View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
September 19, 2012
Re: [OT] Was: totally satisfied :D
On Sep 19, 2012, at 12:40 AM, Jacob Carlborg <doob@me.com> wrote:

> On 2012-09-18 17:36, Sean Kelly wrote:
>> On Sep 18, 2012, at 12:48 AM, Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> The most common failure I've had are the power supplies, they're still as bad today as in the 80's.
>> 
>> There are good power supplies, they just don't come in pre-built computers because they're expensive.  I think the same could be said of products from any era.
> 
> What kind of computers are you guys using. I have never owned a pre-built computer (except for laptops). I always buy my own components and assembles the computer. Then I know what I get.

Same here.  If I were to buy a pre-assembled computer I'd probably go to someplace like cyberpowerpc.com, but even then you have to explicitly pick the good PSU because it isn't included by default.
September 19, 2012
Re: [OT] Was: totally satisfied :D
On Wednesday, 19 September 2012 at 17:29:17 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 12:02:24PM +0200, Timon Gehr wrote:
>> 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.


Yeah, they're "fixable" by your definition all right.

It's just that when you ask people how, either no one you ask 
knows why, or they try to convince you that you're an idiot for 
even thinking about asking."

Relevant examples:

It's next-to-impossible to go on a forum and ask about fixing a 
boot-sector GRUB install without some fool coming along and 
diverting the entire thread into "Why the hell isn't GRUB 
installed on your MBR?"

When you have a (God forbid!) space character in your 
directory/file names and some program chokes on it?
"Stop putting spaces in your file names."

When you ask how to make a passwordless account or how to obtain 
permanent root privileges?
"Are you insane?!"

When you ask if there is a defragmenter for Linux?
Some fool comes along and says "Linux doesn't need 
defragmentation!!!!!!!!!"

When you ask why the fonts are blurry?
"It's just different, you're just picky. Get used to it."

When you ask why the touchpad is so darn hypersensitive?
"Modify the source code."



Bottom line:

Yeah, there's _always_ way to fix your problems, if by "fixing 
the problem" you mean "rewriting the OS".

It's pretty damn hard to convince Linux users that what you're 
trying to do is, in fact, not out of stupidity/ignorance.




> (I tried switching the mouse to sloppy focus once... and never 
> dared try it again.)

What's "sloppy focus"?
September 19, 2012
Re: [OT] Was: totally satisfied :D
On 9/19/2012 1:37 AM, 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...

The symptoms I had are it just won't turn on. What I do? Take the old one out, 
got to the computer store or the computer recycler, and look for a matching one.

The recycler is great for older ones not made anymore, I can get a replacement 
for $10 or so.

Sometimes, I have to modify the case to get it to fit.
September 19, 2012
Re: [OT] Was: totally satisfied :D
On 9/19/2012 2:47 AM, monarch_dodra wrote:
> 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 :(

Yeah, my ancient laptop's batteries are good for maybe a second on full charge.
September 19, 2012
Re: [OT] Was: totally satisfied :D
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 08:49:58PM +0200, Mehrdad wrote:
> On Wednesday, 19 September 2012 at 17:29:17 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> >On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 12:02:24PM +0200, Timon Gehr wrote:
> >>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.
> 
> 
> Yeah, they're "fixable" by your definition all right.
> 
> It's just that when you ask people how, either no one you ask knows
> why, or they try to convince you that you're an idiot for even
> thinking about asking."

"How do I use Windows without a GUI?" "What are you, an idiot?!"


> Relevant examples:
> 
> It's next-to-impossible to go on a forum and ask about fixing a
> boot-sector GRUB install without some fool coming along and
> diverting the entire thread into "Why the hell isn't GRUB installed
> on your MBR?"
> 
> When you have a (God forbid!) space character in your directory/file
> names and some program chokes on it?
> "Stop putting spaces in your file names."
> 
> When you ask how to make a passwordless account or how to obtain
> permanent root privileges?
> "Are you insane?!"
> 
> When you ask if there is a defragmenter for Linux?
> Some fool comes along and says "Linux doesn't need
> defragmentation!!!!!!!!!"
> 
> When you ask why the fonts are blurry?
> "It's just different, you're just picky. Get used to it."
> 
> When you ask why the touchpad is so darn hypersensitive?
> "Modify the source code."

"Why can't I do things the Linux way on Windows?" "Because it's not
Linux, you fool."


> Bottom line:
> 
> Yeah, there's _always_ way to fix your problems, if by "fixing the
> problem" you mean "rewriting the OS".

We have the option of rewriting the OS, or any of its parts thereof. Yes
you may have to (gosh!) spend time learning how the thing works and how
to make it do what you want. But at least it's _possible_. You couldn't
rewrite Windows even if you knew how.

Besides, most of the problems you listed are a result of trying to do
things the Windows way on a system that *isn't* Windows. I bet I'll get
exactly the same responses if I started asking Windows forums how to
make Windows behave like Linux.

It all comes down to preference. I can't stand *any* kind of GUI, much
less the straitjacketed non-configurable (not without massive breakage)
kind of GUI that Windows offers. I do stuff on the shell that no GUI can
ever hope to achieve, and I like it that way. I prefer to communicate in
complete sentences rather than point-n-grunt.  But I don't pretend that
everybody else feels the same way.  With Linux I can twist it and warp
it until X11 behaves like a glorified console. Or like a 3D desktop, if
I cared for that sorta thing. Heck, I've even contemplated writing a
_4D_ window manager, for that matter.  With Windows, I have no choice. I
have to use a GUI, and a Windows-style GUI at that. Try to change the
way it behaves, and everything breaks. The Windows way is shoved down my
throat whether I like it or not. So guess which system I prefer to use?


> It's pretty damn hard to convince Linux users that what you're
> trying to do is, in fact, not out of stupidity/ignorance.

It's pretty damn hard to convince Windows zealots that anything but the
Windows way is not out of stupidity/ignorance.


> >(I tried switching the mouse to sloppy focus once... and never dared
> >try it again.)
> 
> What's "sloppy focus"?

The window focus automatically changes to whatever window the mouse is
currently hovering over. Preferably WITHOUT automatically bringing said
window to the top. (Good luck making this work on Windows. And once you
actually manage to coax Windows to do it, have fun seeing the train
wreck that is your applications once you start using them this way.)


T

-- 
INTEL = Only half of "intelligence".
September 19, 2012
Re: [OT] Was: totally satisfied :D
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 10:11:50 -0400
"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy@yahoo.com> wrote:

> 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.
> 

There's also a separate one for alarms/alerts:
http://www.ipodnn.com/articles/12/01/13/user.unaware.that.alarm.going.off.was.his/

And Jobs-only-knows what else.

Apple actually thought that was a good idea.

Plus, my understanding is that one of Apple's explicit design principles
is that if an user-prompted action is something that's "expected" to
make a sound (by whatever *Apple* decides is "expected", naturally),
then to hell with the user's volume setting, it should make a sound
anyway.

It's just unbelievably convoluted, over-engineered, and as far from
"simple" as could possibly be imagined. Basically, you have "volume up"
and "volume down", but there's so much damn modality (something Apple
*loves*, but it almost universally bad for UI design) that they
work pretty much randomly.


> > 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.
> 

I very much disagree. Then when you take it out to use it, everything
will *still* be surprisingly too loud (or quiet). Just not when a call
comes in...

> 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.
> 

That's good to know (I didn't know).

Unfortunately, it still only eliminates one, maybe two, swipes from an
already-complex procedure, that on any sensible device would have been
one step: Reach down into the pocket to adjust the volume.

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

How often has anyone ever had a volume POT go bad? I don't think I've
*ever* even had it happen. It's a solid, well-established technology.

> >
> > 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.
> 

No, no, no, I'd jailbreak it for *testing*. Like I said, I'd
begrudgingly still pay Apple's ransom for publishing, because what
other realistic option is there?

> 
> 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 don't use a mac, and I never will again. I spent about a year or two
with OSX last decade and I'll never go back for *any* reason. Liked it
at first, but the more I used it the more I hated it.

Fortunately, I'm developing with Marmalade, so I don't have to even
have a mac at all (not only that, I don't need to touch any Objective-C,
either). Now that I've actually had some sleep, ;), I remember now that
since Marmalade's deployment tool can code-sign (assuming you paid the
ransom for Apple's dev cert) and install direct to the device, so
you're right, I don't need iTunes after all.

Apple still requires a mac to submit to the app store, but luckily
my "boss" has a mac, and he's going to be doing the submitting anyway.
So I don't even have to touch one of those wretched machines at all.

> >
> >>
> >> 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.
> 

That's fairly uncharacteristic for Apple though. And it's still only 3
years, that's not much anyway. Yea, for phones it's *considered* a lot,
but that's coming from a world where people *expect* you to go throwing
away your "old" expensive devices the moment your lock-in contract
is up (after only a year or two) so you can immediately jump back into
more lock-in, which is insane.

> 
> 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.
> 

Palm screens were better protected anyway, in various ways. And I never
saw a busted one (though I don't doubt they existed).

Although I did have a scare on my Palm once, when I noticed the
touchscreen and all buttons were unresponsive. After a special
trip home from work to get it on the charger (and hopefully sync it), I
realized what had happened: Turned out that when I had been playing
with the screen protector earlier, I'd managed to wedge the corner in
between the screen and the casing, so it was registering that as one
loooong tap. That was kinda embarrassing :)
September 19, 2012
Re: [OT] Was: totally satisfied :D
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 20:49:58 +0200
"Mehrdad" <wfunction@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, 19 September 2012 at 17:29:17 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 12:02:24PM +0200, Timon Gehr wrote:
> >> 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.
> 
> 
> Yeah, they're "fixable" by your definition all right.
> 
> It's just that when you ask people how, either no one you ask 
> knows why, or they try to convince you that you're an idiot for 
> even thinking about asking."
> 
> Relevant examples:
> 
> It's next-to-impossible to go on a forum and ask about fixing a 
> boot-sector GRUB install without some fool coming along and 
> diverting the entire thread into "Why the hell isn't GRUB 
> installed on your MBR?"
> 
> When you have a (God forbid!) space character in your 
> directory/file names and some program chokes on it?
> "Stop putting spaces in your file names."
> 
> When you ask how to make a passwordless account or how to obtain 
> permanent root privileges?
> "Are you insane?!"
> 
> When you ask if there is a defragmenter for Linux?
> Some fool comes along and says "Linux doesn't need 
> defragmentation!!!!!!!!!"
> 
> When you ask why the fonts are blurry?
> "It's just different, you're just picky. Get used to it."
> 
> When you ask why the touchpad is so darn hypersensitive?
> "Modify the source code."
> 

Yea, as much as there is I like about Linux (and I intend to switch to
it for my primary system), I've always considered the "culture"
surrounding it to be one of Linux's biggest liabilities.

You should have seen the shitstorm I had to put up with when inquiring
about a text-mode editor (so I could use it through SSH) that worked
more like Kate/Gedit and less like VI/Emacs/Nano. Of course, I did make
the mistake of *mentioning* the forbidden word: Windows. But still,
I mean, grow up people: it's a fucking OS, not a religion. (I even got
responses that outright ignored the "text-mode" part and suggested
various GUI editors.)

There are certainly *good* helpful mature users too, though. It'd be
unfair, and patently untrue, for me to say that *all* the Linux culture
is screwy like that. But there's too much.
September 19, 2012
Re: [OT] Was: totally satisfied :D
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 13:38:32 -0700
"H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 08:49:58PM +0200, Mehrdad wrote:
> > It's pretty damn hard to convince Linux users that what you're
> > trying to do is, in fact, not out of stupidity/ignorance.
> 
> It's pretty damn hard to convince Windows zealots that anything but
> the Windows way is not out of stupidity/ignorance.
> 

Windows zealots are pretty rare though. Most Windows users accept that
it's just an OS, and that it has its problems and downsides. (It'd be
pretty hard to be a Windows user and *not* accept that Windows has
it's problems.)

> 
> > >(I tried switching the mouse to sloppy focus once... and never
> > >dared try it again.)
> > 
> > What's "sloppy focus"?
> 
> The window focus automatically changes to whatever window the mouse is
> currently hovering over. Preferably WITHOUT automatically bringing
> said window to the top. (Good luck making this work on Windows. And
> once you actually manage to coax Windows to do it, have fun seeing
> the train wreck that is your applications once you start using them
> this way.)
> 

Not exactly what you described, but similar:

http://ehiti.de/katmouse/

When I point at something and scroll, I expect my *target* to scroll,
not whatever the hell random thing I just happened to have clicked on
last.

I would *HATE* using windows if I didn't have that. Unfortunately,
it doesn't *always* work on Win7 (usually does, though). Works great on
XP.

But I agree, trying to do anything the non-Windows way on Windows
involves stupid PITA hacking, that doesn't always work right, *if* it's
even possible at all.

And it's not *just* doing something the non-Windows way, it's even
specific *versions* of windows: You can't even get things the WinXP way
on Win7. Sure, *some* things you can, *sometimes*, with obscure hacks
that don't even always work...

Man, I'm really gonna have to get around to upgrading my laptop from
Win7 back to XP sometime...Fuck this shit...
September 19, 2012
Re: [OT] Was: totally satisfied :D
On Wednesday, 19 September 2012 at 21:30:58 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 20:49:58 +0200
> "Mehrdad" <wfunction@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, 19 September 2012 at 17:29:17 UTC, H. S. Teoh 
>> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 12:02:24PM +0200, Timon Gehr wrote:
>> >> 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.
>> 
>> 
>> Yeah, they're "fixable" by your definition all right.
>> 
>> It's just that when you ask people how, either no one you ask 
>> knows why, or they try to convince you that you're an idiot 
>> for even thinking about asking."
>> 
>> Relevant examples:
>> 
>> It's next-to-impossible to go on a forum and ask about fixing 
>> a boot-sector GRUB install without some fool coming along and 
>> diverting the entire thread into "Why the hell isn't GRUB 
>> installed on your MBR?"
>> 
>> When you have a (God forbid!) space character in your 
>> directory/file names and some program chokes on it?
>> "Stop putting spaces in your file names."
>> 
>> When you ask how to make a passwordless account or how to 
>> obtain permanent root privileges?
>> "Are you insane?!"
>> 
>> When you ask if there is a defragmenter for Linux?
>> Some fool comes along and says "Linux doesn't need 
>> defragmentation!!!!!!!!!"
>> 
>> When you ask why the fonts are blurry?
>> "It's just different, you're just picky. Get used to it."
>> 
>> When you ask why the touchpad is so darn hypersensitive?
>> "Modify the source code."
>> 
>
> Yea, as much as there is I like about Linux (and I intend to 
> switch to it for my primary system), I've always considered the 
> "culture" surrounding it to be one of Linux's biggest 
> liabilities.
>
> You should have seen the shitstorm I had to put up with when 
> inquiring about a text-mode editor (so I could use it through 
> SSH) that worked more like Kate/Gedit and less like 
> VI/Emacs/Nano. Of course, I did make the mistake of 
> *mentioning* the forbidden word: Windows. But still, I mean, 
> grow up people: it's a fucking OS, not a religion.


+1
September 19, 2012
Re: [OT] Was: totally satisfied :D
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 05:51:31PM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 13:38:32 -0700
> "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 08:49:58PM +0200, Mehrdad wrote:
> > > It's pretty damn hard to convince Linux users that what you're
> > > trying to do is, in fact, not out of stupidity/ignorance.
> > 
> > It's pretty damn hard to convince Windows zealots that anything but
> > the Windows way is not out of stupidity/ignorance.
> > 
> 
> Windows zealots are pretty rare though. Most Windows users accept that
> it's just an OS, and that it has its problems and downsides. (It'd be
> pretty hard to be a Windows user and *not* accept that Windows has
> it's problems.)

Haha, true!


[...]
> > > What's "sloppy focus"?
> > 
> > The window focus automatically changes to whatever window the mouse
> > is currently hovering over. Preferably WITHOUT automatically
> > bringing said window to the top. (Good luck making this work on
> > Windows. And once you actually manage to coax Windows to do it, have
> > fun seeing the train wreck that is your applications once you start
> > using them this way.)
> > 
> 
> Not exactly what you described, but similar:
> 
> http://ehiti.de/katmouse/
> 
> When I point at something and scroll, I expect my *target* to scroll,
> not whatever the hell random thing I just happened to have clicked on
> last.

Yeah, another annoyance -- not with Windows specifically but with GUI
apps in general -- is the search function more often than not has an
invisible cursor from which the next search begins, which may be
COMPLETELY unrelated to what you're currently looking at (e.g. if you
scrolled the screen after the previous search). Or a new search always
starts from the top of the document/page/whatever regardless of where
you currently are. This is completely counterintuitive and stupid, and
makes it a royal pain esp. when you want to search starting from a
specific location.


> I would *HATE* using windows if I didn't have that. Unfortunately, it
> doesn't *always* work on Win7 (usually does, though). Works great on
> XP.
> 
> But I agree, trying to do anything the non-Windows way on Windows
> involves stupid PITA hacking, that doesn't always work right, *if*
> it's even possible at all.

Yeah, after attempting to do sloppy focus on Windows, I crawled back
into a dark corner and wept silently as I conceded to doing things the
Windows way.


> And it's not *just* doing something the non-Windows way, it's even
> specific *versions* of windows: You can't even get things the WinXP
> way on Win7. Sure, *some* things you can, *sometimes*, with obscure
> hacks that don't even always work...

Yeah that's what I meant by "hood welded shut". Although it's probably
more like "hood booby-trapped shut, open at your own risk". :-P


> Man, I'm really gonna have to get around to upgrading my laptop from
> Win7 back to XP sometime...Fuck this shit...

"Upgrading back to XP", lol!


T

-- 
Windows 95 was a joke, and Windows 98 was the punchline.
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home