1 is security. But then you are assuming that Mozilla's codecs are more secure than those proved by the OS.
You didn't actually read their reasons if that's what you come up with on that point. There are plenty of websites out there that urge you to install their own codec to view their video content. They're actually malware.
There are more reasons, but I trust that you can go read them yourself.
Application provided codecs make as much sense as Application provided printer, sound, and graphics drivers.
Every web browser already has their own libraries for decoding image formats. It's not such a stretch for it to also include libraries for other embedded content.
Wow... I can't think of any good reason to still be running anything less than XP, if you're going to go down the windows road...
If it works for you, it works, and upgrading just for the sake of upgrading is stupid. An old box running Windows NT4 or earlier or a version of Win9x isn't going to run better with a newer Windows version. Quite the contrary, in fact.
Either you still don't understand or you've been living under a rock for the past year. There are good reasons that Firefox doesn't use the OS-provided codecs, and I'm not going to repeat them YET AGAIN.
According to Wikipedia (yeah, I know), the N64 could do 256x224, 320x240 and 640x480 (with the PAL system also being capable of 768x576). Games that used 640x480 tended to need the RAM upgrade pack, though.
People have obviously found numerous inaccuracies in his film, and to maintain that "nobody" has found them is either deliberate misstatement or willful obtuseness.
No, what you have linked to is results of people/articles claiming to have found inaccuracies. That doesn't rebut his statement at all. I can claim that the moon is bigger than the Earth, but that doesn't rebut everyone's claims of the opposite.
If you don't like Facebook, don't use it. How hard is this to understand? How is it really impacting your life, other than that it's, well, everywhere in the news and on promotional websites and so forth?
Tons of websites now have a "share this on Facebook" button and Facebook's "Like" button. They waste bandwidth, screen estate, and slow down page loading.
Other people who do use Facebook urge me to join it.
It brings down the value of privacy, which has an indirect effect on me because I interact with people who do use it. People think it's all right to take pictures of others, put them on Facebook, and tag them with your name.
LAN parties haven't been about playing games together in a long time. They're for having regular parties and sharing files (mostly porn). They only actually play when the press is present.
From another perspective, even these cubicles are unnecessary since you could put out a few couches and the employees will work with the laptops from just about anywhere they want.
LOL! Thanks, that really cracked me up. Now, here's an alternative translation for us wacky metric system users:
In the 1970s, American corporations typically thought they needed 152,40 to 213,36 square meters per employee to build an effective office, but the LA Times reports that today's average is a little more than 60,96 square meters per person, and the space allocation could hit a mere 15,24 square meters by 2015. "We're at a very interesting inflection point in real estate history," says Peter Miscovich who studies workplace trends. "The next 10 years will be very different than the last 30." Although cubicles have shrunk from an average of 19,51 meters to 14,94 meters in recent years, companies are looking for more ways to compress their real estate footprint with offices that squeeze together workstations while setting aside a few rooms where employees can conduct meetings or have private phone conversations. "Younger workers' lives are all integrated, not segregated," says Larry Rivard. "They have learned to work anywhere — at a kitchen table or wherever.""
Are you stupid or something? What you're doing is essentially telling him to go to the library and check out all the science books by a certain author because he may have the answer to his scientific question.
Your saying the review is wrong because they've not given it the score you would. You're opinion is fine, but perhaps most people disagree with you and more closely align with IGNs opinion.
Seriously? The recommended specs called for a 2.6GHz Pentium 4. I'm surprised that you would have problems with something from 2006. Perhaps it is a networking issue. Or maybe it belongs in my category of poorly performing console ports to which I referred in my previous post.
Most of the issues have to do with a very bad implementation of POST effects, used for light saber-like weapons and other glowing objects. The slowdown is noticeable both offline and online, so it's definitely not a networking issue. That being said, there is a networking issue that introduces noticeable lag between a hit and its effects, but it doesn't happen for everyone.
I'm inclined to think that it's a poor console port, but the PS2 version also has its share of performance problems.
Ah yes, I had forgotten about that since I don't own a PS3. Does it make a noticable difference? Do the textures get higher resolution or something?
From what I hear from PS3 owners, it does make a noticeable difference. I don't know what kind of up-scaling it does, but higher resolution of textures due to the increased video resolution is probably part of it.
Especially the Wii would of course benefit from an upgrade.
Part of the Wii's success is that development on it is cheap thanks to not needing to adopt different development practices (necessary by multi-core CPUs) and invest in HD graphics.
You don't have to buy games when they are released, you know. In that sense, console games are just as cheap (if not cheaper) as they go down in price in only a couple of months.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you for once again confirming that you don't get it at all. Excuses my ass.
You didn't actually read their reasons if that's what you come up with on that point. There are plenty of websites out there that urge you to install their own codec to view their video content. They're actually malware.
There are more reasons, but I trust that you can go read them yourself.
Every web browser already has their own libraries for decoding image formats. It's not such a stretch for it to also include libraries for other embedded content.
Yes, it does. VLC provides its own collection of codecs instead of using the OS-provided ones.
If it works for you, it works, and upgrading just for the sake of upgrading is stupid. An old box running Windows NT4 or earlier or a version of Win9x isn't going to run better with a newer Windows version. Quite the contrary, in fact.
Either you still don't understand or you've been living under a rock for the past year. There are good reasons that Firefox doesn't use the OS-provided codecs, and I'm not going to repeat them YET AGAIN.
I'm European, and therefore use the comma as the decimal mark, you insensitive clod!
According to Wikipedia (yeah, I know), the N64 could do 256x224, 320x240 and 640x480 (with the PAL system also being capable of 768x576). Games that used 640x480 tended to need the RAM upgrade pack, though.
No, what you have linked to is results of people/articles claiming to have found inaccuracies. That doesn't rebut his statement at all. I can claim that the moon is bigger than the Earth, but that doesn't rebut everyone's claims of the opposite.
Nice try.
How's that for a start?
704x320 graphics? What are you talking about? They were 320x240 graphics.
LAN parties haven't been about playing games together in a long time. They're for having regular parties and sharing files (mostly porn). They only actually play when the press is present.
Which is quite a shame. It offered me another place with cached pages, and their video search engine was the best.
Nowadays it doesn't matter if you use Yahoo! Search or Bing; they use the same backend.
If you want the men to fry their balls, go ahead.
LOL! Thanks, that really cracked me up. Now, here's an alternative translation for us wacky metric system users:
Are you stupid or something? What you're doing is essentially telling him to go to the library and check out all the science books by a certain author because he may have the answer to his scientific question.
Looks like there's no problem if you don't allow cookies from them in the first place, as the tracking system is based on them.
Yes, I program, and overwrite mode is something I never use.
Which is where HD came in to give consumers another reason to buy new TVs.
It's the reverse for me. The Insert key is so close to the Delete key that I sometimes hit it by accident. What does anyone need the Insert key for?
Because of the horrible grammatical errors, that is. For some reason Slashdot isn't showing the style on my em elements.
I'm glad you're not in journalism.
Most of the issues have to do with a very bad implementation of POST effects, used for light saber-like weapons and other glowing objects. The slowdown is noticeable both offline and online, so it's definitely not a networking issue. That being said, there is a networking issue that introduces noticeable lag between a hit and its effects, but it doesn't happen for everyone.
I'm inclined to think that it's a poor console port, but the PS2 version also has its share of performance problems.
From what I hear from PS3 owners, it does make a noticeable difference. I don't know what kind of up-scaling it does, but higher resolution of textures due to the increased video resolution is probably part of it.
Part of the Wii's success is that development on it is cheap thanks to not needing to adopt different development practices (necessary by multi-core CPUs) and invest in HD graphics.
Not everyone is a graphics whore demanding better than 1080p. Remember that. Current generation graphics are expensive enough to create as it is.
You don't have to buy games when they are released, you know. In that sense, console games are just as cheap (if not cheaper) as they go down in price in only a couple of months.