On Tuesday, 18 September 2012 at 05:26:33 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 12:35:45AM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> [...]
> Yet for whatever reason corporate types just love WebEx. Every meeting
> and cow-orker's son's birthday party is on WebEx. Ugh. Nowadays I just
> resort to looking over the cow-orker's shoulders when reviewing WebEx
> videos instead of defiling my PC with that crap.
>

I am a corporate guy that loves WebEx.

If you ever went through the amount of failed attempts in the corporate world starting with NetMeeting, Sametime and a couple of others I already forgot, in the last decade, you can only love how easy and stable it is to use WebEx conferences.


--
Paulo

On Wednesday, 19 September 2012 at 09:19:13 UTC, Mehrdad wrote:
> On Wednesday, 19 September 2012 at 08:53:33 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 19 September 2012 at 08:36:46 UTC, Mehrdad wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> What exactly do you guys _do_ with your computer that suddenly breaks the power supplies?! Maybe I'm just too young to know, but I've never seen a power supply break...
>>
>> I once tried to do some GPU calculations. After several hours, the PSU failed, frying my components. The graphics card was literally ON FIRE (!). Nothing was salvageable.
>>
>> Anyways, that is what *THAT* is how to kill a PSU, and *THAT* is what happens when they fail...
>
> Dang that's... intense. o.o
>
> Are laptop power supplies more durable or something?
> None of my laptops (or anyone's laptop I know) have had problematic power supplies...

The difference is that a laptop's wattage is nowhere near the wattage of a desktop. This is even truer of modern computer, where desktops consume even more power, whereas laptops are consuming much less. I've never had a problem with a laptop "PSU block" itself... Not that I can say the same about the batteries.

I have about 2 laptops at home, whose batteries are left with, literally, 0 charge. Even a simple split second power cut, and they fill turn off :(

On Tuesday, 18 September 2012 at 21:19:13 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 08:12:50 -0700
> "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:
>> 
>> Reformatting and reinstalling, though, is a matter of course on any Windows installation that I've ever seen. I've heard of such things as stable Windows installations, but as far as my experience goes those are mythical beasts.
>
> My desktop's XP installation (SP2 even) has been aces for years. And years ago, when I did have to reinstall, it was just because of something stupid I'd done.
>
> I've seen plenty of screwed up Win boxes (even Win7), but it's always owned by someone who doesn't even know what a "web browser" is, so I figure chances are it's due to one of two things:
>
> A. The user doing something stupid.
>
> B. The user not using the web the way I do: with Adblock Plus installed, and JS and Flash disabled by default.


I vote +1 for (A). :)

It's not a mythical beast, it's sitting right in front of me!

My situation with Windows 7 has been quite stable too.

FYI, my Windows is run:
- Without any antimalware software of any kind (I hate them)
- Always with admin privileges (UAC turned off)
- In "Test Mode" (security risk in terms of digital signatures)
- I currently boot 5 OSes:
  - Windows 7 x64, the original which the laptop came with, which I use 99% of the time
  - Windows 8 I installed a few weeks ago for trying it out
  - Windows XP 32-bit and 64-bit for testing stuff
  - Linux (Ubuntu) x64 for when I need it
- I mess with partitions every few weeks
- I hack around with Windows internals quite a bit ;)

Guess which OS is the one that I've reinstalled a bazillion times? Ubuntu.

And it _still_ doesn't boot automatically!
I tell it to install Grub, and it says OK.
It even _force_ it to reinstall Grub, and it says OK, I reinstalled myself.
Then I reboot and it goes onto the screen and just... doesn't boot.
I have to type in the boot sequence commands myself.
Why? Because a random, unrelated partition on the disk changed and Ubuntu freaked out.

At least when Windows has the occasional boot problem which I stupidly caused, it's _fixable_ and doesn't lie to you about having fixed it!!

On Tuesday, 18 September 2012 at 21:19:13 UTC, Nick Sabalausky
wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 08:12:50 -0700
> "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:
>> 
>> Reformatting and reinstalling, though, is a matter of course on any Windows installation that I've ever seen. I've heard of such things as stable Windows installations, but as far as my experience goes those are mythical beasts.
>
> My desktop's XP installation (SP2 even) has been aces for years. And years ago, when I did have to reinstall, it was just because of something stupid I'd done.
>
> I've seen plenty of screwed up Win boxes (even Win7), but it's always owned by someone who doesn't even know what a "web browser" is, so I figure chances are it's due to one of two things:
>
> A. The user doing something stupid.
>
> B. The user not using the web the way I do: with Adblock Plus installed, and JS and Flash disabled by default.


I vote +1 for (A). :)

It's not a mythical beast, it's sitting right in front of me!

My situation with Windows 7 has been quite stable too.

FYI, my Windows is run:
- Without any antimalware software of any kind (I hate them)
- Always with admin privileges (UAC turned off)
- In "Test Mode" (security risk in terms of digital signatures)
- I currently boot 5 OSes:
   - Windows 7 x64, the original which the laptop came with, which
I use 99% of the time
   - Windows 8 I installed a few weeks ago for trying it out
   - Windows XP 32-bit and 64-bit for testing stuff
   - Linux (Ubuntu) x64 for when I need it
- I mess with partitions every few weeks
- I hack around with Windows internals quite a bit ;)

Guess which OS is the one that I've reinstalled a bazillion
times? Ubuntu.

And it _still_ doesn't boot automatically!
I tell it to install Grub, and it says OK.
It even _force_ it to reinstall Grub, and it says OK, I
reinstalled myself.
Then I reboot and it goes onto the screen and just... doesn't
boot.
I have to type in the boot sequence commands myself.
Why? Because a random, unrelated partition on the disk changed
and Ubuntu freaked out.

At least when Windows has the occasional boot problem which I
stupidly caused, it's _fixable_ and doesn't lie to you about
having fixed it!!

On 09/19/2012 11:54 AM, Mehrdad wrote:
> ...
>
> At least when Windows has the occasional boot problem which I stupidly
> caused, it's _fixable_ and doesn't lie to you about having fixed it!!
>

The issue is that in one case you know how to fix it and in the other one you do not (and you care less about it because you prefer to think
Windows is superior as it is what you use '99% of the time'), not that
the problems are inherently (un)fixable.

On Wednesday, 19 September 2012 at 09:19:13 UTC, Mehrdad wrote:
> On Wednesday, 19 September 2012 at 08:53:33 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 19 September 2012 at 08:36:46 UTC, Mehrdad wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> What exactly do you guys _do_ with your computer that suddenly breaks the power supplies?! Maybe I'm just too young to know, but I've never seen a power supply break...
>>
>> I once tried to do some GPU calculations. After several hours, the PSU failed, frying my components. The graphics card was literally ON FIRE (!). Nothing was salvageable.
>>
>> Anyways, that is what *THAT* is how to kill a PSU, and *THAT* is what happens when they fail...
>
> Dang that's... intense. o.o
>
> Are laptop power supplies more durable or something?
> None of my laptops (or anyone's laptop I know) have had problematic power supplies...

The difference is that a laptop's wattage is nowhere near the wattage of a desktop. This is even truer of modern computer, where desktops consume even more power, whereas laptops are consuming much less. I've never had a problem with a laptop "PSU block" itself... Not that I can say the same about the batteries.

I have about 2 laptops at home, whose batteries are left with, literally, 0 charge. Even a simple split second power cut, and they fill turn off :(

On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 11:45:42 Paulo Pinto wrote:
> On Tuesday, 18 September 2012 at 05:26:33 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 12:35:45AM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> > [...]
> > Yet for whatever reason corporate types just love WebEx. Every
> > meeting
> > and cow-orker's son's birthday party is on WebEx. Ugh. Nowadays
> > I just
> > resort to looking over the cow-orker's shoulders when reviewing
> > WebEx
> > videos instead of defiling my PC with that crap.
> 
> I am a corporate guy that loves WebEx.
> 
> If you ever went through the amount of failed attempts in the corporate world starting with NetMeeting, Sametime and a couple of others I already forgot, in the last decade, you can only love how easy and stable it is to use WebEx conferences.

We've taken to using google hangout where I work. It's by no means perfect, but it's far easier to setup and deal with than WebEx. There may be worse things than WebEx, but I'd just as soon never have to deal with it again. To each their own though, I suppose.

- Jonathan M Davis

On Wednesday, 19 September 2012 at 10:53:40 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 11:45:42 Paulo Pinto wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 18 September 2012 at 05:26:33 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>> > On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 12:35:45AM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> > [...]
>> > Yet for whatever reason corporate types just love WebEx. Every
>> > meeting
>> > and cow-orker's son's birthday party is on WebEx. Ugh. Nowadays
>> > I just
>> > resort to looking over the cow-orker's shoulders when reviewing
>> > WebEx
>> > videos instead of defiling my PC with that crap.
>> 
>> I am a corporate guy that loves WebEx.
>> 
>> If you ever went through the amount of failed attempts in the
>> corporate world starting with NetMeeting, Sametime and a couple
>> of others I already forgot, in the last decade, you can only love
>> how easy and stable it is to use WebEx conferences.
>
> We've taken to using google hangout where I work. It's by no means perfect,
> but it's far easier to setup and deal with than WebEx. There may be worse
> things than WebEx, but I'd just as soon never have to deal with it again. To
> each their own though, I suppose.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis


I have yet not tried.

In most places where I worked, they only allow such type of tools when you can have some control over the servers where it is hosted.

You know the typical bureaucratic from multi-national companies in the corporate world. :(

--
Paulo

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 01:34:12 -0400, Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe@semitwist.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 23:46:35 -0400
> "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> The keyboard click sound (which you can disable BTW,
>> settings->sounds->keyboard clicks) obeys the ringer volume.
>
> Ehh? How unintuitive.

I cannot argue that Apple's audio volume isn't too simplistic for its own good.  AIUI, they have two "volumes", one for the ringer, and one for playing audio, games, videos, etc.

I feel like the volume should be app-specific, and you should be able to allocate new volume categories.  Putting keyboard clicks under the ringer volume seems like a kludge.

However, it *does* do a good job of remembering volume settings for different audio outputs.  For example, it keeps track of your headphone ringer and audio volume separate from your speaker ringer and audio volume.

> I think the main problem is that the volume rules are just far too
> convoluted. They took something trivial and hacked it up beyond
> recognition, and all in the supposed name of "simplicity", go figure.

I think if they simply made the volume buttons control the ringer while locked and not playing music, it would solve the problem.

BTW, a cool feature I didn't know for a long time is if you double tap the home button, your audio controls appear on the lock screen (play/pause, next previous song, and audio volume).  But I think you have to unlock to access ringer volume.

>> Well, I guess you fidget more about ringer volume than I do.  I
>> usually like the ringer to be on 100%, because I frequently leave it
>> on my desk or somewhere other than my pocket.  When I want it to be
>> quiet, it goes into silent mode.
>>
>
> Well, I *would* fidget with it a lot, but frankly no matter what I do
> it's always playing something either too loud or two quiet, and I've
> got better things to do than mess with a screwy interface every time I
> walk into a different environment. So really it just encourages me to
> avoid even using it or even bringing the thing anywhere unless I really
> need it. A stiff, recessed master volume dial that I could reach into my
> pocket to adjust would pretty much solve the issue, but I guess that
> just isn't "high tech" enough. Make it holographic so you can't even
> feel it at all, *then* Apple would probably toss it in. :/

It's more moving parts to break.  I wouldn't like it.  Just my opinion.

>> > And that's *just* volume issues alone. God, I *HATE* the fucking
>> > thing. Any time I use it, I just want to hurl the damn thing into
>> > the nearest concrete wall as hard as I can. But I can't, because
>> > it's not even mine, it's a loaner, and I unfortunately need it for
>> > development/testing (or at least *will* need it for such once we pay
>> > Apple their Developer Ransom).
>>
>> Hehe, yeah, that sucks.  But it's definitely worth it if you are
>> going to do *any* development, even if you aren't publishing.
>>
>
> If it were my own personal device, I'd just jailbreak it and be done
> with it. (And then pay the ransom to publish, of course, because what
> else can you do? Create your own device and compete with Apple under
> capitalism? Nope, Google tried that idea of "competition" and look what
> happened:
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/25/technology/jury-reaches-decision-in-apple-samsung-patent-trial.html?_r=1&ref=technology> )

If you want to develop for only jailbroken phones, you basically alienate most users of iPhone.  It's not a viable business model IMO.  Yes, it sucks to have to jump through apple's hoops, but having access to millions of users is very much worth it.

>> Just wait until you try to install your app on your phone for the
>> first time -- I have a feeling you will hate that too :)
>>
>
> I've done it on the Android already - could be better could be worse.
> Marmalade's deployment tool is really dodgy when installing to a device,
> but using Google's ADB directly is pretty reliable, and so is
> installing from a URL via the device's browser.
>
> I'm definitely not looking forward to dealing with iTunes though. I've
> already used it for syncing the phone, and it's just a big mess. I
> don't even bother trying to sync it anymore (PalmOS syncing OTOH, was
> flawless). When the time comes, I'll probably grab copies of "Phone to
> PC" and/or "Phone Disk" <http://www.macroplant.com/downloads.php>. The
> demos of those seem to work much better than iTunes, plus they don't
> treat me like a brain-damaged monkey.

Oh, when you develop apps, it's quite easy to install on the phone, you just click "run" from xcode, selecting your device, you don't ever have to start itunes (though itunes will auto-start every time you plug in the phone, but you can disable this in itunes, more annoying is that iPhoto *always* starts, I can't figure out how to stop that).  From then on, the app is installed.  The issue is setting up all the certificates via xcode and their web portal to get that to work (should only have to do this once).  I think the process has streamlined a bit, you used to have to create an app id for each app and select which devices were authorized to install it.  Now I think you get a wildcard app id, but you still have to register each device.

>
>>
>> I love how my iPhone will never scratch or deteriorate.
>
> Instead, it'll just get prematurely discontinued ;)

3gs (released june 2009) was still being sold last month, and it is getting ios 6 upgrade.  I still have mine and develop with it.

> But I dunno, I've heard that the iPhones are so brittle that you
> practically look at them the wrong way and they break. (I wouldn't
> know - I've got a super heavy-duty case on mine. The device is far too
> expensive to replace if anything happened to it. Damn thing costs twice
> as much as my laptop. For a stupid little phone. Go figure.)

My wife and I have been very careful with ours, but I do see a lot with cracked screens.  Interesting thing is they still seem to work!  I don't think a cracked/broken screen would ever work with a palm-style touch screen.

Also, starting with iPhone 4s (and iPad 2 I think?) you can buy apple care for your device for $99 that covers two accidental breakage incidents (at $49 each) for up to 2 years.  This includes cracked screens and water damage.  Only catch is you have to buy it within 30 days of activating the phone (or purchasing the iPad if not 3g enabled).

Well worth the extra cost when you consider the full retail price!  I did it for my 4s, and will do it for all my subsequent iPhones.

-Steve

On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 12:02:24PM +0200, Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 09/19/2012 11:54 AM, Mehrdad wrote:
> >...
> >At least when Windows has the occasional boot problem which I
> >stupidly caused, it's _fixable_ and doesn't lie to you about having
> >fixed it!!
> >
> 
> The issue is that in one case you know how to fix it and in the other one you do not (and you care less about it because you prefer to think Windows is superior as it is what you use '99% of the time'), not that the problems are inherently (un)fixable.

Yeah, that's one of the things that irks me about Windows culture. It's touted as being "user-friendly" and "easy to use", etc., but actually it requires just as much effort as learning to use Linux. People complain about how Linux is hard to use or things break for no reason, but the same thing happens with Windows -- you either do things the Windows way (which requires that you learn what it is), or you quickly run into a whole bunch of gratuitous incompatibilities and bugs that nobody cares about because you aren't "supposed" to do things that way.  (I tried switching the mouse to sloppy focus once... and never dared try it again.)

As a programmer, though, I find Windows fundamentally annoying because the hood is welded shut. Sometimes you *know* what's wrong but it refuses to let you fix it, whereas on Linux you can look at the source and figure out how to fix it -- heck, you can modify and recompile the dang *kernel* to make it do what you want, should you be so inclined! You can't even get close to that in Windows.

But then again, this is from the POV of a programmer. From the user's POV, none of this matters, it's all just a question of familiarity and preference. I personally find the bash shell far easier and more comfortable to use than any kind of klunky GUI, but most people won't because the prevalence of Windows has made GUIs more familiar to the average user.


T

-- 
Turning your clock 15 minutes ahead won't cure lateness---you're just making time go faster!