 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> *All* online games I have tried so far have been like that. These
> include all online multiplayer arena/tournament-type FPS shooters (such
> as Quake3 and Team Fortress 2), team-based online shooters (Counter-Strike)
> and MUDs (such as batmud).
I must admit, playing CSS against bots is usually downright boring. In
fact, even playing it against human players is generally not very exciting.
Playing it against my clanmates when we're all using VoIP to talk to
each other is anothe matter... suddenly running around killing people
becomes a really rather social experience. Weird, eh?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Phone - " Sorry, I'm not interested in anyting you have to sell.
>> Goodbye"
>
> Add "Stop calling me, because you will never win business from me by
> being annoying/persistent".
Thanks for the tips, guys...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> At least you have heard of nethack, haven't you? You must have.
Sure. I've heard of it. I have no concept of what it *is*, but I
recognise the name...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> This constant need that some members here have to continue to put Andy
> down *must* stop. I'm not going to name names - you know who you are.
> Knock it off already.
I think you'll have to speak louder than that, but anyway...
PS. Bukkakke.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis <nam### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> > The problem is that much of our "modern" software includes features that
> > no sane user wants to use.
> it's not just feature bloat: the sheer number of code libraries and multiple
> layers of indirection given modern programming environments is a huge factor
> for slowness. Thus, hardware gets faster and faster and software bloated and
> bloated. For us, it's always about the same.
It may be a factor for slowness, but it doesn't mean that software is
actually slower in modern hardware than it was in ancient hardware.
Another factor is that today you can do much more and at much larger
scales than back then. There's also better interactivity between programs,
especially in Windows (where you can, for example, embed an object from
one program into the document of another, and edit it in-situ). "Multiple
layers of indirection" is not always a bad thing.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote:
>>> Yes. A few weeks ago, Toshiba announced they lost and are no longer
>>> manufacturing HD DVD players.
>
>> So yeah. Blu-ray didn't win. HD-DVD gave up :)
>
> Fortunately the Blu-Ray format is the (slightly) better of the two
> anyways.
So which one has the most psychopathic DRM system?
[Presumably both of them were loaded to the hilt...]
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> You seem to refuse to accept that modern software *does more* than 10
> years old software. You always talk as if they did the *exact same thing*,
> just much more slowly.
OK, so can anybody name anything that Word can do now that it couldn't
before?
Hmm, let me see.
- It has grammer checking now.
- It does mail merge.
- It has macros.
- Er... WordArt?
- Erm... no, I'm done here.
Not sure why any of those things should make it so vastly slower...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook wrote:
> 1993, surfing the web was *not* generally faster. The web was this
> strange new thing, people used gifs more often than jpegs, *didn't* use
> img size tags so the browser (if it had the ability, given the
> attributes) would know how to do page layout so you didn't see anything
> until the page finished loading, had background images on every page
> whether it was useful or not, loaded MIDI or wav files to play at full
> volume, and not split their site into useful subsections so you just had
> one long long page...
>
> ...great heavens, I just described the average MySpace page.
>
> *bangs head against wall*
I almost want to frame this post and put it on my wall...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> The main point is whether you were able to run X with it or not.
> To simply use the console you could use a microwave oven. ;)
...and somewhere there's probably a consumer microwave oven that *runs*
Linux. (Hey, the ADSL modem I bought runs Linux, why not a nicrowave oven?)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
47d4bd0f@news.povray.org...
> It's not a question of "so many features *I* don't need to use", but "so
> many features that *most* users don't need to use".
But this is where the fallacy is! Unless you know "most people" your
knowledge of what they use is limited to your acquaintances, which may or
may not be representative. Obviously noone uses every available feature, but
the point is that given the sheer number of Excel users, all the features
end up being used by a significant number of people who are dependent of
them for their work. Possibly, only a limited percentage of Excel users use
the solver or VBA for instance, but those who do *** really *** use them,
because they're fundamental business tools.
> I don't know that 1-2-3 would be completely useless by modern standards -
> I think a lot of tasks that people use Excel for these days aren't much
> beyond what 1-2-3 was capable of.
And 1-2-3, in spite of having a large user base and being a fantatisc
product in its own right, was killed by Excel. People switched in droves,
for very good reasons. After Excel came, we looked at our crummy 1-2-3
graphs and reports, at our painfully obfuscated 1-2-3 macros, and switched.
Overnight.
You're vastly underestimating users and what regular people - and
particularly business users - are able to do with office software and what
they expect from their spreadsheets, word processors, databases etc. I
understand that there's this curious myth about business users being
clueless drones who just write a letter once in a while and occasionally use
a spreadsheet to make an addition and then put the result in Powerpoint
using Comic Sans, but that's just that, a myth.
G.
--
*****************************
http://www.oyonale.com
*****************************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray, Cinema 4D and Poser computer images
- Posters
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
