 |
| |
|
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
No. It's easier to capture things that are at the edge of the screen. |
You don't understand Fitts' law, that's not what it says.
Please don't argue about things you don't know, even I'm embarassed for you.
From my textbook:
Fitts' Law: time to get the mouse pointer to an onscreen area = a + b * log2((D/S) + 1)
where a and b are emperical numbers, but most of the time a = 0 and b = 0.1
D is the distance to the area
S is the size of the area
Now, if you need to move the mouse to activate the window, then again up to the top, D is going to be much larger in OS X than in Windows.
Further, since most of the time the cursors are near the center of the screen, Fitts' law states the time is going to be greater if you need to move the mouse even farther up (always to the top edge of the screen).
If you're going to pretend like you know what you're talking about, at least do your research.
quote:
You think I'm going to set him up with you.  |
Yeah, that's what I thought. 
What's to be afraid of?
For your information, the UofT doesn't exactly have a well-respected compsci program. Even the UofC kicked their ass pretty badly at least year's ACM Olympics...
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
Not really, the argument has mainly been over whether or not the dock can do certain things. You accused it of not being able to do things it clearly can do and does. That's not especially technical - it's just pointing out features. |
Most of the stuff where you explained it could do something didn't address what I proposed, or it did but required "only a few more clicks". 
quote:
Of course it's fine for normal people, but you seem to think this is confusing. If it were I'm sure that Drake and I would be confused, but we aren't. So your point is essentially stupid. |
I've shot this strawman down at least half a dozen times in this thread, why do you keep bringing it up?
I'm saying it's not as straight forward, and more limiting, to do it like Apple did, mixing unlaunched & launched programs randomly. It makes more logical sense, it makes more functional sense, to have a division between what's running and what's not.
quote:
And are you insane? |
Of course, why did you have to ask?
quote:
Why would I want to annoy my roommate by foisting you on him? He's got better things to do than get involved in tiresome exchanges with wannabes. And so have I.... |
Tell me, do you have tea with this roommate? Does he tell you to burn things?
quote:
Blah blah blah..... I told you why I like it - I find it easier to use. I find Windows a pain, no matter what I do with it. |
Does this relate to my comment about Apple having to dumb down OS X, while Windows lets you do more? Is that why it's a pain?
quote:
And as our friend over at xvsxp.com points out it is a matter of controversy as to whether X needs a seperate defragmenter. |
It's only a matter of controversy because technically it doesn't need one, it just needs one to stay fast after lots of disk activity. So you'll get the Apple zealots saying "Nope, it doesn't need one!" while the people who actually understand what disk defragmentation is and what causes it will tell you "Yes, it needs one!"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002
time: 21:27
|
|
Asher, champion of the world!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zero
|
 |
Bouncing back and forth
Sep 2002
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
It's only a matter of controversy because technically it doesn't need one, it just needs one to stay fast after lots of disk activity. So you'll get the Apple zealots saying "Nope, it doesn't need one!" while the people who actually understand what disk defragmentation is and what causes it will tell you "Yes, it needs one!" |
Maybe you should try explaining to him just what happens when data is fragmented.
EDIT: Actually, I will cause I have nothing else better to do than to play cards and lose money all night. Most Simply put:
You're hard drive stores things. And when you delete crap, you leave segments of free spaces avaialable. (because you dont always delete the data thats stored the latest).
So for example lets say you're HD looks like this.
11222222333445566777899
each number representing a data and digits representing certain amount of space. If you wanna store 6 digit worth of 0s in this full hard drive, you'll have to delete 6 digit worth of it (obviously) Now deleting 2s will let you do that no problem. But if you delete 1s, 4s and 9s, the the 0s will be fragmented. This causes slowup cause your hard drive has to actively go search for bits and pieces of data.
Imagine that you dont have a space for a furniture at your house, so you shred it up and store it little by little cramming it whereever you can. If you use the computer long enough, eventually disk spaces get ridiculously fragmentted that it does not run so smoothly. Think about many different furnitures shredded and you're searching for one type of furniture in a pile of mess.... Its a nightmare unless you defrag, something you do to relocate data so that everything is nicely arranged basically.
Not only that fragmentted data is wasteful because it has all sorts of needless datas instructing the computer to locate where fragmented datas are. Think about having a book right next to the piece of furniture that takes up space in the house directing you where the next matching piece is.
Last edited by Zero on 09-05-2003 at 08:09
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002
time: 21:27
|
|
Calc, that would make agathons head explode.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
No I got bored with Asher's anti contextual "refutations" and started to watch a hockey game. |
"anti contextual"
A real pretentious tw4t would have known to hyphenate that. 
quote:
I know very well what a defragmenter does, after all I used to use Windows. |
Ah, so you had an OS with software engineers bright enough to code a defragmenter. 
quote:
When I say that OS X requires no defragmenter it is not a case of Apple zealots irrationally saying it doesn't need one. |
It sure as hell does -- Apple doesn't have a defragmenter. They don't have an app for it, and they don't go and "clean up" in the background. It's just now how a defragmenter works.
quote:
It's a reasonable assumption to make that if it was causing major problems there would have been a hue and cry for an OS X defragger (esp from pro multimedia users), but there hasn't been - so make of that what you will. |
There's not a big hue and cry for an OS X defragger, because if Apple users gave a damn about performance, they'd be using a PC.
The people who use Apple use it because they like Apple's style, they like the simplicity of the GUI permitting things like only one instance of an application at once, and only having one menu bar on the screen.
The last thing on their mind is if they need a defragmenter, or why they don't have one. And to be frank, a lot of them just don't want to admit that there are lots of things missing from OS X.
quote:
And I discovered that you can in fact run the same program twice in OS X by using the terminal. I assume if people wanted to do it that badly some haxie would have been created to enable this thru the Finder. |
But how would you keep track of it if the dock is castrated so as to only put one icon on the dock per program?
That's what we call a kludge.
And besides: "Running two instances of a program????? that is teh sux!!!"
quote:
Hardly. What would is if Asher stopped being childish and admitted he was wrong about what X can do. |
I'm not wrong, you just consciously or subconsciously redefine what I ask it can do, then say "Yeah it can do that!". 
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-05-2003 07:11
|