 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 20:07:09 -0500, Warp wrote:
> > I think you could perfectly well fit an ultra-small linux distro which
> > uses a light-weight window manager in a bootable 32MB hard disk. If it's
> > light-weight enough, it probably could even run with 32MB of RAM.
> I ran a very lightweight Linux distro on a 386 with a maximum memory
> capacity of 16 MB. The machine physically couldn't take more memory.
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. ;)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail Shaw schrieb:
> Gary Gygax, co-creator of Dungeons and Dragons, died tuesday morning.
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/03/04/obit.gygax.ap/index.html
>
>
The sunday special from userfriendly says it all
http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20080309
Marc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson schrieb:
> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 20:07:09 -0500, Warp wrote:
>
>> I think you could perfectly well fit an ultra-small linux distro which
>> uses a light-weight window manager in a bootable 32MB hard disk. If it's
>> light-weight enough, it probably could even run with 32MB of RAM.
>
> I ran a very lightweight Linux distro on a 386 with a maximum memory
> capacity of 16 MB. The machine physically couldn't take more memory.
>
> Jim
I switched to LINUX when my pretty *new* 386 wasn't sufficient for the
new Mrcrosoft OS requirements. As a nice side effect the LateX version
was capable of running more than 200 pages - unlike the DOS version,
that stopped at 200. At that time I had been very happy about the
performance of LINUX, making the most of my hardware.
Marc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 12:21:41 +0100, Marc Schimmler wrote:
> I switched to LINUX when my pretty *new* 386 wasn't sufficient for the
> new Mrcrosoft OS requirements. As a nice side effect the LateX version
> was capable of running more than 200 pages - unlike the DOS version,
> that stopped at 200. At that time I had been very happy about the
> performance of LINUX, making the most of my hardware.
Not surprising, really - I was fairly happy with the performance of my
machine as well, until I tried to run mysql and apache on it
simultaneously. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 05:21:48 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 20:07:09 -0500, Warp wrote:
>
>> > I think you could perfectly well fit an ultra-small linux distro
>> > which
>> > uses a light-weight window manager in a bootable 32MB hard disk. If
>> > it's light-weight enough, it probably could even run with 32MB of
>> > RAM.
>
>> I ran a very lightweight Linux distro on a 386 with a maximum memory
>> capacity of 16 MB. The machine physically couldn't take more memory.
>
> 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. ;)
I was able to accomplish what I wanted without X - just like with DOS, I
could run WP51, Lotus 1-2-3, and Harvard Graphics without the need for
Windows. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 05:20:26 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 00:12:04 -0500, Tim Cook wrote:
>
>> > Jim Henderson wrote:
>> >> Create a letter using WordPerfect 5.1. Create a letter using
>> >> Microsoft Word 2003. Including the time just to start the
>> >> applications, WP51 starts quicker, and you finish quicker.
>> >
>> > A more appropriate comparison would be WordPerfect 5.1 to Wordpad if
>> > you're just doing bare-bones word processing that needs a little
>> > formatted text.
>
>> WordPad didn't exist on DOS.
>
> Neither did Word 2003. I completely fail to see your point.
Comparing modern software on modern hardware with a modern OS against the
"modern" equivalents from 20 years ago.
20 years ago, I could run WordPerfect for DOS on a DOS machine that was
an 8086 or 80286 and got decent performance - instant responses and
whatnot.
Today I have a machine that's a billion times faster, and the modern
software *runs slower*.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 08:07:13 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 9 Mar 2008 00:44:20 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>
>>Why doesn't it work? *Bloat*.
>
> True but you've got to remember that 15 years ago. The only people who
> used the internet were IT folk and did not need to be coddled and who
> could set up their own programmes. Bloat is for those who like formatted
> text and microwave dinners :)
A lot of the bloat comes from inefficient coding - after all, I can put
32 GB of memory in a machine nowadays, so why do I need to worry about
optimisation?
The type of optimization that was taught in CS classes in the early 90's
doesn't seem to even be a concern any more because "the machines are fast
enough and have enough memory that it doesn't matter if we're sloppy in
our coding".
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 05:16:55 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> > I believe this to be just a false memory in most cases. Do you have
>> > any
>> > concrete examples?
>
>> Boot DOS. Boot Windows. Compare the boot times.
>
> Yeah. Boot to Windows. Don't start the computer at all. Compare the
> times.
With DOS the machine was able to be used when it started up. I spent
more than enough time working with DOS to know the difference between the
machine being turned on and usable and it not. Don't be ridiculous.
>> Create a letter using WordPerfect 5.1. Create a letter using Microsoft
>> Word 2003. Including the time just to start the applications, WP51
>> starts quicker, and you finish quicker.
>
> So WP51 starts in 5 seconds and Word starts in 6 seconds, you spend
> a half hour writing the letter in both, and when you are finished, you
> have spent 1805 seconds in WP51 and 1806 second in Word. Yeah, maybe you
> are right. It's slower to do it nowadays.
5s vs 6s? Are you on crack? WP51 started *instantly*, not in 5s, and
Word 2003 - unless Windows pre-caches it (thus wasting memory that could
be used for other tasks) takes significantly longer to start.
> (Naturally let's forget how long it takes to *print* that letter with
> hardware of each era.)
How about let's not? IBM Laser printer would crank them out at 19 ppm.
Compare to the ubiquitous deskjet-style printer that's used today, the
printers are even slower (I've got an 882c right here that's about
equivalent if it's printing using only black ink).
>> > Really? I have noticed the exact opposite trend. Just in the
>> > Windows
>> > side of the world, for example updating software is easier than ever:
>> > In many cases the software updates itself automatically without you
>> > having to do anything about it. Even if you have to start the
>> > updating manually, it's usually pretty automated.
>
>> And when the automated updates screw the machine up, the user is
>> basically screwed.
>
> How exactly is this related to the topic?
I'm not the one who brought up the unrelated topic of automated updates.
Ask Tim.
>> As I said, there are some tasks that are faster on modern equipment
>> with modern software. But the majority of people need a word
>> processor, a spreadsheet, and access to the 'net. Maybe presentation
>> software.
>
> And those run much faster today than they did 15 years ago.
Baloney. WP51 could keep up with my typing. I can't count the number of
times when using Word (prior to switching to Linux full-time) that I
would type and the machine would just sit there, and then a few seconds
later my text would appear.
>> > Browsing the internet with a web browser? Fast and efficient
>> > nowadays,
>> > sluggish 15 years ago.
>
>> With a decent connection to the 'net, surfing the web 15 years ago was
>> generally faster, if only because the amount of crap that people put on
>> web pages was reduced.
>
> That's irrelevant with regard to whether *software* is faster today
> than
> back then or not.
It takes me more time to do equivalent tasks now to what I did 15 years
ago. That's the point.
> Basically what you are saying there is equivalent to "it takes 1
> second
> for a 386 to open a 320x240 image, and 5 seconds for an AMD64 to open a
> 32000x24000 image, hence the 386 is faster".
What I'm saying is "if I want to do a task today that's not CPU-
intensive, the applications are generally slower". I note that you
*still* aren't acknowledging that I said that there are *some* tasks
(such as image editing) that this is NOT true for, and continue to use
that as a counterexample.
>> 15 years ago, the big thing being talked about
>> was whether or not to use blink tags for $DEITY's sake. Now it's all
>> about flash animations and dynamically updating web applications which
>> should *really* be implemented not using web technologies, but rather
>> using desktop development technologies.
>
> Still irrelevant with regard to whether software is nowadays faster
> or not.
Again, it takes longer to do the same tasks in many cases. 15 years ago,
I could turn my machine on and start working. Today, using Windows XP, I
could go and buy a snack from the vending machine before the machine has
finished starting up after needing applying updates.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 10:35:18 +0200, Gail Shaw wrote:
> 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".
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> a écrit dans le message de news:
47d44731$1@news.povray.org...
> It takes me more time to do equivalent tasks now to what I did 15 years
> ago. That's the point.
But what are you doing exactly? Unless your job consists exclusively in
opening and closing applications and doing absolutely nothing in between,
that goes *** completely *** against my (20-year) experience of using
engineering and office software. Startup times are sometimes longer, duh.
What about the rest, like actually using the software for the kind of tasks
that are expected in 2008? And here I'm talking about office software:
spreadsheets, presentation software, databases and word processing. That's
really looking at the past with rose-tinted glasses, sorry.
G.
--
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray, Cinema 4D and Poser computer art
- Posters
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 22:01:53 +0100, Gilles Tran wrote:
> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 47d44731$1@news.povray.org...
>
>> It takes me more time to do equivalent tasks now to what I did 15 years
>> ago. That's the point.
>
> But what are you doing exactly? Unless your job consists exclusively in
> opening and closing applications and doing absolutely nothing in
> between, that goes *** completely *** against my (20-year) experience of
> using engineering and office software. Startup times are sometimes
> longer, duh. What about the rest, like actually using the software for
> the kind of tasks that are expected in 2008? And here I'm talking about
> office software: spreadsheets, presentation software, databases and word
> processing. That's really looking at the past with rose-tinted glasses,
> sorry.
No, I'm talking about use of office software - see my example, for
example, of using Word and watching it catch up with my typing. When
that happened, I half expected Clippy to jump in and say "in order to see
your text as you type it, you need to type more slowly" or something
stupid (and about as helpful as Clippy *usually* provided me before I
turned it off) like that.
But I've only been using office and engineering software for 25 years
myself, so I obviously don't know what I'm talking about. ;-)
The problem is that much of our "modern" software includes features that
no sane user wants to use. I'll admit that if I were to try to do a
crosstab with Lotus 1-2-3, I'd not have been able to do it (because the
feature wasn't there AFAICR), and that is something I use today that
isn't in the older software.
It may entirely be a perceptual thing - but that doesn't make it any less
of a valid observation.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran escribió:
> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> a �crit dans le message de news:
> 47d44731$1@news.povray.org...
>
>> It takes me more time to do equivalent tasks now to what I did 15 years
>> ago. That's the point.
>
> But what are you doing exactly? Unless your job consists exclusively in
> opening and closing applications and doing absolutely nothing in between,
> that goes *** completely *** against my (20-year) experience of using
> engineering and office software. Startup times are sometimes longer, duh.
> What about the rest, like actually using the software for the kind of tasks
> that are expected in 2008? And here I'm talking about office software:
> spreadsheets, presentation software, databases and word processing. That's
> really looking at the past with rose-tinted glasses, sorry.
Saying "people don't restart the app all the time, so startup times
don't matter" is just like saying "computers are fast nowadays, so
optimization doesn't matter".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>
> Saying "people don't restart the app all the time, so startup times
> don't matter" is just like saying "computers are fast nowadays, so
> optimization doesn't matter".
Heh, yeah, basically so. But when user uses multitasking to beat startup
times (you don't need to start software often, 'cause you can keep them
open at the background) makes optimization (especially memory-) more
useful :).
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> a écrit dans le message de news:
47d455a1$1@news.povray.org...
> The problem is that much of our "modern" software includes features that
> no sane user wants to use.
Uh, that's really patronizing. Featuritis does exist, but it's a too common
fallacy to think that because one doesn't need certain features the're
completely useless, like in those funny Slashdot discussions where legions
of clueless nerds remind everyone that because *** they *** are happy using
The Gimp to make lolcats everyone using Photoshop is an idiot.
>I'll admit that if I were to try to do a crosstab with Lotus 1-2-3, I'd not
>have been able to do it (because the
>feature wasn't there AFAICR), and that is something I use today that
>isn't in the older software.
1-2-3 would be completely useless by modern standards, and not just because
of crosstab. Really useless, like a brick. And I loved it for years, until I
switched. You'll pry my bloated Excel from my dead cold hands ;)
G.
--
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray, Cinema 4D and Poser computer art
- Posters
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 23:35:14 +0100, Gilles Tran wrote:
> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 47d455a1$1@news.povray.org...
>
>> The problem is that much of our "modern" software includes features
>> that no sane user wants to use.
>
> Uh, that's really patronizing.
It wasn't intended to be.
> Featuritis does exist, but it's a too
> common fallacy to think that because one doesn't need certain features
> the're completely useless, like in those funny Slashdot discussions
> where legions of clueless nerds remind everyone that because *** they
> *** are happy using The Gimp to make lolcats everyone using Photoshop is
> an idiot.
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". Pivottables are an
example, actually - though I use them a lot, most of the spreadsheet
users I work with have no idea even how to use them effectively. I've
had to teach people how to use them because they were doing it by hand.
(Which actually, I realise, doesn't prove my point).
>>I'll admit that if I were to try to do a crosstab with Lotus 1-2-3, I'd
>>not have been able to do it (because the
>>feature wasn't there AFAICR), and that is something I use today that
>>isn't in the older software.
>
> 1-2-3 would be completely useless by modern standards, and not just
> because of crosstab. Really useless, like a brick. And I loved it for
> years, until I switched. You'll pry my bloated Excel from my dead cold
> hands ;)
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.
As for what I use, I'm an avowed OpenOffice 2.3 user. You can have your
Excel, oocalc does everything I have a need for, and the price is most
definitely right. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 18:17:45 -0500, nemesis 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.
Yep, that's kinda my point. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 00:39:50 +0200, Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>>
>> Saying "people don't restart the app all the time, so startup times
>> don't matter" is just like saying "computers are fast nowadays, so
>> optimization doesn't matter".
>
> Heh, yeah, basically so. But when user uses multitasking to beat startup
> times (you don't need to start software often, 'cause you can keep them
> open at the background) makes optimization (especially memory-) more
> useful :).
Yeah, but for $50, you can add another 2 GB of memory to the machine, so
why not?
One of the reasons for Microsoft's success in the industry is their huge
programs. Hardware vendors *loved* Microsoft in the early days, because
in order to use the software, you had to buy the biggest, baddest, *most
expensive* machine they could sell you.
Why on earth would HP, for example, recommend NetWare (a solid, stable,
and secure network OS) in the mid 1990's? It ran on a 386 with 16 MB of
memory, and it ran forever. There are *still* installations of version
2.x and 3.x (current is 6.5) that are perfectly functioning because the
damned thing *just works*.
Conversely, the earliest server releases of Windows required gobs of
memory and processor, and each successive release required more memory,
more disk space, more of everything. The hardware vendors got a
permanent customer upgrade cycle, service contracts, the works - because
the system was overcomplicated, bloated, and a resource hog.
That's not to say there weren't other factors for Novell's decline (some
of which were by all means self-inflicted), but having something that
didn't make any of the hardware manufacturers any money certainly hurt.
It's a shame when the technologically superior product loses due to a
case like this. Even more so when anti-competitive behaviour comes into
play (as is well documented fact).
im
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9 Mar 2008 15:16:01 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>A lot of the bloat comes from inefficient coding - after all, I can put
>32 GB of memory in a machine nowadays, so why do I need to worry about
>optimisation?
>
>The type of optimization that was taught in CS classes in the early 90's
>doesn't seem to even be a concern any more because "the machines are fast
>enough and have enough memory that it doesn't matter if we're sloppy in
>our coding".
Isn't that how you get cheap programmes, though? If you reuse code and generic
solutions combined with not testing fully the production costs are kept low
(ish). BTW I'm not arguing it is just an opinion I've developed over the years.
I know next to nothing about programming and the only lesions I've ever had was
in the 70's writing assembly code for fault finding. Myself, I can't code for
toffee and I know it.
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 20 years ago, I could run WordPerfect for DOS on a DOS machine that was
> an 8086 or 80286 and got decent performance - instant responses and
> whatnot.
Was WordPerfect for 8086 wysiwyg? I doubt so.
The programs are doing different things. If you want to compare software
on equal terms, compare it to LaTeX.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] gmailcom> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> a écrit dans le message de news:
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Sat, 08 Mar 2008 19:24:00 -0000, Nicolas Alvarez
<nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> did spake, saying:
> Darren New escribió:
>> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>>> I don't know anyone (personally, and in the same country as me) who is
>>> geeky enough to know about D&D anyway. So even if it sounded
>>> interesting to me (which it doesn't), who would I play with?
>> That's why WoW is such a hit, methinks. All the asocial nerds who'd
>> otherwise be playing D&D can now WoW with folks in other countries.
>
> Well, I *have* tried MMORPGs. And I didn't like them. I consider the
> "Massively Monotonous Online Repetitive Perpetual Gaming" backronym to
> be somewhat accurate.
>
> And WoW isn't even free...
The problem, I think, with MMORPGs is they lack the RP part. Oh sure
you're pretending to be a dwarf or dark elf, but unless you can find a
server that specifically states it's for role-play then it descends to
grind to a new level and score phat loot while comparing DPS and demanding
buffs; what your character is doesn't real matter any more. Comparing
'proper' D&D style role-play with MMORPGs is like comparing rugby and
soccer.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Sat, 08 Mar 2008 20:55:32 -0000, Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull>
did spake, saying:
>>> Hmm, and I'll bet you've met a lot of salepeople in your line of work
>>> too. ;-)
>> None if I can help it.
>
> TELL ME YOUR SECRET!! >_<
>
> I am *so* fed up of that Russian girl trying to sell me AV licenses...
"So, are you single?"
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible escribió:
> 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...
>
WordArt sure was slow as hell on the 33MHz computers we had at school
(rendering speed looked like it was raytracing the damn things), but
nope, I see no reason why it would make other things slower if you
*don't* use that feature.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible escribió:
> 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://www.netbsd.org/changes/2005.html#toaster
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Sat, 08 Mar 2008 14:18:22 -0000, Gail Shaw sa dot com>
<"<initialsurname"@sentech> did spake, saying:
>
> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
> news:47d28245@news.povray.org...
>> Gail Shaw <initialsurname@sentech sa dot com> wrote:
>> > > Tell me about it. I thought "dungeons and dragons" was a TV
>> series...
>>
>> > Well, there is a spin-off cartoon series (ok) and 2 movies (terrible)
>>
>> I'm not completely sure how they can say that a TV series or a movie
>> is
>> based on D&D,
>
> Apart from the fact they were both named "Dungeons and Dragons"?
>
> In the cartoon, there were 4 people that were identical to the character
> classes. Right down to naming. Also, if I recall they were children from
> this world pulled into a fantasy world. Been a while since I watched
> them.
Let's see I recall a blonde chap who was an ranger, the coward warrior,
the black acrobat, the red-head thief, the useless magician,... oh yeah
and the young barbarian. They were transported while on a fairground ride
by the Dungeon Master, whom I recall was a red-robed midget and spoke in
riddles, to fight some pale-skinned guy representing the forces of evil,
oh and there was a dragon in it to; I prefered Dangermouse.
> As for the movies, they were named Dungeons and Dragons: The movie. Other
> than that, not really. they were also really, really, really bad.
Oh I don't know the scenes with Kristen Wilson or Zoe McLellan had some
small appeal, and anything starring Richard O'Brien can't be competely bad
:-)
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> TELL ME YOUR SECRET!! >_<
>>
>> I am *so* fed up of that Russian girl trying to sell me AV licenses...
>
> "So, are you single?"
Mmm, yes, no possibility of THAT backfiring epically, no sir! ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> ...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://www.netbsd.org/changes/2005.html#toaster
Hmm. Let me file that along with the implementation of TCP/IP over Avian
Carrier...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Sat, 08 Mar 2008 20:15:37 -0000, Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull>
did spake, saying:
>>>> Sometimes you really do give the impression that you live under a
>>>> rock.
>>>
>>> Why? Because I don't follow every tiny twist and turn of modern
>>> technology with bated breath?
>> Do you read no tech-related news? Any news at all?
>> The end of HD-DVD was fairly big news, and was at least mentioned by
>> mainstream media.
>
> Generally, no.
>
> The mainstream news seems to only be interested in telling you about all
> the BAD news. It's damn depressing to watch.
Except for the fun stories at the end with the skateboarding ducks and
talking dogs.
> Most "technical news" is of the form "company X says they're going to do
> Y and some analyst things that's a dumb idea". I mean, like I care.
Try http://www.eurogamer.net it's obviously slanted to games, but it does
deal with the tech behind it too.
> It's annoying really - there are things I *do* care about. But it seems
> difficult to find any news about them.
>
>>> And while we're on the subject... I gather that all this "HD" stuff is
>>> only slightly better quality than what's already there. It's not like
>>> anybody is going to notice a huge increase in picture quality.
>> The increase in picture quality can be quite noticeable, but only if
>> you have equipment that can display it properly.
>
> Well, two things:
>
> 1. It has 2x the spatial resolution in both directions. That doesn't
> sound particularly earth-shattering, even on paper.
625 lines to 1080 lines max, if you want to know the difference trying
changing your monitor settings from roughly one to the other.
> 2. I saw two displays side-by-side in a shop. The one marked HD was
> certainly clearer. But it didn't make me go "wow, that's AMAZING!"
> Actually it just made me go "oh, OK, so it's 10% more crisp. And you
> want HOW MANY thousand pounds for this one??"
Well as I've mentioned elsewhere (blog-push) I've only seen a few shops
have an HD set hooked up correctly to an HD player via an HDMI cable, the
el-cheapo ones are using a standard aerial input and the mid-range ones
component. Likewise the ones that are set up correctly are normally
playing a demo video set-up to show all the good bits and hide the bad.
>>> And that makes it hard for me to get excited about it...
>> A lot of people are of the opinion that selling movies on optical
>> media is obsolete anyway.
Yeah well Microsoft and Apple can kiss my arse :-P
> What, you mean like how magnetic tape is "obsolete" today? ;-)
Yeah and vinyl.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> The problem, I think, with MMORPGs is they lack the RP part. Oh sure
> you're pretending to be a dwarf or dark elf, but unless you can find a
> server that specifically states it's for role-play then it descends to
> grind to a new level and score phat loot while comparing DPS and demanding
> buffs; what your character is doesn't real matter any more.
Reading some online stories about (A)D&D playing, it doesn't sound too
different from that. ;)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:47d531fe@news.povray.org...
> Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> > The problem, I think, with MMORPGs is they lack the RP part. Oh sure
> > you're pretending to be a dwarf or dark elf, but unless you can find a
> > server that specifically states it's for role-play then it descends to
> > grind to a new level and score phat loot while comparing DPS and
demanding
> > buffs; what your character is doesn't real matter any more.
>
> Reading some online stories about (A)D&D playing, it doesn't sound too
> different from that. ;)
Depends what kind of group you have. A bad group, with all the players just
after the xp and the loot - very boring.
A group that enjoys cooperative gaming and roleplaying - much, much fun.
I've played one MMORPG - Guild wars. Bored the hell out of me after a couple
weeks.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Mon, 10 Mar 2008 13:41:22 -0000, Gail Shaw sa dot com>
<"<initialsurname"@sentech> did spake, saying:
>
> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
> news:47d531fe@news.povray.org...
>> Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>> > The problem, I think, with MMORPGs is they lack the RP part. Oh sure
>> > you're pretending to be a dwarf or dark elf, but unless you can find a
>> > server that specifically states it's for role-play then it descends to
>> > grind to a new level and score phat loot while comparing DPS and
> demanding
>> > buffs; what your character is doesn't real matter any more.
>>
>> Reading some online stories about (A)D&D playing, it doesn't sound too
>> different from that. ;)
>
> Depends what kind of group you have. A bad group, with all the players
> just
> after the xp and the loot - very boring.
> A group that enjoys cooperative gaming and roleplaying - much, much fun.
Which is what the RP stands for, otherwise it's just a pencil and paper
co-operative FPS (or TPS with miniatures). The difference is a DM can
penalise players for not roleplaying and reward those who do; how do you
do that in a MMORPG without extensive monitoring?
> I've played one MMORPG - Guild wars. Bored the hell out of me after a
> couple weeks.
That's 'cos you were brung up on the proper stuff ;-)
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:25:45 -0000, Gilles Tran
<gil### [at] agroparistechfr> did spake, saying:
> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 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.
But do the people who don't use the solver or VBA have the option of
removing it from their installation? What features are deemed integral to
the programme? We've chastised Andy for not knowing about Styles in Word,
but how many home users do? Yet there the code sits taking up space,
poised for use.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> a écrit dans le message de
news: op.t7s2zm10c3xi7v@news.povray.org...
> But do the people who don't use the solver or VBA have the option of
> removing it from their installation? What features are deemed integral to
> the programme? We've chastised Andy for not knowing about Styles in Word,
> but how many home users do? Yet there the code sits taking up space,
> poised for use.
My point is only that one cannot claim that some features are useless when
they are actually used intensively by parts of the user base. Is MS supposed
to make styles optional because Andy couldn't figure them out? User
requirements are real. Lots of people who are serious about using a word
processor need styles and collaboration tools. Lots of people who are
serious about using spreadsheets need automation. Lots of people who work
with presentation software need to embed video.
There's no denying that there's a bloat issue with many major applications.
Word 2003 had 31 toolbars and 1500 commands... Even Adobe plans a thorough
cleanup of the Photoshop interface. Still the solution is not to assume that
"most users" are a bunch of dummies who don't need better than what was
available in 1990. And about home users, my 75-year-old dad may not use
styles, but he still enjoys Word's ability to work flawlessly with bilingual
documents with parts written in different character sets. Is he an
exception? I don't think so.
G.
--
*****************************
http://www.oyonale.com
*****************************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray, Cinema 4D and Poser computer images
- Posters
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:25:45 +0100, Gilles Tran wrote:
> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 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.
But yours is? You can't use the same logic to disprove my point and
prove yours at the same time. ;-)
> 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.
Well, not for me they're not. Not for most of the people I work with -
and I work in an office that consists of both technical and non-technical
people. Most of my closest coworkers are not technical, but quite a few
are. It used to be the other way around - I almost never dealt with the
non-technical people, being an IT person myself.
>> 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.
Most of the reason for 1-2-3's demise was similar to the reason
WordPerfect was killed off - Microsoft engaged in anticompetitive
practices when it came to releasing API information for creating
applications for the first Windows platform. Everyone "had to have" the
Windows environment for some reason, and WordPerfect and Lotus were late
to the game *because* Microsoft didn't release the APIs externally (and
changed some of them between beta and RTM, just to *really* fsck-up their
competition).
This is not conjecture on my part - this is well-documented fact.
> 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.
I have spent a fair amount of time over the years working with the
business end of businesses. My first job out of college was with a
company where the MIS department was still part of the Finance
department. I've seen accounting spreadsheets that would make most
people's heads hurt for days on end.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 07:18:52 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> Isn't that how you get cheap programmes, though? If you reuse code and
> generic solutions combined with not testing fully the production costs
> are kept low (ish).
Well, yes, code reuse is an important aspect of development today. But
there's nothing that says that reusable code must be sloppy or non-
optimised. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
>
> Yeah, but for $50, you can add another 2 GB of memory to the machine, so
> why not?
Possibly. At work that would mean changing both 1GiB modules to 2GiB
modules, which are SODIMM (yep, my workstation's a laptop), so I'm not
so sure about the price, but basically yes.
> One of the reasons for Microsoft's success in the industry is their huge
> programs. Hardware vendors *loved* Microsoft in the early days, because
> in order to use the software, you had to buy the biggest, baddest, *most
> expensive* machine they could sell you.
Yyyyep :).
> im
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 04:23:08 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> 20 years ago, I could run WordPerfect for DOS on a DOS machine that was
>> an 8086 or 80286 and got decent performance - instant responses and
>> whatnot.
>
> Was WordPerfect for 8086 wysiwyg? I doubt so.
Having used WP51 a fair bit, no, it wasn't WYSIWYG (but for many
programs, it's not WYSIWYG, but WYSIWYHYG) - but most users of WP could
predict with a staggering amount of accuracy what the page would look
like when it was printed. The earliest WYSIWYG word processors often did
unexpected things due to font selection or other factors, resulting in a
lot of frustration on the part of users of those early programs.
> The programs are doing different things. If you want to compare
> software
> on equal terms, compare it to LaTeX.
Um, no, I didn't have to learn what is essentially a semantic language in
order to use WP. That's a ridiculous comparison.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:30:10 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>>> 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...
Actually, I've got a situation with one of my instructors in the field
bugging a partner like this - the partner's too nice to say "go away"; he
thinks the guy is not a good instructor, but is willing to give him a
teach just to shut him up.
The guy has been calling almost non-stop begging for an opportunity to
teach (we require at least one class per year to remain in the program),
and also stopping by the office to beg in person.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:32:44 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> I think you'll have to speak louder than that, but anyway...
Well, it's got to start somewhere.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 18:32:05 +0200, Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, but for $50, you can add another 2 GB of memory to the machine,
>> so why not?
>
> Possibly. At work that would mean changing both 1GiB modules to 2GiB
> modules, which are SODIMM (yep, my workstation's a laptop), so I'm not
> so sure about the price, but basically yes.
Well, yeah - I've got 2 laptops and three desktop machines at home (and
another low-end desktop in the office). I was thinking from the
standpoint of a desktop machine - I think I paid about $50 for 1.5 GB of
RAM for my newest desktop.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
