 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999 time: 22:27
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Agathon
I fail to see how doing nothing counts as efficiency. |
Is this a joke?
If I can just look at something and see it, without having to click to see it, the thing that requires no clicking is more efficient...
quote: [in Steve Urkel's voice] "Oh this is just eye candy. What a waste of processing power, whine whine whine...." |
I've no problem with eye candy, I've got a problem with excessive eye candy at the expensive of responsiveness, efficiency, and functionality.
quote: Then why did you misread what I said? |
I'm not sure that I did, perhaps you're using terms and you don't understand what they mean, which can be confusing?
quote: Doesn't he mention that you can disable it? |
Nope. He just said he found it annoying.
quote: I especially like the one where you complain about the mac menubar when it's known a matter of fact that having it at the top of the screen is more efficient than having it attached to separate windows, for the simple reason that accessing stuff at the edges of the screen is easier. |
"matter of fact"?
Agathon, think about it. If you only have one menubar shared between all the windows, you need to click on a window, then move all the way up to the top of the screen to access the menu. In Windows, the menu (quite logically) is drawn on the window it controls. Not only does this save clicking time, it saves space. Not a single Windows user I've ever seen had problems locating the menu bar because it wasn't at the very top of the screen. 
quote: The fact still remains that you still haven't managed to foil most of the stuff I've put up since you just don't seem to be familiar with the way X works. |
I've foiled most of it, you just keep saying "No that's not what I mean!" or "No, you didn't foil it". 
quote: Unfortunately I don't, since our roomate (a man with an excellent degree in CS) runs 2000 because he describes XP as "pure sh*t". |
Your roommate's a pretty bright guy. 
We all know NT5.1 is worse than 5.0.
Your roommate probably doesn't realize that you can configure XP to look and behave exactly like Win2K, with added stability.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002 time: 00:27
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Asher
Is this a joke?
If I can just look at something and see it, without having to click to see it, the thing that requires no clicking is more efficient... |
I think we're talking about different things here.
quote: I'm not sure that I did, perhaps you're using terms and you don't understand what they mean, which can be confusing? |
Can't resist it can you?
quote: Agathon, think about it. If you only have one menubar shared between all the windows, you need to click on a window, then move all the way up to the top of the screen to access the menu. In Windows, the menu (quite logically) is drawn on the window it controls. Not only does this save clicking time, it saves space. Not a single Windows user I've ever seen had problems locating the menu bar because it wasn't at the very top of the screen. |
Fitt's law.
quote: I've foiled most of it.[QUOTE]
Jesus, you are a serial bullshitter. Half the stuff you accused X of not being able to do it can do, and you employed your usual strategy of not talking about the stuff your beat at. My favourite is the "two icons take up less space than one" argument.
[QUOTE]Your roommate's a pretty bright guy. |
I should say so, a lot brighter than you...
quote: Your roommate probably doesn't realize that you can configure XP to look and behave exactly like Win2K, with added stability. |
I'd be willing to bet that he knows more about it than you do.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999 time: 22:27
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Agathon
This is why you are full of sh*t |
No, it's why you are. You once again swerved around the issue and blindly made other attacks.
quote: CONCLUSION: since any idiot will want to delete them as quickly as possible it makes sense on both systems to move them into a folder and delete that since it's instantaneous in both cases. So the speed difference doesn't have any practical value. |
CONCLUSION: You're avoiding it -- why is OS X so painfully slow at batch-deleting files and XP is not? Why don't you admit Apple has somw slow-ass code and save yourself, rather than finding excuses and ways to get around it?
I think it's ridiculous to force people to make a folder, move files, then delete the folder to get under 7 minute delete times when XP does the same operation in a matter of seconds.
quote: It's a cheap shot because the comparison was done on a computer which is at the very low end of systems that can run X. If you were to run it on a G4 the performance would be much better due to the fact that the system takes advantage of the G4 only features. Older computers like mine can't take advantage of this stuff. |
Bullshit, the G4 is a G3 with AltiVec, and stuff like window scrolling and resizing doesn't use AltiVec because it can't be vectorized. The only advantage is the clockspeed, so if you do use a high-speed G4, you would get better responses, I suppose.
But I've noticed the responses very slow on my friend's iBook, although that's a G3 too. So I don't see why it's not relevant, since Apple still sells G3s...
quote: Apparently it doesn't need one. |
That's a huge crock of ****. Every filesystem needs defragmenters if you ever delete files or not.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27. Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|