[ssupermegatone]

I don't think I have ever seen such a ridiculous comparison.

Win7 looks just as nice (in fact nicer in places) than OS X when it is not running in NT Classic theme!

And you can also buy PC cases as nice as Mac cases if you are prepared to pay mac prices.

Doh...

You compared a modded PC case to a factory apple case? Thats quite the unfair comparison.

I admit, the Mac looks real slick on the inside, but its not about appearances, its about functionality.

Besides, you can get very nice PC cases nowadays anyway, and any Onion worth his salt has his case wires hidden as well

...doh...

Hahaha

Where did you find that shot of Windows 7? It doesn't look like that at all....is that on basic mode?

Hurrah... humor requires a brain, it is true.

Yeah, that's actually the wallpaper you got with the RC1 (I had it).

Come on, admit it... Windows is for girls. If you haven't got an "X" in your operating system's name, it's just not manly. Even Linux sounds vaguely masculine.

Windows Seh-Ven... sounds like you need to hold your wrist at 90 degrees when you say it.

[UvjqTVVC]

Doh...



...doh...



Hurrah... humor requires a brain, it is true.

Yeah, that's actually the wallpaper you got with the RC1 (I had it).

Come on, admit it... Windows is for girls. If you haven't got an "X" in your operating system's name, it's just not manly. Even Linux sounds vaguely masculine.

Windows Seh-Ven... sounds like you need to hold your wrist at 90 degrees when you say it.

LOL, sorry man. I genuinely thought your were being a fanboy.

[ssupermegatone]

LOL, sorry man. I genuinely thought your were being a fanboy.

And I am sorry for being a **** in my reply... I can't believe you thought I was being sincere! [rofl]

Aaaannnyway, so we just agreed Macs are way better then?

[LeslieMoran]

Well the iPhone does... so... well you figure it out.

So it supports a revision that isn't even standardized and is yet to receive W3C Recommendation? Webkit supports a few elements properly and a few partially but it is far from 'supporting' HTML5. That is the biggest problem with HTML be it 2, 3.2 or 5 different vendors supporting the parts of the specification they want, adding their own elements, changing some to what they think is better (alt as a tooltip anyone?) and not supporting bits they aren't bothered with. This isn't isolated to Apple they are just doing what Microsoft, Netscape, etc. have done for years. Yes it's nice to have video embed tags but I fear that this revision will fall foul of the same problems HTML has since it's inception.

Was XHTML better with it's error handling? Who knows seeing as everybody avoided it for that reason but I wish people would stop referring to HTML 5 as if it was some magic bullet. It's not and we'll still be left with the same problems and in the same situation where a code that should be platform independent behaves differently on each platform.

[Gaiaakgyyyg]

Which is what jobs is dong. So i guess that's fitting.

I understand your anger, but please, leave his dong out of this.

[ssupermegatone]

So it supports a revision that isn't even standardized and is yet to receive W3C Recommendation? Webkit supports a few elements properly and a few partially but it is far from 'supporting' HTML5. That is the biggest problem with HTML be it 2, 3.2 or 5 different vendors supporting the parts of the specification they want, adding their own elements, changing some to what they think is better (alt as a tooltip anyone?) and not supporting bits they aren't bothered with. This isn't isolated to Apple they are just doing what Microsoft, Netscape, etc. have done for years. Yes it's nice to have video embed tags but I fear that this revision will fall foul of the same problems HTML has since it's inception.

Was XHTML better with it's error handling? Who knows seeing as everybody avoided it for that reason but I wish people would stop referring to HTML 5 as if it was some magic bullet. It's not and we'll still be left with the same problems and in the same situation where a code that should be platform independent behaves differently on each platform.

Fair and good points which I am ware of - I've been following HTML5 with some interest. I hope you're not seriously suggesting I should have inferred all of that from the terse one-liner I responded to?

[LeslieMoran]

Fair and good points which I am ware of - I've been following HTML5 with some interest. I hope you're not seriously suggesting I should have inferred all of that from the terse one-liner I responded to?

Nah, just wanted my rant to be heard.

[QWNPdpr5]

I hope you're not seriously suggesting I should have inferred all of that from the terse one-liner I responded to?

Oh, the irony...

[UvjqTVVC]

Aaaannnyway, so we just agreed Macs are way better then?

Obviously. I'm not convinced the hardware is worth all the money (the mac pro's that is. Macbook Pro's and iMacs are fairly priced for what you get) but the OS is in a different league to windows, and I used windows for nearly 20 years.

[MarythePuppy6]

Anyone who uses a Mac will tell you that Flash kicks the crap out of it unecessarily. A h.264 video at 720p uses about 30% of my Core Duo CPU if it's iTunes or Silverlight, yet some shitty YouTube 360p video in flash uses 80%. Flash on the Mac is crapola (and from what I read, not much better in Windows if your CPU is last gen, or an Atom), and I don't know if this is an OS X issue or an Adobe issue, but considering almost all other video codecs use LESS CPU on the Mac, well, you figure it out. Even Silverlight isn't this bad!

Flash does a lot more than playback fullscreen videos. Incidentally, if you watch the iPhone/Apple TV versions of some YouTube videos (same quality as the originals) they use aout 5% of the CPU that the Flash version uses. And why do you think that is? mAh/hr battery Lawlunits HTML 5 should be the way forward... and for DRM'ed on demand content, I know that Netflix has a better picture and uses less CPU than Hulu... There is a typical trade off with any compression: run-time CPU usage or memory footprint. If you streamed uncompressed video, you would have minimal load on the CPU, does that make uncompressed video the best for web applications?

[ssupermegatone]

Oh, the irony...

Is that a double irony? Does such a thing exist?

[ssupermegatone]

Obviously. I'm not convinced the hardware is worth all the money (the mac pro's that is. Macbook Pro's and iMacs are fairly priced for what you get) but the OS is in a different league to windows, and I used windows for nearly 20 years.

It's the one glaring gap... a tower that can be easily upgraded and doesn't cost $3,000. The iMacs are very good value for what you get, especially considering the screen quality (er, if you ignore the current problems with the 27" Macs).

Flash does a lot more than playback fullscreen videos.

Really? I'm glad you pointed that out. Is this the new FM 'thing' for 2010... if someone doesn't mention everything from the big bang to 4.2 nano seconds ago, it's assumed they don't know it and someone gets to point it out? Are you Lord_Micron in disguise? (I know that last jab hurt...)

And why do you think that is? Because it's a pile of crap?

Lawlunits Was that example too low... I can't remember what the iPhone/iPad capacities are. More like 900 and 1500?

... you know I am fracking with you, don't you? Go and sweep that yard.

[MarythePuppy6]

Really? I'm glad you pointed that out. Is this the new FM 'thing' for 2010... if someone doesn't mention everything from the big bang to 4.2 nano seconds ago, it's assumed they don't know it and someone gets to point it out? Are you Lord_Micron in disguise? (I know that last jab hurt...)

Why are you only mentioning video playback then? USB sucks for video streaming, should we destroy the technology? Do you understand my point?

You see, if I did not know that you knew this, I would have spent the time to explain the other functions of flash, but since I know you know, it was a polite elbow nudge like, "Remember: Flash is not limited to YouTube". Instead of addressing my point (which is very valid, if you look back at the narrow-scoped drivel you posted about Flash), you critique the very method in which I refuted your point. Combating the spelling and delivery of a point, instead of the point itself... that is the new FM 'thing' for 2010. Was that example too low... I can't remember what the iPhone/iPad capacities are. More like 900 and 1500? The units for charge is Coulomb, rather than scaring people with this, vendors rate batteries in milliamp-hours, which means thousandths of Coulombs per second times 1 hour (3600 seconds). Here, you can cancel out the seconds and get just Coulombs (how many quantifiable electrons in the battery). Your unit (Or should I say, "electronic abortion"?) is mAh/hr, essentially, charge divided by seconds, times hours, divided by hours. Hence: Lawlunits. Go and sweep that yard. Actually, I am off to Power Electronics class. Today we learn about mAh/hr!

[ssupermegatone]

Why are you only mentioning video playback then?

Because it was an example where I could do a like for like comparison and illustrate my point. Comparing the Flash version of Blast-o-glans Vs Silky-Sack with the Java version of the same game might not be valid, even if I had access to that information, which I don't. See, even us poor gheto folks have some logic to our actions.

You see, if I did not know that you knew this, I would have spent the time to explain the other functions of flash, but since I know you know, it was a polite elbow nudge like, "Remember: Flash is not limited to YouTube". Instead of addressing my point (which is very valid, if you look back at the narrow-scoped drivel you posted about Flash), you critique the very method in which I refuted your point. True, I did that. It was a lot of fun.

The units for charge is Coulomb, rather than scaring people with this, vendors rate batteries in milliamp-hours, which means thousandths of Coulombs per second times 1 hour (3600 seconds). Here, you can cancel out the seconds and get just Coulombs (how many quantifiable electrons in the battery). Your unit (Or should I say, "electronic abortion"?) is mAh/hr, essentially, charge divided by seconds, times hours, divided by hours. Hence: Lawlunits.Actually, I am off to Power Electronics class. Today we learn about mAh/hr! Is that how you pick up women?

[Juersdodfs]

Is that how you pick up women?

I doubt it. I talk about Star Wars all the time and it doesn't seem to help.

[NudiJuicervich]

Hey its ok, his attitude reflects his product, obnoxious and self righteous! Like most of Apples customer base!

[Yfclciak]

Hey its ok, his attitude reflects his product, obnoxious and self righteous! Like most of Apples customer base!

How obnoxious. Oh and self righteous.

[AutoCadPhotoSHOP]

How obnoxious. Oh and self righteous.

But see that was his point to show how mac users are. If you are a mac user and read that reply... Then now you know how we (PC guys) feel when Mac users talk to us. Maybe we should both acknowledge each others plus and minuses and shake hands :P

[HexcewlyRette]

Hey its ok, his attitude reflects his product, obnoxious and self righteous! Like most of Apples customer base!

/swoons

[UvjqTVVC]

/swoons

Get back in your box OHP. [thumbdown]