 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Patrick Elliott
Subject: Re: Ok, who didn't know, or at least guess this?
Date: 7 Feb 2009 16:30:43
Message: <498dfd83$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> an old copy of partition magic and the guts to try, I would wipe it,
>> move D: closer to the end of the drive, then resize "both" so that the
>> OS and data/program partitions where bigger. lol
>
> Vista would make it pretty easy to do that, if you had a place to store
> D: in the meantime. I'm pretty sure you can make a ghost of a drive and
> restore it to a bigger partition, so you could ghost off D:, expand C:,
> and restore D:, potentially having to expand D: again after.
>
> Otherwise, DriveXML is your friend. You don't need Partition Magic - you
> just need enough space somewhere. :-)
>
Hmm. Will take a look. Biggest issue is making sure it doesn't mess with
what drive letters are assigned when adjusting things. :p Always fun
when that happens.
>>
http://www.zdnet.com.au/video/soa/Ratbags-take-Windows-7-to-the-street/0,2000065477,22470997p,00.htm
>
>
> Silly. Just goes to show that most people really don't care about the
> details of the window manager.
>
Yeah. To an extent. But, the people where somewhat impressed with some
of the tricks KDE4 had too, so, that isn't entirely accurate.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Nicolas Alvarez
Subject: Re: Ok, who didn't know, or at least guess this?
Date: 22 Feb 2009 11:59:49
Message: <49a18484@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Anyway, somebody asked why people hate M$. And I gave an answer: because
> M$ does not consider performance or reliability to be "important" enough
> to make any attempt to improve them.
You're giving contradictory statements:
> Thinking about it, the load routine probably does just dump a bunch of
> pointers directly into Word, which probably then trips the rendering
> engine over or something
They load a data structure from disk right into memory *because* they want
performance. Having the disk format similar to the in-memory structure was
done since back in Word for Windows 2.1 because it was the only way to be
faster than competitors.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Nicolas Alvarez
Subject: Re: Ok, who didn't know, or at least guess this?
Date: 22 Feb 2009 12:00:48
Message: <49a184bf@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> OTOH, M$'s products aren't exactly "cheap", by any stretch of the
>> imagination.
>
> I don't think paying 2x-3x the price of a game for your OS and Office
> suite is expensive, and I guess most other people don't either.
Where I live, many people have no concept of "price of a game"...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Nicolas Alvarez
Subject: Re: Ok, who didn't know, or at least guess this?
Date: 22 Feb 2009 12:04:21
Message: <49a18594@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> This defies belief.
>
> It has been my experience that as soon as you ask Word to do anything
> remotely nontrivial, it slows to a crawl, produces gigantic files, and
> eventually starts to function eratically (e.g., sections of text being
> duplicated, random formatting changes, deleted text "moving" to other
> parts of the document, etc.)
>
> Quite how you could produce really *large* documents with it I have no
> idea...
Which is why I prefer a plaintext editor and HTML/LaTeX/DocBook/something.
It can hardly mess up things in an unrecoverable way...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Nicolas Alvarez
Subject: Re: Ok, who didn't know, or at least guess this?
Date: 22 Feb 2009 12:38:25
Message: <49a18d90@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I'm guessing the first time she visits a site that demands ActiveX...?
"This site doesn't work." *clicks back button and goes elsewhere*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Nicolas Alvarez
Subject: Re: Ok, who didn't know, or at least guess this?
Date: 22 Feb 2009 12:39:12
Message: <49a18dbf@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Anyone who designs a website and doesn't run it through a W3C checker is
> asking for trouble.
ie. 90% of people.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Nicolas Alvarez
Subject: Re: Ok, who didn't know, or at least guess this?
Date: 22 Feb 2009 12:40:02
Message: <49a18df2@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I'm drawing a blank on real "websites" that require ActiveX, but I think
> there are a few outside M$.
Flash is an ActiveX control on IE.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Orchid XP v8
Subject: Re: Ok, who didn't know, or at least guess this?
Date: 22 Feb 2009 14:42:39
Message: <49a1aaaf$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Quite how you could produce really *large* documents with it I have no
>> idea...
>
> Which is why I prefer a plaintext editor and HTML/LaTeX/DocBook/something.
> It can hardly mess up things in an unrecoverable way...
And revision control works. ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
