Thunderbird 5
-
I still use Pegasus Mail, as I've been doing since 1995. (I've upgraded the version many times, though.)
-
@dtobias said:
I still use Pegasus Mail, as I've been doing since 1995. (I've upgraded the version many times, though.)
Congratulations?
We were talking about Thunderbird 5, though. Well. Kinda.
-
@boomzilla said:
I've been using KMail for a while now. Generally, I like it.
I've tried to set it up. It doesn't work. At all. The account setup wizard failed with a dialog of checking for security capabilities of the server. When I tried to set it up manually, it kept crashing, not closing dialogs when I clicked OK, and not saving any settings, insisting that I hadn't entered a server name. Sigh. I guess Thunderbird is still better than something that doesn't appear to be working at all.
-
@dtobias said:
Oh god, you're like those fuckass Eudora retards from when I did University IT. "I've used this since 1995 and never had any problems! Now stop trying to switch me to this 'Outlook' bullshit and fix my corrupted mailbox for the third time this month. Quickly, now, because I have tenure and I can have you fired for looking at me wrong."I still use Pegasus Mail, as I've been doing since 1995. (I've upgraded the version many times, though.)
-
Hey, as long as we're bitching about Thunderbird, how about this:
1. Open a long (enough that there's a scroll bar) email in a new tab.
2. Scroll down a bit.
3. Switch to another tab.
4. Switch back to the tab with the long email.
Guess where the scroll position is in that tab?
Hint: it ain't where you left it.
-
@Someone You Know said:
Guess where the scroll position is in that tab?
Hint: it ain't where you left it.
Wow. That's stupid. What's the point of opening it in a new tab, then? I never got why a mail program should have tabs anyway, it seems too forced to be right. Maybe it's just me, but I rarely have a situation where I have to compare two or more e-mails side by side, and even then, a new window is better to do so and with the bug you described it's totally pointless to do it with tabs anyway. I never have a second tab open actually so the tab bar is just wasting space. And you need an extension to auto-hide it.
-
@derula said:
I never got why a mail program should have tabs anyway, it seems too forced to be right.
Hey look, tabs!
-
@Weng said:
@derula said:
I never got why a mail program should have tabs anyway, it seems too forced to be right.
Hey look, tabs! I don't really know Outlook. It this "cheated MDI" like Excel uses it? Or is this tabs like in Thunderbird? Well anyway I didn't mean to say that tabs are useless and good for no one, just I haven't found any use for them yet; probably because I don't have to do serious stuff with emails.
-
@derula said:
I don't really know Outlook. It this "cheated MDI" like Excel uses it? Or is this tabs like in Thunderbird? Well anyway I didn't mean to say that tabs are useless and good for no one, just I haven't found any use for them yet; probably because I don't have to do serious stuff with emails.
He's saying that the Windows 7 task bar previewer works a lot like tabs. In the screenshot he posted, those are actually all different windows.
-
@derula said:
I don't really know Outlook. It this "cheated MDI" like Excel uses it? Or is this tabs like in Thunderbird? Well anyway I didn't mean to say that tabs are useless and good for no one, just I haven't found any use for them yet; probably because I don't have to do serious stuff with emails.
You're an XP Apologist. Know how I know?Anyway, HOLY FUCK I hadn't realized Excel still did MDI. You've made one of my current projects much easier.
-
@Weng said:
@derula said:
I don't really know Outlook. It this "cheated MDI" like Excel uses it? Or is this tabs like in Thunderbird? Well anyway I didn't mean to say that tabs are useless and good for no one, just I haven't found any use for them yet; probably because I don't have to do serious stuff with emails.
You're an XP Apologist. Know how I know?Anyway, HOLY FUCK I hadn't realized Excel still did MDI. You've made one of my current projects much easier.
Excel and PPT both. Why Microsoft won't fix those pieces of shit...
Ahem. I could understand Excel, because some Fortune 100 probably has a huge complex workflow scriped in VBA that assumes/requires MDI. Same reason they can't fix the bug where Excel can't open two documents with the same name, or the various other fixes they can't make due to bug-for-bug VBA compatibility.
PPT, though... nobody's scripting that thing. Fix it already! Edit: Oh shit, holy of holies, PPT 2011 is finally fixed! Praise be! Also shows how often I use PPT, hah.
-
@Weng said:
You're an XP Apologist.
Wow, blakey calls me a Linux fanboy, now I'm an XP apologist. Very interesting.
@Weng said:
Anyway, HOLY FUCK I hadn't realized Excel still did MDI.
Well... it's "cheated" MDI since it cheats every MDI window to have its own taskbar entry...
-
@derula said:
@Weng said:
You're an XP Apologist.
Wow, blakey calls me a Linux fanboy, now I'm an XP apologist. Very interesting.
Those two things aren't mutually-exclusive, you know.
-
@derula said:
Well... it's "cheated" MDI since it cheats every MDI window to have its own taskbar entry...
Huh. I could have sworn MDI just kind of works like that now, but I knocked up a test in VS and it didn't work.Edit: Apparently Win7 has added this to the API. It isn't supported in .net yet, however.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@derula said:
@Weng said:
You're an XP Apologist.
Wow, blakey calls me a Linux fanboy, now I'm an XP apologist. Very interesting.
Those two things aren't mutually-exclusive, you know.
To be a furry porn artist and a high school teacher isn't mutually exclusive either, yet I would have reacted in a similar way if people had suspected I was both of these.
-
@derula said:
@blakeyrat said:
@derula said:
@Weng said:
You're an XP Apologist.
Wow, blakey calls me a Linux fanboy, now I'm an XP apologist. Very interesting.
Those two things aren't mutually-exclusive, you know.
To be a furry porn artist and a high school teacher isn't mutually exclusive either, yet I would have reacted in a similar way if people had suspected I was both of these.
Think of it this way: Linux users are frequently what I like to call "luddites", meaning they hate change and using new software/interfaces/etc. They're likely to dismiss usability improvements, saying that the software just "looks pretty". They'll be concerned about things like memory and disk usage of software that the majority of people aren't concerned about.
This type of person, if using Windows, would prefer XP over Vista or Windows 7, because it has less new stuff in it. They default to "looking pretty", and some native apps (like Paint) don't even let you turn the "prettiness" off. Vista and Windows 7 have more aggressive disk caching, and thus to the Linux user "uses more memory".
The same sort of person who uses Linux would, if they used Windows, prefer Windows XP. They probably also change Windows XP to look like Windows 2000, and disable features like System Restore which "waste disk space".
So you see how I could think that a furry porn drawing high school teacher like yourself could be both a Linux fanboy and a XP apologist.
-
@blakeyrat said:
So you see how I could think that a furry porn drawing high school teacher like yourself could be both a Linux fanboy and a XP apologist.
Ah, really, good thinking. I was viewing it from the wrong perspective, I think. I thought that true Linux fanboys would probably also be security fanatics and would therefore strongly advise against XP. On the other hand, I thought that XP apologists would dislike change at a large scale and would therefore never even try Linux. Your complete and flawless explanation, however, shows how wrong my assumptions have been and that indeed, both could occur at the same time; heck, they are even likely to do so.
Now if you excuse me, I have a deadline to meet on this new comic, and that stack of classwork over there doesn't correct itself either.
-
@blakeyrat said:
This type of person, if using Windows, would prefer XP over Vista or Windows 7, because it has less new stuff in it. They default to "looking pretty", and some native apps (like Paint) don't even let you turn the "prettiness" off. Vista and Windows 7 have more aggressive disk caching, and thus to the Linux user "uses more memory".
Actually, Windows 7 uses almost 750MB more physical RAM than XP on the same machine here. Both are running 32-bit, and I'm talking about purely physical memory, not including disk caching the less-used memory. This is from a fresh install of XP SP3 and 7 SP1, both with and without installing the 3rd-party video drivers. In fact, I consider it a miracle if I can get W7 to run at less than 1GB of RAM without anything opened, after trimming down unneeded services and startup items. Considering 64-bit support is still terrible, though better than XP, having a full quarter of my maximum possible RAM used up by the operating system is outrageous. I pity anyone who needs to do CAD or high-level modelling and is stuck using windows 7, because it's going to be a slow experience with all the disk caching it needs to do.
On the subject of Linux, most linux distributions use disk-caching of memory by default. It's generally good practice to disable this for laptops though, considering running the hard drive is really bad for battery life.
As someone who tends to use a lot of memory-intensive programs, XP or Linux are my platform of choice just because it's impossible for Windows 7, with its' base usage of 1GB of physical RAM, to offer any sort of acceptable performance. I'm also against the "ribbon interface" not because it's new, but because it effectively hides all the advanced tools I tend to use and is generally implemented poorly, or when using most default windows themes, the text on the ribbon is hard to read. It took me 2 minutes to find the Page Break when I first started using Word 2010 (up from 2003) because I didn't know the icon and the text was impossible to read. It's not a usability improvement if it hinders usability instead of helping it.
Compare to Linux, where I run gentoo, compile my own kernel, and tend to use the latest beta builds just because I know either:
- They aren't going to fuck up the interface.
- If they do fuck up the interface, I can always revert to an older version, which is difficult if not impossible to do with most software in Windows.
- I can change what windowing environment I use (KDE, Gnome, etc) and customize it highly, compared to "oh I can change the color and position of the task bar, and the colors and fonts" in windows.
-
@dtobias said:
I still use Pegasus Mail, as I've been doing since 1995. (I've upgraded the version many times, though.)
Translation: you hate yourself.
@derula said:
@boomzilla said:
I've been using KMail for a while now. Generally, I like it.
I've tried to set it up. It doesn't work. At all. The account setup wizard failed with a dialog of checking for security capabilities of the server. When I tried to set it up manually, it kept crashing, not closing dialogs when I clicked OK, and not saving any settings, insisting that I hadn't entered a server name. Sigh. I guess Thunderbird is still better than something that doesn't appear to be working at all.
See, there's your problem right there - you were expecting a Linux GUI app to work out of the box.
@Weng said:
@derula said:
I never got why a mail program should have tabs anyway, it seems too forced to be right.
Hey look, tabs! Hey look, someone who doesn't know the difference between tabs and windows!
@Valarnin said:
@blakeyrat said:
This type of person, if using Windows, would prefer XP over Vista or Windows 7, because it has less new stuff in it. They default to "looking pretty", and some native apps (like Paint) don't even let you turn the "prettiness" off. Vista and Windows 7 have more aggressive disk caching, and thus to the Linux user "uses more memory".
Actually, Windows 7 uses almost 750MB more physical RAM than XP on the same machine here. Both are running 32-bit, and I'm talking about purely physical memory, not including disk caching the less-used memory. This is from a fresh install of XP SP3 and 7 SP1, both with and without installing the 3rd-party video drivers. In fact, I consider it a miracle if I can get W7 to run at less than 1GB of RAM without anything opened, after trimming down unneeded services and startup items. Considering 64-bit support is still terrible, though better than XP, having a full quarter of my maximum possible RAM used up by the operating system is outrageous. I pity anyone who needs to do CAD or high-level modelling and is stuck using windows 7, because it's going to be a slow experience with all the disk caching it needs to do.
On the subject of Linux, most linux distributions use disk-caching of memory by default. It's generally good practice to disable this for laptops though, considering running the hard drive is really bad for battery life.
As someone who tends to use a lot of memory-intensive programs, XP or Linux are my platform of choice just because it's impossible for Windows 7, with its' base usage of 1GB of physical RAM, to offer any sort of acceptable performance. I'm also against the "ribbon interface" not because it's new, but because it effectively hides all the advanced tools I tend to use and is generally implemented poorly, or when using most default windows themes, the text on the ribbon is hard to read. It took me 2 minutes to find the Page Break when I first started using Word 2010 (up from 2003) because I didn't know the icon and the text was impossible to read. It's not a usability improvement if it hinders usability instead of helping it.
Compare to Linux, where I run gentoo, compile my own kernel, and tend to use the latest beta builds just because I know either:
- They aren't going to fuck up the interface.
- If they do fuck up the interface, I can always revert to an older version, which is difficult if not impossible to do with most software in Windows.
- I can change what windowing environment I use (KDE, Gnome, etc) and customize it highly, compared to "oh I can change the color and position of the task bar, and the colors and fonts" in windows.
Congrats, you just proved blakey's stereotype. BUY MORE MEMORY INSTEAD OF WHINING ABOUT HOW PROGRAMS ARE USING IT INEFFICIENTLY.
Seriously, it's 2011. RAM is dirt cheap, 4GB is the minimum nowadays and 8GB is becoming mainstream.
And if you are still using 32-bit OSes by choice, you deserve to be shot. Again, it's the year 2011, not 2001.
-
@Valarnin said:
Considering 64-bit support is still terrible
That's funny - I haven't noticed a single fucking thing outside 'enterprisey' software that doesn't work seamlessly with 64-bit since about 6 months after Vista's release.Oh, and 64-bit web browsers still don't exist (at least within the realm of reasonable functionality) but that's because those dicksuckers at Adobe can't figure out how to port Flash (which, for some reason, has a lot of rendering code written in assembly) - but nobody says you can't use a 32bit browser on Windows (there certainly are headaches doing it on Linux. Been there done that.)
-
@derula said:
Now if you excuse me, I have a deadline to meet on this new comic, and that stack of classwork over there doesn't correct itself either.
Do you sell the comics by-the-pound? I bet Indrora would love to meet you.
@Valarnin said:
Actually, Windows 7 uses almost 750MB more physical RAM than XP on the same machine here.
Yeah, well, XP's minimum RAM is 64 MB. SIXTY-FOUR MEGABYTES.
But you're also missing the point of Windows 7 memory management. Windows 7's philosophy is "the more RAM is in-use, the better". That doesn't just apply to the disk and DLL cache, but it applies to the OS as well... to use a simple example, if you have the RAM for it, Windows 7 will always keep the volume switcher, multimedia presenter options, etc swapped-in so that there's no delay when you hit the volume control or a multimedia control on the keyboard. XP, on the other hand, swaps the fuck out of everything all the time, you hit the volume button and 25 seconds later the fucking controller appears on the fucking screen like an asshole.
That is to say, if you have RAM, Windows 7 will use it to improve the user experience. This is a Good Thing. Leaving the RAM unused would be a Bad Thing.
If it makes you feel any better, Windows 7's kernel is using 1164 MB on my computer, only 108 of which are non-page-able. That's pretty fucking good. And if your computer were RAM-starved, you bet your ass it'd shrink down to 108 MB to let you continue working.
OH AND HAI GUESS WHAT, I just looked at NewEgg and 8 GB of RAM is currently $84. If I were using XP, I'd pay fucking $84 just to keep the fucking volume controller from being swapped-out constantly. You've set up the falsest false economy ever in history here. Congratulations.
@Valarnin said:
In fact, I consider it a miracle if I can get W7 to run at less than 1GB of RAM without anything opened,
Windows 7's minimum memory requirement is 1 GB. So if you can get it to run with less than that at all, you're just proving that Microsoft went fucking above and beyond when creating the product.
@Valarnin said:
I pity anyone who needs to do CAD or high-level modelling and is stuck using windows 7,
The fucking $84 for another 8 GB of RAM is a rounding-error when ordering their $2000+ software.
I don't think you're even setting up a false economy anymore, I now think you have absolutely no idea how much any product costs ever. And it's a fucking good thing you don't run a company doing CAD or high-level modelling because, seriously, WTF man.
@Valarnin said:
because it's going to be a slow experience with all the disk caching it needs to do.
Disk caching makes things faster. Right now I don't have Thunderbird running, but guess what? Windows 7 has all Thunderbird's files in memory. Why? Because it knows that I usually run Thunderbird at this time of day, and it knows that I want it to boot quickly next I start it. So let's start it... BAM! 3 fucking seconds. THREE SECONDS. It has 54k emails in its database, and it opened in THREE SECONDS.
Ok now let's say we run a program with a high memory requirement and wasn't predicted by the OS-- say a brand-new video game I just finished downloading. Guess what happens? Windows says, "oh I didn't cache any of this stuff, darn it to heck, I guess I need to clear the space and load from disk." And it clears the memory. And guess how long this takes? Hint: less than a millisecond. And that is the absolutely worst-case scenario!
If you think disk caching makes a computer slower, then I can only assume you're living in Narnia or some shit because, seriously, WTF man.
@Valarnin said:
On the subject of Linux, most linux distributions use disk-caching of memory by default.
Yes, but it's not predictive. Windows 7 keeps a database of "at this time of day, and this day of the week, the list of accessed files is Foo, Bar, Baz, Etc. The odds the user will require one of these files is 78%" As you go through the day, it'll swap files out and in based on what you're most likely to use at that time of day.
What Linux does is what XP does. Windows 7 goes far beyond that.
@Valarnin said:
It's generally good practice to disable this for laptops though, considering running the hard drive is really bad for battery life.
I let Windows handle it. Since the concensus is that Windows generally gets equal or better battery life on the same hardware, I'm guessing that Microsoft did their homework on this one, eh?
@Valarnin said:
As someone who tends to use a lot of memory-intensive programs, XP or Linux are my platform of choice just because it's impossible for Windows 7, with its' base usage of 1GB of physical RAM, to offer any sort of acceptable performance.
All you're proving to me is that people who criticize Windows 7's memory usage:
1) Have absolutely no sense of the cost of memory
2) Have absolutely no idea how memory management in Windows 7 works
3) Are incapable of perceiving how full RAM is better than empty RAM at any given time
4) Are idiots in general@Valarnin said:
I'm also against the "ribbon interface" not because it's new, but because it effectively hides all the advanced tools I tend to use
Measure the clicks. Nobody gives a crap what your gut instinct is, because Your Gut Instinct Is Fucking Wrong. We're computer scientists, not fucking cavemen hitting things with a club. Your implication that Microsoft implemented the Ribbon with no consideration as to whether it is actually better than what came before is frankly insulting, not only to the Microsoft engineers who poured their blood sweat and tears into it, but to every computer scientist everywhere.
Measure the fucking clicks. You bring me data, and I listen. You bring me this old bullshit copied from Slashdot, and I call you an idiot again.
@Valarnin said:
It took me 2 minutes to find the Page Break when I first started using Word 2010 (up from 2003) because I didn't know the icon and the text was impossible to read.
- The ribbon responds to the OS DPI setting. If you have trouble reading it, change the DPI setting until you can. That said, the font used in the Ribbon is the same size as the font used in the Word 2003 menus. So it's still a stupid complaint.
2)
The mnemonic for inserting a page break is still "Insert -> Page Break". It didn't change from Word 2003.
@Valarnin said:
I run gentoo
You know if you'd put that at the top of your post, I could have dismissed you as a complete idiot and saved a lot of time trying to refute you being a complete idiot.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@derula said:
Now if you excuse me, I have a deadline to meet on this new comic, and that stack of classwork over there doesn't correct itself either.
Do you sell the comics by-the-pound? I bet Indrora would love to meet you.
Well I'm usually doing contract work for a fairly large-sized European publisher. You know these kinds of contracts, I have to work hard and the money I get for that is ridiculous. Usually when I'm nearing the deadline I'll even have to commission some work to my daughter whom I'm a single mother to (the dickhead who fathered her found it appropriate to move to Spain some night, leaving us alone and worrying… took the fucker three months to send a short notice he's not coming back). I admit it's not a perfect solution, but I'll let her draw some less graphic moments of the story. It's not that my stories are like ordinary pornography, I always take care there's some artistic value in there. Shit, I'd rather be working on normal comics, you know, like I did before the fuckhead took a flight.
Can't believe I'm posting all that on the Internet, but even I have to vent sometimes.
-
@derula said:
Well I'm usually doing contract work for a fairly large-sized European publisher. You know these kinds of contracts, I have to work hard and the money I get for that is ridiculous. Usually when I'm nearing the deadline I'll even have to commission some work to my daughter whom I'm a single mother to (the dickhead who fathered her found it appropriate to move to Spain some night, leaving us alone and worrying… took the fucker three months to send a short notice he's not coming back). I admit it's not a perfect solution, but I'll let her draw some less graphic moments of the story. It's not that my stories are like ordinary pornography, I always take care there's some artistic value in there. Shit, I'd rather be working on normal comics, you know, like I did before the fuckhead took a flight.
Are you... are you for serious? I've never been so not sure if serious before.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Are you... are you for serious? I've never been so not sure if serious before.
You know there's no girls on the Internet. For all you know I'm just a random stranger on the Internet. Make your mind up from there.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Your implication that Microsoft implemented the Ribbon with no consideration as to whether it is actually better than what came before is frankly insulting, not only to the Microsoft engineers who poured their blood sweat and tears into it, but to every computer scientist everywhere.
Time for a personal anecdote then:
I set up a new Vista PC for my mother a few years ago. Didn't bother to clean up the Office 2007 (?) Home trial it came with, though.
She tried to write a letter in Word, save and print it, but couldn't find the print command. So my first response was: Well, D'oh, it's File - Print. But guess what, there was no File tab at all. I had to come over to look at it myself and was dumbfounded for a minute or two. The File menu hides under the oversized window icon, the "Office Orb". That's not discoverable at all, no matter how much it looks like the Windows menu button.
But seeing as the newest version actually has a File tab, I guess it's pretty good overall now.
-
@The_Assimilator said:
See, there's your problem right there - you were expecting
a Linux GUI appsoftware to work out of the box.
FTFY. You really shouldn't believe everything blakey says.
-
@topspin said:
She tried to write a letter in Word, save and print it, but couldn't find the print command. So my first response was: Well, D'oh, it's File - Print. But guess what, there was no File tab at all. I had to come over to look at it myself and was dumbfounded for a minute or two. The File menu hides under the oversized window icon, the "Office Orb". That's not discoverable at all, no matter how much it looks like the Windows menu button.
Yes, it had a problem. The problem probably confused a lot of people. The problem was fixed in the next version.
Nobody claimed it was perfect.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@Valarnin said:
I run gentoo
You know if you'd put that at the top of your post, I could have dismissed you as a complete idiot and saved a lot of time trying to refute you being a complete idiot.
Dang it, blakey, you're a Windows advocate. I'm a Linux advocate. You should be posting more stuff I can argue against. Stop making sense like this!
I mean, I'll admit, I've tried Gentoo myself. But never as my only Linux distro, and there's more reasons for that than I could reasonably post, anywhere. Valamin may be fine running beta software - but, at least back when I was using Gentoo, that was given to *everyone* using Gentoo. Dozens of programs that were in 'stable' depended upon software that was only 'beta'. Same goes for 'beta' stuff and depending on 'alpha' stuff. However, what was worse is that many of the top devs deployed patches to the software packages they maintained without doing rigorous testing. When I complained that the stuff didn't pass the included tests, they said that non-devs shouldn't be running those. However, I was only running those because the software wasn't functioning as documented, and I was trying to track down what was wrong. (As I recall, I clearly indicated this in the email.) But, looking at the code of the tests, they were things that couldn't possibly pass with the patches that the Gentoo devs had added. So going with Gentoo was going with 'test of faith'. I doubt it's improved.
-
@blakeyrat said:
I don't think you're even setting up a false economy anymore, I now think you have absolutely no idea how much any product costs ever. And it's a fucking good thing you don't run a company doing CAD or high-level modelling because, seriously, WTF man.
@Valarnin said:
because it's going to be a slow experience with all the disk caching it needs to do.
Disk caching makes things faster. Right now I don't have Thunderbird running, but guess what? Windows 7 has all Thunderbird's files in memory. Why? Because it knows that I usually run Thunderbird at this time of day, and it knows that I want it to boot quickly next I start it. So let's start it... BAM! 3 fucking seconds. THREE SECONDS. It has 54k emails in its database, and it opened in THREE SECONDS.
I think it's funny how he doesn't know the difference between paging to disk when physical RAM is low and caching frequently used files in otherwise wasted RAM. Fucksake, I'm not primarily or even secondarily a programmer or support guy (whatever you'd need to be to know) and understand the difference.
Also, the memory usage thing, is just not an issue. I rarely if ever see any obvious waiting-for-paging on 7 even when juggling 4-6 very heavy applications on 4Gb of DDR3.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@zipfruder said:
Chrome, Opera, Firefox, Internet Explorer all do the same thing. A window not being in focus doesn't automatically disable the window's controls.
It's appropriate with toolbar buttons, not menus. Menus have always been disabled when the window is not in focus, and disabled menus have no rollover effect. Toolbar buttons, on the other hand, stay enabled while the window is not in focus, so that's a different story. Try it with Calculator. Unfocus the window, then notice how the menu titles have no rollover effects, but the buttons in the window do.
Now I'm not sure why it's done this way, but the point is: it is.
First of all, if Microsoft has a guideline thats says that menus should behave differently from toolbar buttons, scrollbars and other common GUI elements, then that guideline is stupid. You really can't blame Mozilla for not following a stupid guideline.
Second, IE and Visual Studio do it the same way as Thunderbird.
So the possibilites are:
- Microsoft did IE and Visual Studio wrong, so Mozilla has an excuse for doing Thunderbird wrong by copying IE
- Microsoft did Calculator wrong, so Mozilla didn't do that part of Thunderbird wrong
- Microsoft doesn't care about that, so Mozilla doesn't have to care about it either
-
I'm seeing that none of my programs have rollover effects on the titlebar in Aero for inactive windows. I'd say it's an oversight.
-
@Valarnin said:
As someone who tends to use a lot of memory-intensive programs, XP or Linux are my platform of choice just because it's impossible for Windows 7, with its' base usage of 1GB of physical RAM, to offer any sort of acceptable performance.
WTF? The only useable version of Windows XP is 32 bit (XP 64 bit is a horrendous abomination) which means you are limited to 3.5 GB of actual usable RAM. Any sane person who is using "a lot of memory-intensive programs" is running a 64 bit OS and has at least 16 GB of RAM, which can be had for as little as $129. Otherwise you're not really serious. @Valarnin said:Considering 64-bit support is still terrible
According to who? I've been running 64 bit since mid-2007 and have had zero problems, other than having to replace an old sound card that didn't have 64 bit drivers.@Valarnin said:having a full quarter of my maximum possible RAM used up by the operating system is outrageous. I pity anyone who needs to do CAD or high-level modelling and is stuck using windows 7, because it's going to be a slow experience with all the disk caching it needs to do.
If you are doing "CAD or high-level modelling" and haven't spent a lousy $129 for 16 GB of RAM you aren't really serious about what you are doing.
-
Think we'll ever see Valarnin back? Hah.
Also I realized there's a slight error in my post: I said Linux caching was like XP caching, which isn't true unless you disable the DLL Cache on XP. XP will cache DLLs that have never been accessed, to my knowledge, Linux will never cache a file unless it's already been accessed once. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this.
-
I reckon adding file caching to a convoluted idea of a system in which everything is a file, even devices, was fun. I wonder if it ends up being exclusively handled by the driver or if you can flag directories/files as cacheable.
-
@nexekho said:
I reckon adding file caching to a convoluted idea of a system in which everything is a file, even devices, was fun. I wonder if it ends up being exclusively handled by the driver or if you can flag directories/files as cacheable.
"Weird, we implemented file caching, and now some huge file named /dev/random is filling up the whole thing..."
-
@blakeyrat said:
@nexekho said:
I reckon adding file caching to a convoluted idea of a system in which everything is a file, even devices, was fun. I wonder if it ends up being exclusively handled by the driver or if you can flag directories/files as cacheable.
"Weird, we implemented file caching, and now some huge file named /dev/random is filling up the whole thing..."
It's my understanding that Linux only caches regular files and symbolic links to avoid this sort of issue - and when caching symbolic links, it's only caching the link pointer (well, it'll also cache the file pointed to, if you access that through the link - but it caches it under its own inode, rather than having the possibility of many copies of the same file.) I know I've seen some discussions about having file by file nocaching flags, but I only know for certain they've implemented a filesystem mount option nocache.
-
@blakeyrat said:
If I flipped the view to "[b]Unreal[/b] Emails Only"
May be the source of the problem.
-
@derula said:
Ah, so seems that current versions are pretty much up-to-speed now on the costumizability part.
As far as I can tell, I still can't set it so that when I close a tab it activates the tab to the left (or the new leftmost tab if the one I closed was leftmost). That's a critical feature for me.
-
@Weng said:
And who the hellfuck doesn't own Microsoft Office?
I own it. It came with Word, Excel, PowerPoint and OneNote. If I wanted the version that includes Outlook, I'd have to pay twice as much and be limited to the first machine I installed it to (instead of allowing me to install to any 3 computers in the household).
Not to mention that using Outlook with anything but Exchange is (still) just asking for trouble - it still often stops sending and/or receiving mails and has to be restarted - kinda like Windows 9x (you'd think that after so many years, they'd have fixed most of these problems - but when you google for the 0x error codes, you find articles dating back to Outlook XP, while also still applying to Outlook 2010).
Oh, and despite owning Microsoft Office, I still prefer LibreOffice.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Think of it this way: Linux users are frequently what I like to call "luddites", meaning they hate change and using new software/interfaces/etc. They're likely to dismiss usability improvements, saying that the software just "looks pretty". They'll be concerned about things like memory and disk usage of software that the majority of people aren't concerned about.
This type of person, if using Windows, would prefer XP over Vista or Windows 7, because it has less new stuff in it. They default to "looking pretty", and some native apps (like Paint) don't even let you turn the "prettiness" off. Vista and Windows 7 have more aggressive disk caching, and thus to the Linux user "uses more memory".
The same sort of person who uses Linux would, if they used Windows, prefer Windows XP. They probably also change Windows XP to look like Windows 2000, and disable features like System Restore which "waste disk space".
I found this one interesting...I seem not to be typical.
I switched from Windows to Linux largely because I thought a change might be nice.
I don't really pay attention to my memory usage unless things start to be unresponsive, and even then only after I look for runaway processor usage.
I don't prefer Windows XP over 7, but I did prefer it over Vista based on my limited experiences with Vista, and so far I haven't felt it worth the price of 7 to upgrade at home when I am running Windows only in a virtual machine or on a tertiary computer.
I changed Windows XP to Classic mode because I thought the default theme was ugly (particularly when adjusted not to take up so much vertical space for the title bars...I was on 1024x768 back then and the difference bothered me). I also used Litestep for a long time back when I wasn't on windows yet, but while it's been a long time, I don't recall Litestep affecting the window decorations, so those would have still been some color scheme of Classic.
System Restore always struck me as a pretty valid use of disk space, although I can't recall whether it ever helped me. I may be confusing it with "Last Known Good," which always seemed to be just as broken as whatever had me trying to use it. Unless System Restore was what provided Last Known Good, in which case I'd probably just broken it somehow.
I do have to admit that my fvwm theme is pretty spartan, though.
-
@Valarnin said:
@blakeyrat said:
This type of person, if using Windows, would prefer XP over Vista or Windows 7, because it has less new stuff in it. They default to "looking pretty", and some native apps (like Paint) don't even let you turn the "prettiness" off. Vista and Windows 7 have more aggressive disk caching, and thus to the Linux user "uses more memory".
I pity anyone who needs to do CAD or high-level modelling and is stuck using windows 7, because it's going to be a slow experience with all the disk caching it needs to do.
On the subject of Linux, most linux distributions use disk-caching of memory by default. It's generally good practice to disable this for laptops though, considering running the hard drive is really bad for battery life.
Ok, other people on this thread have already addressed that you are full of shit... so let me add this, Windows 7 adjust the settings automatically to give you the best experience for your hardware, if you want to disable disk caching you can, I have it disabled because it is pointless for me as I have a fast SSD (I also have hibernation and System Restore off because it wastes space in my small but fast disk)
-
@blakeyrat said:
Yes, it had a problem. The problem probably confused a lot of people. The problem was fixed in the next version.
The first time you ran Word 2007, the orb would blink a few times, and an oversized tooltip appeared pointing at it. Unfortunately, the activation wizard usually ran at the same time, so most people didn't notice it.@julmu said:Second, IE and Visual Studio do it the same way as Thunderbird.
Visual Studio 2010 uses a custom theme that doesn't even dim the menus when it doesn't have focus. IE dims it's menus (if you have them set up to always show), but it uses a different colour than eg. Calculator (but it's hover colour on inactive window menus actually does look the same as when the window is active). Consistent UI in Windows is sadly a thing of the past.
Oh, and on the subject of minimum memory required for Windows: XP has been booted with 18MB RAM, and I've heard of Windows 7 working with 256MB (but both require more than that to install).
-
@blakeyrat said:
Think we'll ever see Valarnin back? Hah.
Also I realized there's a slight error in my post: I said Linux caching was like XP caching, which isn't true unless you disable the DLL Cache on XP. XP will cache DLLs that have never been accessed, to my knowledge, Linux will never cache a file unless it's already been accessed once. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this.
...did you just pedantic-dickweed yourself?
-
you are full of shit
What would be cool is if we could just.. retire this expression.
But maybe I'm full of shit.
-
@ender said:
The first time you ran Word 2007, the orb would blink a few times, and an oversized tooltip appeared pointing at it.
I really appreciate tooltips like that when it's a tutorial. But in this case, it's a patch to cover for an unexpectedly poor UI choice.
I don't blame people for making poor UI choices when the UI is new, though. The rule is that you just don't know what it's going to do until you release it into the wild.
@ender said:
Oh, and on the subject of minimum memory required for Windows: XP has been booted with 18MB RAM, and I've heard of Windows 7 working with 256MB (but both require more than that to install).
That kind of stuff is in the same category as game speedruns. It's nice to establish an absolute lower bound, but it shouldn't be forgotten that this does not add to productivity or enjoyment.
-
@dhromed said:
you are full of shit
What would be cool is if we could just.. retire this expression.
But maybe I'm full of shit.
I can't edit my post anymore, (stupid CS) but if you want to you can change it to: you are full of puppies slowly being crushed to death
-
@kilroo said:
I don't really pay attention to my memory usage unless things start to be unresponsive, and even then only after I look for runaway processor usage.
An unresponsive system is far, far, far more likely to be due to IO than processor usage. I frequently do MP4 transcoding on my computers, which involves "runaway processor usage" (that is, the MP4 encoder takes up every iota of CPU power it can get its greedy mitts on), and the system stays responsive enough to play World of Warcraft at the same time.
@kilroo said:
based on my limited experiences with Vista,
Meaning, "I read a bad review of it the first week it came out, and then Slashdot made fun of it."
... anyway, what are you getting at here? In response to my claim that the typical Linux user would prefer XP because it has "less new stuff", and would probably turn on the Classic theme to boot, you responded, that you use Linux, prefer Windows XP over Windows 7, and turn on the Classic theme. So... in what way are you "not typical?" You have the exact opinion I predicted you'd have.
And now for something completely different:
@kilroo said:
I do have to admit that my fvwm theme is pretty spartan, though.
-
@ender said:
Visual Studio 2010 uses a custom theme that doesn't even dim the menus when it doesn't have focus. IE dims it's menus (if you have them set up to always show), but it uses a different colour than eg. Calculator (but it's hover colour on inactive window menus actually does look the same as when the window is active).
I can confirm that IE9 does this the same way as Thunderbird. Which is a shame, because people look to the built-in applications for behaviors when coding their own.
@ender said:
Consistent UI in Windows is sadly a thing of the past.
It's always been pretty poor. Program teams at Microsoft are completely autonomous, they don't even follow the shell team's UI guidelines. For stuff that ships with the OS itself, the shell team does a pretty good job of whipping applications into shape, but you don't have to go far to find weird custom UIs. (Hell, Windows Media Player ships with the OS unless you're a whiny European who solves all your trivial problems by whining to your government to save you.)
But it's not a "thing of the past" in Windows, because it was never there in the first place. The real crime is in the Mac world, where it used to be beautifully consistent across the entire OS, and now it's... well, whatever it is.
And of course the most depressing thing for UI designers (or at least decent ones) is that it shows that standard UIs don't really sell products. On the contrary, Apple has sold more copies of OS X since changing the UI to "mixed together random shit" look. Sigh.
-
@blakeyrat said:
And of course the most depressing thing for UI designers (or at least decent ones) is that it shows that standard UIs don't really sell products. On the contrary, Apple has sold more copies of OS X since changing the UI to "mixed together random shit" look. Sigh.
In other news, people like shiny things. Film at 11. Seriously, did anyone ever think that "standard UIs" sell products? Hasn't that been part of MS Office's strategy forever? They create their own tool / widgets that aren't standard to differentiate themselves.
-
@Someone You Know said:
@blakeyrat said:
Think we'll ever see Valarnin back? Hah.
...did you just pedantic-dickweed yourself?Also I realized there's a slight error in my post: I said Linux caching was like XP caching, which isn't true unless you disable the DLL Cache on XP. XP will cache DLLs that have never been accessed, to my knowledge, Linux will never cache a file unless it's already been accessed once. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this.
If I hadn't, someone else would have.
@dhromed said:
I don't blame people for making poor UI choices when the UI is new, though. The rule is that you just don't know what it's going to do until you release it into the wild.
Well, Microsoft tested the thing, and it passed muster. It's possible this is an issue that didn't come up until it was too late to change it, but that's unlikely. It's more likely that Microsoft's studies didn't show it to be such a mystery as to where to Print. It's also likely that Microsoft didn't test the UI (until it was too late to change it) in a real-world situation where the Activation Wizard has to be dealt with; they probably had the product pre-installed on their test machines and/or assumed the network admin would install and activate it on a different user account than the user's.
It's also possible that detractors use that example at every opportunity because it's the only way they can think of that the new interface is worse than the old, although it's not really worse unless you're talking about a user who's already familiar with the File->Print mnemonic anyway and they're ignoring the fact that despite a few warts, the Office 2007 still represents a vast net improvement in usability.
