Yes, they take up more space. But my point was that "memory has gotten cheaper" should not be used as an excuse to justify the step to 64-Bit, which would use more memory.
Why is/. greenlighting yet another article just for the sake of MS-bashing? Other posters have already pointed out the remaining process memory limits and consumer driver issues that make this a non-starter technically.
I'd think because far too many people still assume that it's an architectural limit, when it's not.
Is it "illegal" for Ford to sell me a car that's computer governed to 105 MPH even though the engine can get it up over 130? Can I complain to the FTC if I chip the car to remove the limit and then destroy the transmission?
This is a bad analogy, as restricting someone from addressing over 4 GB of RAM is not a legal issue.
Now, you say, "Gee, it's 2009! Who's Microsoft to say I don't need 4GB of RAM?" Well, XP is 8 years old and that is when this limitation was introduced.
You conveniently forget to answer the question of "Then why didn't they remove it for Vista?".
Or how about HD enthusiasts who buy a PS3 and a HDTV and connect them with composite, and then rave about their gorgeous, superior image? I shit you not.
Screw this "memory has gotten cheaper" thinking. It's what programmers use to justify their sloppy programming. Use memory efficiently, so other programs can use it.
Since when should people take pride in adding tons of hacks and work-arounds for one particular web browser? If anyone's lazy, it's the ones who don't bother to make a website standards compliant in the first place.
The idea of the console industry is to lose money on the consoles and make it up on the games.
That idea is fairly recent. It started with the PSX or PS2. Before that, consoles were not sold at a loss. Nintendo certainly has never sold one at a loss, even today.
Lately, DLC has been an excellent way to make the games cheaper, because there is further revenue to be had on the DLC later on.
Turning off JavaScript every single time I visit Wikipedia or Wikia is too much of a bother. Furthermore, some features offered by JavaScript are useful.
These quality standards are a double-edged sword, though. You may have some great information that doesn't have references, or something may be blatantly obvious, but if it doesn't have references that's considered by Wikipedia to be a reputable source, it gets reverted.
And of course, there's bias and untruths. All that seems to matter is references, truth be damned.
Having everything into one place is easier, and means you don't have to search for that subject-specific wiki.
More to the point, these specific wikis are often hosted on Wikia, which is bloated with JavaScript and has a horrible lay-out. Lately, Wikipedia has also started bloating its pages with JavaScript, though...
Firefox doesn't do it natively because Flash is a plug-in that has full control. There is no way to stop the placement of Flash cookies. BetterPrivacy is a specific band-aid.
Allow me to correct myself. While I was right in that an IE shell came up with the innovation, it wasn't MyIE2. It was actually NetCaptor. From Wikipedia:
Browser tabs were introduced by NetCaptor in 1998, later by IBrowse in 1999, following by myIE2 and MultiZilla (an extension for the Mozilla Application Suite[1]) and Opera in 2000, Mozilla Application Suite in 2001, Konqueror and Safari in 2003, Internet Explorer 7[2] in 2006 and Google Chrome in 2008.
I'm sure most of those ideas had already been done elsewhere. For one thing, tabs in a web browser was done by MyIE2, a browser shell for IE, first. Opera did not invent it.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, they take up more space. But my point was that "memory has gotten cheaper" should not be used as an excuse to justify the step to 64-Bit, which would use more memory.
Windows XP 64-Bit has little driver support. Especially compared to 32-Bit. That's why people don't like it.
I'd think because far too many people still assume that it's an architectural limit, when it's not.
This is a bad analogy, as restricting someone from addressing over 4 GB of RAM is not a legal issue.
You conveniently forget to answer the question of "Then why didn't they remove it for Vista?".
Or how about HD enthusiasts who buy a PS3 and a HDTV and connect them with composite, and then rave about their gorgeous, superior image? I shit you not.
Screw this "memory has gotten cheaper" thinking. It's what programmers use to justify their sloppy programming. Use memory efficiently, so other programs can use it.
Both of you have a virus already. It's called "apostrophe abuse".
What's a Dotslasher?
Now? Game journalism has always sucked.
Since when should people take pride in adding tons of hacks and work-arounds for one particular web browser? If anyone's lazy, it's the ones who don't bother to make a website standards compliant in the first place.
That idea is fairly recent. It started with the PSX or PS2. Before that, consoles were not sold at a loss. Nintendo certainly has never sold one at a loss, even today.
Except that the games have not become cheaper.
And what do you know, that's the price point of the Xbox 360 Arcade (+ a cheap HDD) and the Wii. The PS3 is getting close to it.
And you ignore the fact that non-gaming PCs are generally much cheaper than gaming PCs.
Once you add code for a specific plug-in to clean up its mess, the foot is in the door, and then you'd have to do it for others too (eg Silverlight).
Wikia is a collection of sub-wikis. It's not like Wikipedia. Also, its lay-out is bad and its JavaScript is bloated.
Turning off JavaScript every single time I visit Wikipedia or Wikia is too much of a bother. Furthermore, some features offered by JavaScript are useful.
I had a similar book. The literal translation is "Know you why...?", and the proper translation is "Do you know why...?".
I don't think this is what you were going for. :)
If I care about the article and see a mistake, I'll fix it. But if I don't, then I don't bother anymore because it'll get back to hell soon anyway.
These quality standards are a double-edged sword, though. You may have some great information that doesn't have references, or something may be blatantly obvious, but if it doesn't have references that's considered by Wikipedia to be a reputable source, it gets reverted.
And of course, there's bias and untruths. All that seems to matter is references, truth be damned.
Having everything into one place is easier, and means you don't have to search for that subject-specific wiki.
More to the point, these specific wikis are often hosted on Wikia, which is bloated with JavaScript and has a horrible lay-out. Lately, Wikipedia has also started bloating its pages with JavaScript, though...
Firefox doesn't do it natively because Flash is a plug-in that has full control. There is no way to stop the placement of Flash cookies. BetterPrivacy is a specific band-aid.
"he" is a woman.
Allow me to correct myself. While I was right in that an IE shell came up with the innovation, it wasn't MyIE2. It was actually NetCaptor. From Wikipedia:
I'm sure most of those ideas had already been done elsewhere. For one thing, tabs in a web browser was done by MyIE2, a browser shell for IE, first. Opera did not invent it.