managed to make window resizes a lot more flicker-y and annoying than even default Windows XP resizes, I have no idea how they managed that one... it's almost as if they're going out of their way to make their application look amateurish.
I mean, I know it's beta, but it's *really* beta as far as I'm concerned. I'm amazed at how many of the basics they got wrong; does anybody at Google even use Windows? I know it's a beta, but getting basic window management tasks wrong, tasks that would work BY DEFAULT if they weren't using some POS cross-platform UI library, is simple inexcusable even for a beta.
iTunes for windows was ported really well, it follows (for the most part, except menus)
Which iTunes are you using? iTunes is a bloated, crashing hog on Windows. Back when I used OS X, I'd tell people iTunes was great and they'd always tell me that iTunes was a bloated, crashing hog-- I never believed them until I tried it for myself, and they're right. Simple tasks like changing an ID3 tag on an MP4 movie can take several minutes, and while iTunes is chugging away there's no UI to indicate that it's completely frozen. And God-forbid your iTunes library reside on a network drive, that adds whole new layers of slow-ass suck.
Compare iTunes with the Zune software, for example, and you'll find the Zune software is far superior in virtually every way. It plays MP4s smoother, handles network drives better (at least in the current version, the initial release was kind of bad at it), it sorts and searches quicker. The UI's a bit annoying, but it's far above and beyond iTunes performance-wise.
Apple sucks ass at writing Windows software. So does Google, if Chrome's their best example.
Re:Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome
on
Google Chrome, Day 2
·
· Score: 1
Oh, right. The, what, 5-6 years it pretended to be IE just don't count at all? And Opera was even werse, it didn't say "IE Compatible", it flat-out said, "hey I'm IE!"
I had to write in checks for tons of webapps because of that, and now you're trying to whitewash my memory with your little "Opera doesn't?" Maybe not now, but for the 80% of its existence Opera *did* do that, it caused more problems than IE, Netscape and Firefox combined.
The star next to my name is where the 2 minute deadline comes from. Subscribers get early access to view stories. Which is nice, because that gives me a chance to beat out the trolls for first post, thus making it worth my while to comment.
So it's only worth your while to comment if you can be first? Are you using the "kindergarten method" of debate here, or what? Or are you using some alternative-universe version of Slashdot where subscribers can't comment once stories go live?
Just take your freakin' time. If what you're saying is worth saying, it's worth saying clearly regardless of the story's schedule.
Of course, part of the problem was my decision to forgo explaining that statement in favor of focusing on more interesting information for the masses. Crowing may be fun, but it can make one look like an ass if too much of it is done.
First of all, crowing makes you look like an ass, but not as much as saying "the masses" (to imply everybody is dumber than yourself) so call it even on that point.
Secondly, posting something with some imaginary deadline without actually explaining something in the post seems like a waste of time-- yours and ours. Please, if you want to say something, say it... don't rely on people following links and reading a months-old long-ass thread.
I'm going to be "that guy," sorry, but the browser's name is "Firefox." Only one capital F. For somebody who's been using it exclusively for about 2 years, you've done a great job of never looking at the browser's actual name.
With all due respect, pundits have been predicting that Google will release its own web browser for years. Certainly longer ago than Sept 1st. In any case, your post is off-topic, since it has nothing to do with Mozilla's comments. (This one's off-topic too, mods.)
All that happens is more things are patched onto old programs, they get relabeled as "new", and they use more memory, hard drive space and cpu power.
They also have more features. Those "things" you mention are features that customers asked for.
There certainly doesn't seem to be any impetus to make more compact, efficient programs
That's because people like having more features.
Look, if you're happy with the featureset of WordPerfect 5 and don't care about anything more than that, there's a solution for you: Run WordPerfect 5. It still runs just fine. Then you can let the rest of us have our features and be happy.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd love to buy the new Acer Aspire One model 1447, but where in hell do I actually get one? It's been "released" now by Acer for over two weeks, and I can't find a single retailer anywhere with one to sell. (I started with Acer's own "where to buy" list.) It's just ridiculous; don't announce, then release, products that people can't actually buy.
1. American workers are less educated than others.
You can't spout shit like that with no evidence. Prove it, please.
2. American companies are very hierarchial, making adaptations to new circumstances slow.
Only the shitty East-coast ones. IBM, for example. They're huge, slow, and they make crappy products. They're also the exception, not the rule. The vast majority of American IT companies are very nimble.
4. Poor IT infrastructure.
Don't believe everything you read on Slashdot. Our IT infrastructure is fine.
5. The fact that driving people to work 60h/week with no sick leave and minimal vacations is worse for efficiency than having your staff working regular 40h/week schedules.
First of all, if someone is stupid enough to work for a company that requires 60 hours a week, doesn't pay sick leave and gives minimal vacations, they deserve whatever happens to them. Those people made their bed, and now they have to lie in it. This is called "self-determination" and it's kind of big here in the States.
Secondly, very few companies meet the above template. Some industries have un-avoidable crunch time, and may get into that mode a few weeks a year (for instance, anything in the video games industry), but those companies make up for it by far during their regular hours. Most (again, non-shitty) IT companies in the US have uncountable minor benefits, ranging from team activities and events, to free soft drinks and/or food, free gym time or in-house exercise equipment, to discounts on pet insurance! (Yes, my employer just added the last benefit to the list.)
Anyway, as another poster implied, you're probably just a Euro-snob with no experience or understanding about the US trying to say we suck in a somewhat more veiled fashion, but I had to reply.
Here's a list of people doing well in unions...
Teachers
Teachers?! Teachers! Don't we have a story on Slashdot every week about the sorry state of education in the US? If teachers are doing so well, how come so many districts need to bribe teachers to come work for them? How come my mom, working as a teacher for 20 years, makes less per year than I make in IT with my 5 years of experience? Why did my mom and dad, both union teachers, insist that no matter what I did with my education and future *not* go into teaching?
Way to defeat your own argument.
Yes a good patriot should dump all his garbage over the neighboors fence and do everything in their power to turn the country into a toxic dump. /sarcasm
It's not a binary black/white issue. If the environmental movement was focused on encouraging VOLUNTARY action from people, I'd be perfectly fine with it.
Look at, for example, how the movie content rating works-- people were upset at violent rules, so the MPAA voluntarily created a voluntary content rating system. The government has zero involvement, and everybody's happy. That's how the environmentalism movement should work. and would work, if it weren't full of shrill harpies that love bossing other people around.
Even if the number is 1-in-3, you just wrote a comment specifically designed to make it sound like it was much higher (In your case, 2-5 Xbox failures per person.) That's the kind of exaggeration I'm talking about.
Yes, I know that my working Xbox isn't really relevant to the discussion as an anecdote, but if the real number is 1-in-3, then I represent 66% of customers and your "everyone I know" represents 33%, and that puts me ahead. :)
Read "million dollars" as "a large amount of money." This is a casual web comment, not a policy discussion.
I suspect he didn't have to "prove" anything about plastic bags, any more than he'd have to prove the sky's blue.
So you just pass legislation based on gut instinct, and everybody feels really happy and fuzzy because there's no actual accountability whatsoever?
As far as your forcing comment goes, the old adage is "Your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose".
Ok, so my using a plastic bag is equivalent to punching you in the face.
Unless you're polluting private property, you can't reasonably have the expectation that people aren't going to tell you to refrain from certain polluting acts.
We already have (here in the US at least) anti-littering laws. There's no need to ban a specific product when the only reason your MP objects to it is already covered by existing laws!
(Well, to be fair, I don't know for sure that SA has anti-littering laws, but I'd be extremely surprised if it did not. In any case, banning plastic bags just means the streets will be full of some other kind of litter, so the response is ineffective.)
The terrible communistic liberal dictators are also forcing you to not shit in the street. How'dya feel about that?
If you live in a country with 'communistic liberal dictators', that doesn't really seem relevant to this discussion. On the other hand, I live in the United States, where we have rights *by default* until the government takes them away-- in fact, I'm reasonably sure that it's probably perfectly legal to take a nice steaming dumb in the middle of the street in Washington State. You might be cited for obstructing traffic (which is illegal), but the street-shitting is legal by default.
The solution as far as plastic bags mentioned above goes makes perfect sense to me: pollution ends up having a direct cost to the polluter which is in-proportion to the affect they're having.
PROVE it to me. I'm not even saying it doesn't, I'm saying that I need proof of it before I'm going to sign away any of my rights and have the government force me to do anything.
With this law change, it's easier to not pollute, because the bags are now reusable, and lower grocery costs more than off-set the temporary increase in carrier costs.
It does? You've run all the numbers, I expect, and can present a full report PROVING the claim you just made?
We go from a situation where the responsible are no longer subsidizing the irresponsible.
Only if you assume that throwing away plastic bags has any impact whatsoever, which you haven't proven-- you're just assuming it because the environmentalists tell you so.
Only someone who wants to pollute and who wants others to pay for that could possibly complain.
You have to prove there's a cost before you say I'm making others "pay" for it. Give me the numbers, I'd love to see them.
Here in SA we had a huge problem with plastic bag litter. So much so that one MP described them as 'our new national flower'.
So one MP has a pet project and a cute phrase, and everybody in the country has to pay more when they shop. And you somehow make it sound like that's a good thing. Let me ask you this, did your MP with the cute phrase actually *prove* that those plastic bags harm the environment? Or did they just show you photos of plastic bags in streets? If they did prove it, could you link me to the research? Because so far, in my state which is moving quickly down the slippery slope of this same moronic legislation, no politicians had bother to actually make a case for it any more compelling then your MP's cute little phrase.
What I react to is people convincing the government to FORCE me to act in a certain way. Environmentalists would be foaming at the mouth if some religious group tried to pass a law requiring every consumer to pray to their God when they entered a grocery store, but it's OK if you pass a law requiring the store to spend more money and charge me more. Of course the difference here is that if I am an atheist, then spending time talking to an imaginary God doesn't hurt me any, whereas the environmentalist "cause" costs me money.
If you want to convince me, convince me. Don't FORCE me, because I have a natural knee-jerk reaction to being told what to do and I'm more likely to actually pollute more out of spite than quietly accept commands from the environmentalist elite. You know, the multi-millionaires who fly their private jets to Bali so they can talk about forcing me to turn off my lights. Screw that.
No, plastic shopping bags are estimated to take 500-1000 years to decompose under optimal conditions. Some report that they actually never decompose, but end up leaving a plastic "dust" residue.
If you say so. I've always heard that they break down very quickly when exposed to sunlight, and I know from personal experience that those plastic bags, even ones that have been sitting in my basement, basically fall apart after only a few years... the old bags aren't worth trying to use, because they're breaking down.
In any case, you're also ignoring my other point, which is that plastic bags are currently one of the easiest things to reuse and recycle (other than maybe aluminum cans), and thus by banning them you're basically stopping tons of people from doing any reusing and recycling at all.
And in any case, I've still seen NO actual research that it makes any kind of difference whatsoever. I highly, strongly, doubt it does. I'd gladly change my mind should somebody present that research, but frankly I don't think that research even exists.
While you may view conservation of resources as someone being bossy and telling you shouldn't do something, others view it as their duty to minimize their impact on the Earth so that future generations may also enjoy Earth's resources and beauty.
Then they should do their duty, then fuck off and leave me alone.
Wanting the "save the planet" does not give you the right to tell other people how to live their lives. In fact, I'd go as far as saying that the environmental movement is about the most un-American aspect of the US today.
Don't believe everything you read on Slashdot. I have a launch-day 360 that I've played at least 10 hours a week for the last few years, and it's never given me a second of trouble. Obviously, there have been hardware problems, but it's not even close to as bad as people make it sound.
It's also a nice way for bossy people to tell other people how to live their lives.
Does banning those plastic shopping bags in cities (the new environmentalist trend in hip cities) actually stop any pollution? At all? They're already pretty much bio-degradable, and as somebody who gives not one crap about the environment, I can say that those are the *only* things in my entire house that I ever reuse or recycle. (The supposedly-better paper ones I just throw away. In the trash.) I seriously doubt it.
But if you're the kind of person who enjoys telling other people what to do, this is great for you! You can make their lives more annoying while pretending to be fighting for some vague cause! It doesn't matter whether you can actually prove it makes a difference or not, bossiness is its own reward!
It's just the 21st century version of Prohibition, and I'm sure it'll end just as well.
It's called "weather." The reason it's an issue now is because we have a lot of people who have a lot of money, hate a lot of corporations, and have the vague desire to "do good," and we have a lot of 24-hour news networks trying to cope with the fact that the average day contains, at best, half an hour of actual news.
In twenty years, we'll all look back on this and laugh, like we do now when we read old articles about how Africanized killer bees are going to kill everybody in the US.
The day the NWP is a reality is the last day of Canada as an independant country.
Is Canada an independent country now? I thought you had some of that weird "UK Territory" crap going on up there. :)
But seriously, do you seriously think anything will happen to Canada if a passage does open up? Other than, potentially, more tax revenue? Even if Russia, China or the US (as if!) decided to invade to secure the passage, they'd leave the 95% of Canada they don't care about alone. But imagine the resources it would take to actually secure that border! Unless Canada wants to charge a million bucks a ship, I doubt invasion would be better than just paying the toll.
This just seems like one of the most useless ideas Hollywood has had.
Hollywood made "Battlefield: Earth." This isn't even in the top ten, sorry buddy.
The link-ee is responsible for keeping the same content at the same URL, not the link-er. It couldn't possibly work any other way.
The government in this case farked-up. They could easily have used a few redirects to make sure their links still worked correctly, at least they could have if they were competent at keeping a domain name registered.
No, it's different. Subtle, but different.
In IE, the menus are outside of the tab. In Chrome, the menus are inside of the tab. (On Firefox, they're all outside of the tabs.)
The most correct solution would be to put the menus that apply only to the current tab inside of it, and the menus that apply to the entire browser outside of it. Both browsers fail at that, but err in different directions.
The inspect element tool is awesome, lets you see the tree and go to any element you can right click on.
IE Developer Toolbar does that in IE, and Firebug does that in Firefox. Nothing new there, you've just never bothered to install a browser plug-in that does it before. :)
The tweaked tab system is great. Create new windows from tabs, drag tabs between windows, consolidate windows into tabs.
All features from BeOS' original tabbed window implementation. I agree it's handy, but it's also simply sad that other applications ripping-off the tabbed windows from BeOS get it so damned wrong.
- Safari didn't follow many of the standard windows app behaviors, another snafu. You can't stuff OS X app behaviors down the throats of Windows users, and vice versa.
Chrome doesn't either, BTW.
* It doesn't respond to any of the normal contextual menu window actions, nor does it include the "icon" window management menu on the upper left (and yes, this is still present in Vista, just invisible).
* It doesn't follow your Windows theme or colors at all (sure, it probably fits in in Vista, but it looks like ass in XP.)
* It has major issues when used over Remote Desktop (I got really funky color rendering, like it was running in 256-color mode using the wrong palette or something.)
* Drag&drop doesn't work correctly (dragged&dropped images are saved corrupted, but right-clicking one and choosing Save As saves them correctly.)
* Scrolbar rendering fails on full-screen Flash pages.
* When both scrollbars are visible, there's a strange mystery-square inbetween them-- it's not a resize widget, and when you double-click it it selects the content of the page. I have no clue what that's supposed to be.
I haven't yet tried multi-monitor support, but I expect it to get that one wrong since virtually all quick-and-dirty ports do.
Also, they somehow managed to make window resizes a lot more flicker-y and annoying than even default Windows XP resizes, I have no idea how they managed that one... it's almost as if they're going out of their way to make their application look amateurish.
I mean, I know it's beta, but it's *really* beta as far as I'm concerned. I'm amazed at how many of the basics they got wrong; does anybody at Google even use Windows? I know it's a beta, but getting basic window management tasks wrong, tasks that would work BY DEFAULT if they weren't using some POS cross-platform UI library, is simple inexcusable even for a beta.
iTunes for windows was ported really well, it follows (for the most part, except menus)
Which iTunes are you using? iTunes is a bloated, crashing hog on Windows. Back when I used OS X, I'd tell people iTunes was great and they'd always tell me that iTunes was a bloated, crashing hog-- I never believed them until I tried it for myself, and they're right. Simple tasks like changing an ID3 tag on an MP4 movie can take several minutes, and while iTunes is chugging away there's no UI to indicate that it's completely frozen. And God-forbid your iTunes library reside on a network drive, that adds whole new layers of slow-ass suck.
Compare iTunes with the Zune software, for example, and you'll find the Zune software is far superior in virtually every way. It plays MP4s smoother, handles network drives better (at least in the current version, the initial release was kind of bad at it), it sorts and searches quicker. The UI's a bit annoying, but it's far above and beyond iTunes performance-wise.
Apple sucks ass at writing Windows software. So does Google, if Chrome's their best example.
Oh, right. The, what, 5-6 years it pretended to be IE just don't count at all? And Opera was even werse, it didn't say "IE Compatible", it flat-out said, "hey I'm IE!"
I had to write in checks for tons of webapps because of that, and now you're trying to whitewash my memory with your little "Opera doesn't?" Maybe not now, but for the 80% of its existence Opera *did* do that, it caused more problems than IE, Netscape and Firefox combined.
The star next to my name is where the 2 minute deadline comes from. Subscribers get early access to view stories. Which is nice, because that gives me a chance to beat out the trolls for first post, thus making it worth my while to comment.
So it's only worth your while to comment if you can be first? Are you using the "kindergarten method" of debate here, or what? Or are you using some alternative-universe version of Slashdot where subscribers can't comment once stories go live?
Just take your freakin' time. If what you're saying is worth saying, it's worth saying clearly regardless of the story's schedule.
The 2-minute deadline comes from...?
Of course, part of the problem was my decision to forgo explaining that statement in favor of focusing on more interesting information for the masses. Crowing may be fun, but it can make one look like an ass if too much of it is done.
First of all, crowing makes you look like an ass, but not as much as saying "the masses" (to imply everybody is dumber than yourself) so call it even on that point.
Secondly, posting something with some imaginary deadline without actually explaining something in the post seems like a waste of time-- yours and ours. Please, if you want to say something, say it... don't rely on people following links and reading a months-old long-ass thread.
Well, I'm not the only person who thought it was off-topic, so maybe its your writing that needs some work.
But, for what it's worth, I see what you were getting at now.
I'm going to be "that guy," sorry, but the browser's name is "Firefox." Only one capital F. For somebody who's been using it exclusively for about 2 years, you've done a great job of never looking at the browser's actual name.
With all due respect, pundits have been predicting that Google will release its own web browser for years. Certainly longer ago than Sept 1st. In any case, your post is off-topic, since it has nothing to do with Mozilla's comments. (This one's off-topic too, mods.)
All that happens is more things are patched onto old programs, they get relabeled as "new", and they use more memory, hard drive space and cpu power.
They also have more features. Those "things" you mention are features that customers asked for.
There certainly doesn't seem to be any impetus to make more compact, efficient programs
That's because people like having more features.
Look, if you're happy with the featureset of WordPerfect 5 and don't care about anything more than that, there's a solution for you: Run WordPerfect 5. It still runs just fine. Then you can let the rest of us have our features and be happy.