I have a list of about 20 games that wouldn't run in Windows 2000 Pro but run fine in Windows XP... even without considering "Compatibility Mode" XP ran 5-10 more games than 2000 Pro did.
If you're finding Windows 2000 more compatible with games than XP, you really need to look into your drivers and your DirectX install, because you have something wrong with your system.
Er; that's sleep mode, not hibernate. Unless there's some option I'm missing on my iBook, I don't think OS X has a way to hibernate completely like Windows laptops/desktops do. That said, the battery on my iBook, in sleep mode, lasts almost a full *week* of non-use, so it's not a big deal.
God forbid somebody make a post like that without the obligatory "works for me!" reply that utterly misses the point.
"Hibernate works for me! All I had to do is upgrade the kernel, change a line in my etc/apt/sources.list, assign a 'sudo' command with a session manager, set up 'sleepd' to hibernate when the battery drops and there are a couple glitches that mean I have to restart my window session, but hibernate works great! It was SO EASY!"
1) Linux *is* hard-to-use. I might be spoiled by owning a Mac, but the poor quality of open-source GUIs consistantly amazes me. Just the other day I tried some MP3 sharing software that blew me away with crappiness.
2) Windows has already shaken the blue screen of death everywhere except Slashdot. Then again, people on Slashdot frequently complain about Microsoft Bob a product that existed for a few months in 1995 and was soon cancelled.
Uh, yeah, which kind of moots his entire point. If you're the kind of person who thinks Divx was a good idea, I don't think anyone really cares about what you think.
"You know what I really like? Copy protection! I've never heard of copy protection making a DVD not work, or look like ass, or cause any kind of compatibility problem before!"
Leela: "I'm going to remind Fry of his humanity the way only a WOMAN can!" Professor: "You're going to do his laundry!?" Amy slaps Professor... there's one in "Roswell that Ends Well" about not cooking enough roasts, too.
Re:Whose task is copy&paste
on
The Power of X
·
· Score: 1
So they did the complex stuff before working on the very basics of the program (like copy and paste)? And people wonder why open source apps suck so much.
Re:Whose task is copy&paste
on
The Power of X
·
· Score: 1
No. I use a Macintosh and all the paint programs I use already do this, and have since 1984.
Re:Whose task is copy&paste
on
The Power of X
·
· Score: 1
Why is that "hardly surprising?" I think your expectations are too low here. The only thing you need to do to copy a circular selection is to pad the rest of the rectangle with transparancy, why doesn't the paint program do it?
So stop yer whining, go buy a license, and make one!
Isn't that what Linux users are always saying when someone else points out a missing feature in their program? "Well, grab the source and do it your damn self!"
Not really. Good usability has to be planned from the start, otherwise, you'll end up with a situation where the usability guy needs a feature (or piece of data or something) that's impossible to get in the current code.
Slashdotters, when you criticize anything in the OSS world, always come back with:
"But it's just as bad in Windows!"
The classic example is saying that Linux is hard to install. "But Windows is just as hard!"
It misses the point entirely. You can't use that cop-out if you want Linux to be better than Windows. If installing is hard in Linux, *WHETHER OR NOT* it's also hard in Windows, you should work to make it easier. Period.
1) They must communicate what action will be taken when the button is pressed.
Bad: Yes, No, Cancel. Good: Save, Don't Save, Cancel.
2) The default option must be:
a) The least harmful option. (In our example Cancel.)
b) Set apart from the rest. (Classic MacOS used a double-outline, OS X uses a blue button instead of white, Windows uses a darker outline.)
If these two conditions are met, the *ORDER* of the buttons becomes secondary, as long as it's consistant. (i.e. ALL OS X buttons must be a certain way, and ALL Windows buttons should be a certain way, but it doesn't particularly matter which way. Think of it like roads... in the US as ALL drive on the right and things are fine, in the UK we ALL drive on the left and things are fine, you only have problems when some people drive on the right, and some on the left.)
Good point. Just yesterday someone advertised some open source product on slashdot that could be used to find new musicians who put their work on the web to be listened to for free.
The problem was it had a terrible, terrible, terrible, GUI. Painfully terrible. And yet they're advertising this to other people!
When questioned, one of the developers said, "yes, that's so we can recruit more developers." Uh, hey buddy, here's a tip: Find a way to recruit developers that doesn't involve scaring away the very people who (if not for the shitty GUI) would be using your program right now. Not only are they failing to market a working program, they're actually working AGAINST themselves.
ISP can never secure your box. ISP has to be defaulted to be open at least for it's internal network, which is often large.... It just turned out that he was from other department and temporally filling the gap in support.
I never claimed otherwise. I said that people who follow the advice of their ISP will have secure boxes.
1. Linux doesn't suggest firewall, it is enabled by default 2. So, having firewall that works in both directions is out-of-touch? Windows fw blocks only outside traffic, inside is not checked.
1. XP's firewall is enabled by default if you tell Windows that it's using a home connection (either DSL, Cable Modem, or Dial-Up Model.) If you tell it it's on a LAN, the firewall is off by default. XP SP2's is on by default regardless. What behavior would you recommend? 2. "inside" traffic? What are you talking about? Why would Windows firewall off localhost? Or do you mean something different?
Yeah, Windows starts Office faster, otherwise everything is dog slow
Wrong. Is Windows as fast as a Linux install? I think everyone will agree that Windows boots faster than Linux, that's a no-brainer. You *might* have an install of Linux that runs faster than Windows in general, but if you do it's probably been custom-compiled for the specific machine or something similar. Either way, calling Windows "dog-slow" just proves my point-- you don't use Windows.
Oh, also, Office doesn't have any hooks into the OS. The Office and the Windows teams don't even talk to each other.
Me and you obviously live on different planet. On our planet Windows is like a magnet to viruses, spyware and other malware.
Ok... but what does that have to do with system stability? Oh right, nothing.
Not for my needs. I agree that everyone without a clue what to do with his computer or someone who just wants to play games it is easier. But then again I have a clue and I have PS2.
Ok, but the Windows install is easier to use for *everyone's* needs. It's not like making the OS easier to use for neophytes at the same time makes it hard to use for advanced users. Make that claim at a OS X user meeting and you'd be laughed out the door.
Are you saying that everyone who wants to play videogames on the PC doesn't have a clue? What about MMORPGs or flight simulators? Great, you own a PS2, but why can't you accept that, hey, maybe I *like* to break out my joystick and play Jane's WWII Fighters sometimes?
Better security model as in....???? Windows hasn't got even real multi user environment.... This is the same tragedy as in most of Windows software.
So now you're blaming Microsoft because some other developer ignored their suggestions and has buggy software. Look, you can get the best OS on the planet, and still write buggy software for it... this argument has absolutely nothing to do with Windows. And Windows' Policy system is, from my experience, easier to work with and more powerful than Linux permissions are.
Windows is just getting with security where Linux was 5 years ago. For your information. Linux is moving away again with SELinux to be enabled by default.
The default install of Windows might suck, but it has the capability of being just as, or more, secure than Linux. As for not being a true multiuser system... who cares? I have a OS X box that's a "true multiuser system" and I never make use of more multiuser features than Windows has anyway.
Your comment is too stupid to be modded up, even if you beg as you do.
It might be stupid, but it's not as stupid as your reply.
At least I can tell the difference between "lose" and "loose" and don't spell Microsoft with a dollar-sign like a third grader might.
My point was that Slashdot users are out-of-touch with what Windows does; you proved it. Your so biased that you can't even begin to objectively compare, say, Suse with Windows XP... you'd write off XP as pathetic before you even got through the splash screen.
Uh, I'm going to play Star Trek nerd here and correct you.
Scotty and McCoy went to a plant that manufactored plexiglass because plexiglass was strong enough to hold the water and whales they needed if it were thick enough. (There's one part of the movie where Scotty calculates how thick the plexiglass needs to be to finish building their tank.) Since they had no money, they couldn't pay for the plexiglass needed so instead Scotty drew up a formula for transparent aluminum in exchange for the plexiglass. Even with the formula, it would take that plant years and years to be reconfigured to produce transparent aluminum, and they say so in the movie.
So... yes. Grandparent is right; they traded the formula for the plexiglass.
Re:Linux made huge advances in user-friendliness
on
Linux Desktop Guide
·
· Score: 1
I already replied to this once. (The difference is that with Windows, to go from 98 to XP, you click "upgrade" in a dialog box and there's no BIOS involved.)
But I also want to say that there's this horrible attitude on Slashdot that when somebody criticizes something about Linux, the reply is always "well, it's the same way with Windows!" Yes it is the same way with Windows, so what? Doesn't your community want Linux to be *better* than Windows? So why settle with 'same as Windows' when you can do 'better than Windows?'
Re:Linux made huge advances in user-friendliness
on
Linux Desktop Guide
·
· Score: 1
If you're going from Windows 98 to Windows XP, you insert the XP CD and hit "Upgrade"... there's no BIOS involved. That how it's different.
If you're going from Windows 98 to Linux (no matter how easy the distribution), it's harder no matter what. (Part of this is because your HD needs to be repartitioned, and there's really no way for the Linux distro to run otherwise.)
Slashdot Mirror
I'm replying to the parent, not to the article.
Like what?
Seriously?
You're kidding us.
I have a list of about 20 games that wouldn't run in Windows 2000 Pro but run fine in Windows XP... even without considering "Compatibility Mode" XP ran 5-10 more games than 2000 Pro did.
If you're finding Windows 2000 more compatible with games than XP, you really need to look into your drivers and your DirectX install, because you have something wrong with your system.
The Start button was the revolutionary new interface in Windows 95.
Er; that's sleep mode, not hibernate. Unless there's some option I'm missing on my iBook, I don't think OS X has a way to hibernate completely like Windows laptops/desktops do. That said, the battery on my iBook, in sleep mode, lasts almost a full *week* of non-use, so it's not a big deal.
God forbid somebody make a post like that without the obligatory "works for me!" reply that utterly misses the point.
"Hibernate works for me! All I had to do is upgrade the kernel, change a line in my etc/apt/sources.list, assign a 'sudo' command with a session manager, set up 'sleepd' to hibernate when the battery drops and there are a couple glitches that mean I have to restart my window session, but hibernate works great! It was SO EASY!"
Feh, Linux users.
1) Linux *is* hard-to-use. I might be spoiled by owning a Mac, but the poor quality of open-source GUIs consistantly amazes me. Just the other day I tried some MP3 sharing software that blew me away with crappiness.
2) Windows has already shaken the blue screen of death everywhere except Slashdot. Then again, people on Slashdot frequently complain about Microsoft Bob a product that existed for a few months in 1995 and was soon cancelled.
Insightful? How about OFF-TOPIC!?
What does this have to do with debugging Office?
Uh, yeah, which kind of moots his entire point. If you're the kind of person who thinks Divx was a good idea, I don't think anyone really cares about what you think.
"You know what I really like? Copy protection! I've never heard of copy protection making a DVD not work, or look like ass, or cause any kind of compatibility problem before!"
So far the companies selling rebranded GPL software on EBay seem to be doing ok...
Leela: "I'm going to remind Fry of his humanity the way only a WOMAN can!" ... there's one in "Roswell that Ends Well" about not cooking enough roasts, too.
Professor: "You're going to do his laundry!?"
Amy slaps Professor
So they did the complex stuff before working on the very basics of the program (like copy and paste)? And people wonder why open source apps suck so much.
No. I use a Macintosh and all the paint programs I use already do this, and have since 1984.
Why is that "hardly surprising?" I think your expectations are too low here. The only thing you need to do to copy a circular selection is to pad the rest of the rectangle with transparancy, why doesn't the paint program do it?
Yes, I'm sure that a movie trailer posted on quicktime.apple.com would be Microsoft-only. Didn't you know? Apple's a Microsoft-only shop now.
Maybe you should try installing the Quicktime Player before trying to play Quicktime Movies, eh?
So stop yer whining, go buy a license, and make one!
Isn't that what Linux users are always saying when someone else points out a missing feature in their program? "Well, grab the source and do it your damn self!"
I dunno. I don't even use Gnome. You're sure worked-up though.
Not really. Good usability has to be planned from the start, otherwise, you'll end up with a situation where the usability guy needs a feature (or piece of data or something) that's impossible to get in the current code.
And even worse is when development of useful features is delayed because the developers are too busy figuring out how to get skins to work.
Hey developers, people ask for skinning on every application, that's a given. Here's your challenge: IGNORE THEM!
Slashdotters, when you criticize anything in the OSS world, always come back with:
"But it's just as bad in Windows!"
The classic example is saying that Linux is hard to install. "But Windows is just as hard!"
It misses the point entirely. You can't use that cop-out if you want Linux to be better than Windows. If installing is hard in Linux, *WHETHER OR NOT* it's also hard in Windows, you should work to make it easier. Period.
The main thing about buttons is this:
1) They must communicate what action will be taken when the button is pressed.
Bad: Yes, No, Cancel.
Good: Save, Don't Save, Cancel.
2) The default option must be:
a) The least harmful option. (In our example Cancel.)
b) Set apart from the rest. (Classic MacOS used a double-outline, OS X uses a blue button instead of white, Windows uses a darker outline.)
If these two conditions are met, the *ORDER* of the buttons becomes secondary, as long as it's consistant. (i.e. ALL OS X buttons must be a certain way, and ALL Windows buttons should be a certain way, but it doesn't particularly matter which way. Think of it like roads... in the US as ALL drive on the right and things are fine, in the UK we ALL drive on the left and things are fine, you only have problems when some people drive on the right, and some on the left.)
Good point. Just yesterday someone advertised some open source product on slashdot that could be used to find new musicians who put their work on the web to be listened to for free.
The problem was it had a terrible, terrible, terrible, GUI. Painfully terrible. And yet they're advertising this to other people!
When questioned, one of the developers said, "yes, that's so we can recruit more developers." Uh, hey buddy, here's a tip: Find a way to recruit developers that doesn't involve scaring away the very people who (if not for the shitty GUI) would be using your program right now. Not only are they failing to market a working program, they're actually working AGAINST themselves.
ISP can never secure your box. ISP has to be defaulted to be open at least for it's internal network, which is often large. ... It just turned out that he was from other department and temporally filling the gap in support.
... This is the same tragedy as in most of Windows software.
I never claimed otherwise. I said that people who follow the advice of their ISP will have secure boxes.
1. Linux doesn't suggest firewall, it is enabled by default
2. So, having firewall that works in both directions is out-of-touch? Windows fw blocks only outside traffic, inside is not checked.
1. XP's firewall is enabled by default if you tell Windows that it's using a home connection (either DSL, Cable Modem, or Dial-Up Model.) If you tell it it's on a LAN, the firewall is off by default. XP SP2's is on by default regardless. What behavior would you recommend?
2. "inside" traffic? What are you talking about? Why would Windows firewall off localhost? Or do you mean something different?
Yeah, Windows starts Office faster, otherwise everything is dog slow
Wrong. Is Windows as fast as a Linux install? I think everyone will agree that Windows boots faster than Linux, that's a no-brainer. You *might* have an install of Linux that runs faster than Windows in general, but if you do it's probably been custom-compiled for the specific machine or something similar. Either way, calling Windows "dog-slow" just proves my point-- you don't use Windows.
Oh, also, Office doesn't have any hooks into the OS. The Office and the Windows teams don't even talk to each other.
Me and you obviously live on different planet. On our planet Windows is like a magnet to viruses, spyware and other malware.
Ok... but what does that have to do with system stability? Oh right, nothing.
Not for my needs. I agree that everyone without a clue what to do with his computer or someone who just wants to play games it is easier. But then again I have a clue and I have PS2.
Ok, but the Windows install is easier to use for *everyone's* needs. It's not like making the OS easier to use for neophytes at the same time makes it hard to use for advanced users. Make that claim at a OS X user meeting and you'd be laughed out the door.
Are you saying that everyone who wants to play videogames on the PC doesn't have a clue? What about MMORPGs or flight simulators? Great, you own a PS2, but why can't you accept that, hey, maybe I *like* to break out my joystick and play Jane's WWII Fighters sometimes?
Better security model as in....???? Windows hasn't got even real multi user environment.
So now you're blaming Microsoft because some other developer ignored their suggestions and has buggy software. Look, you can get the best OS on the planet, and still write buggy software for it... this argument has absolutely nothing to do with Windows. And Windows' Policy system is, from my experience, easier to work with and more powerful than Linux permissions are.
Windows is just getting with security where Linux was 5 years ago. For your information. Linux is moving away again with SELinux to be enabled by default.
The default install of Windows might suck, but it has the capability of being just as, or more, secure than Linux. As for not being a true multiuser system... who cares? I have a OS X box that's a "true multiuser system" and I never make use of more multiuser features than Windows has anyway.
Your comment is too stupid to be modded up, even if you beg as you do.
It might be stupid, but it's not as stupid as your reply.
At least I can tell the difference between "lose" and "loose" and don't spell Microsoft with a dollar-sign like a third grader might.
My point was that Slashdot users are out-of-touch with what Windows does; you proved it. Your so biased that you can't even begin to objectively compare, say, Suse with Windows XP... you'd write off XP as pathetic before you even got through the splash screen.
Uh, I'm going to play Star Trek nerd here and correct you.
Scotty and McCoy went to a plant that manufactored plexiglass because plexiglass was strong enough to hold the water and whales they needed if it were thick enough. (There's one part of the movie where Scotty calculates how thick the plexiglass needs to be to finish building their tank.) Since they had no money, they couldn't pay for the plexiglass needed so instead Scotty drew up a formula for transparent aluminum in exchange for the plexiglass. Even with the formula, it would take that plant years and years to be reconfigured to produce transparent aluminum, and they say so in the movie.
So... yes. Grandparent is right; they traded the formula for the plexiglass.
I already replied to this once. (The difference is that with Windows, to go from 98 to XP, you click "upgrade" in a dialog box and there's no BIOS involved.)
But I also want to say that there's this horrible attitude on Slashdot that when somebody criticizes something about Linux, the reply is always "well, it's the same way with Windows!" Yes it is the same way with Windows, so what? Doesn't your community want Linux to be *better* than Windows? So why settle with 'same as Windows' when you can do 'better than Windows?'
If you're going from Windows 98 to Windows XP, you insert the XP CD and hit "Upgrade"... there's no BIOS involved. That how it's different.
If you're going from Windows 98 to Linux (no matter how easy the distribution), it's harder no matter what. (Part of this is because your HD needs to be repartitioned, and there's really no way for the Linux distro to run otherwise.)