Adobe's Automanual Updater
-
As much as I loathe flash, you have to admit that most cutting-edge HTML5 features were already in use in flash many years ago. And I'm not that sure about SVG/canvas being a good replacement: AFAIK flash is frame-based whereas both SVG and canvas use radically different approaches.
I think one of the reasons SVG never gained popularity is that major browsers never bothered to implement it. And BTW, IE does not support SMIL animations in SVG (which were supposed to be the standard way to animate). They think everything should be javascript+CSS3.
-
@Ben L. said:
@derula said:
Supposedly 64 bit Java gives better performance
Wha--how would that even make sense?
All 64 bit does is make your pointers twice as big.
Umm, no, you forgot about many other aspects:
- Double the size of most of the registers. A 64-bit integer can fit completely into all of the general purpose registers.
- Double the number of registers. AMD64 (commonly refered to as x64) actually has twice as many registers available to the code. General purpose registers went from 8 to 16. The XMM (SSE) registers also went from having 8 available to 16
A good compiler (including a JIT compiler) can take advantage of these and reduce the actual number of processor instructions needed to perform the same task.
-
@The Bytemaster said:
A good compiler (including a JIT compiler) can take advantage of these and reduce the actual number of processor instructions needed to perform the same task.
Then why doesn't Minecraft run faster?
-
Because the NOPs are 64 bits long, not 32 bits.
-
@Daniel Beardsmore said:
Another side to the conspiracy: the "no Ask toolbar for me!" checkbox doesn't have a clickable label, so if you click the label then "Next", you will still get the toolbar …
Oooh, I hate that. Ten years, or whatever, assholes! Fix it already! (Probably Unix[1] doesn't have that affordance or something, so they won't add it because it's not cross-platform.)
[1] or some other OS that isn't Windows but that Java runs on.
-
@FrostCat said:
@Daniel Beardsmore said:
Another side to the conspiracy: the "no Ask toolbar for me!" checkbox doesn't have a clickable label, so if you click the label then "Next", you will still get the toolbar …
Oooh, I hate that. Ten years, or whatever, assholes! Fix it already!
(Probably Unix doesn't have that affordance or something, so they won't add it because it's not cross-platform.)It is because Java is terrible.FTFY
-
@Ben L. said:
@FrostCat said:
@Daniel Beardsmore said:
Another side to the conspiracy: the "no Ask toolbar for me!" checkbox doesn't have a clickable label, so if you click the label then "Next", you will still get the toolbar …
Oooh, I hate that. Ten years, or whatever, assholes! Fix it already!
(Probably Unix doesn't have that affordance or something, so they won't add it because it's not cross-platform.)It is becauseJava is terribleit's deliberate.FTFY
FTFY
-
@billhead said:
FTFY@Ben L. said:
@FrostCat said:
@Daniel Beardsmore said:
Another side to the conspiracy: the "no Ask toolbar for me!" checkbox doesn't have a clickable label, so if you click the label then "Next", you will still get the toolbar …
Oooh, I hate that. Ten years, or whatever, assholes! Fix it already!
(Probably Unix doesn't have that affordance or something, so they won't add it because it's not cross-platform.)It is becauseJava is terribleit'sJava is deliberately terrible.FTFY
FTFY
-
@Ben L. said:
@billhead said:
FTFY@Ben L. said:
@FrostCat said:
@Daniel Beardsmore said:
Another side to the conspiracy: the "no Ask toolbar for me!" checkbox doesn't have a clickable label, so if you click the label then "Next", you will still get the toolbar …
Oooh, I hate that. Ten years, or whatever, assholes! Fix it already!
(Probably Unix doesn't have that affordance or something, so they won't add it because it's not cross-platform.)It is becauseJava is terribleit'sJava is deliberately terrible.FTFY
FTFY
QFT
-
@Ben L. said:
@FrostCat said:
@Daniel Beardsmore said:
Another side to the conspiracy: the "no Ask toolbar for me!" checkbox doesn't have a clickable label, so if you click the label then "Next", you will still get the toolbar …
Oooh, I hate that. Ten years, or whatever, assholes! Fix it already!
(Probably Unix doesn't have that affordance or something, so they won't add it because it's not cross-platform.)It is because Java is terrible.FTFY
Yes, well, that's all very funny (no, really!) but you know what I meant. The default Metal look and feel is deliberately different from any given OSes native lnf. It is a reasonable thing to think that some OS may not have "click on a label counts a a click on the button" so Java didn't include it in the installer...but of course I don't really think that's why they don't do it; I think they do it deliberately to make it easy for you to accidentally install Ask.
-
@FrostCat said:
The default Metal look and feel is deliberately different from any given OSes native lnf. It is a reasonable thing to think that some OS may not have "click on a label counts a a click on the button" so Java didn't include it in the installer...
The java installer uses a native look, not the metal one.
-
@dhromed said:
@FrostCat said:
The default Metal look and feel is deliberately different from any given OSes native lnf. It is a reasonable thing to think that some OS may not have "click on a label counts a a click on the button" so Java didn't include it in the installer...
The java installer uses a native look, not the metal one.
Not on Windows it don't. Unless its developers are using Windows 3.11.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@dhromed said:
@FrostCat said:
The default Metal look and feel is deliberately different from any given OSes native lnf. It is a reasonable thing to think that some OS may not have "click on a label counts a a click on the button" so Java didn't include it in the installer...
The java installer uses a native look, not the metal one.
Not on Windows it don't. Unless its developers are using Windows 3.11.
Java is developed on an embedded system with no file system.
-
@Buttembly Coder said:
@blakeyrat said:
@dhromed said:
@FrostCat said:
The default Metal look and feel is deliberately different from any given OSes native lnf. It is a reasonable thing to think that some OS may not have "click on a label counts a a click on the button" so Java didn't include it in the installer...
The java installer uses a native look, not the metal one.
Not on Windows it don't. Unless its developers are using Windows 3.11.
Java is developed on an embedded system with no file system.
Congratulations on registering to post that.
You're only a couple years late!
-
@Ben L. said:
@Buttembly Coder said:
@blakeyrat said:
@dhromed said:
@FrostCat said:
The default Metal look and feel is deliberately different from any given OSes native lnf. It is a reasonable thing to think that some OS may not have "click on a label counts a a click on the button" so Java didn't include it in the installer...
The java installer uses a native look, not the metal one.
Not on Windows it don't. Unless its developers are using Windows 3.11.
Java is developed on an embedded system with no file system.
Congratulations on registering to post that.
You're only a couple years late!
-
@Buttembly Coder said:
@Ben L. said:
@Buttembly Coder said:
@blakeyrat said:
@dhromed said:
@FrostCat said:
The default Metal look and feel is deliberately different from any given OSes native lnf. It is a reasonable thing to think that some OS may not have "click on a label counts a a click on the button" so Java didn't include it in the installer...
The java installer uses a native look, not the metal one.
Not on Windows it don't. Unless its developers are using Windows 3.11.
Java is developed on an embedded system with no file system.
Congratulations on registering to post that.
You're only a couple years late!
-
@Ben L. said:
@Buttembly Coder said:
@Ben L. said:
@Buttembly Coder said:
@Ben L. said:
@Buttembly Coder said:
@Ben L. said:
@Buttembly Coder said:
@Ben L. said:
@Buttembly Coder said:
@Ben L. said:
@Buttembly Coder said:
@blakeyrat said:
@dhromed said:
@FrostCat said:
The default Metal look and feel is deliberately different from any given OSes native lnf. It is a reasonable thing to think that some OS may not have "click on a label counts a a click on the button" so Java didn't include it in the installer...
The java installer uses a native look, not the metal one.
Not on Windows it don't. Unless its developers are using Windows 3.11.
Java is developed on an embedded system with no file system.
Congratulations on registering to post that.
You're only a couple years late!
-
@Ben L. said:
@Buttembly Coder said:
@Ben L. said:
@Buttembly Coder said:
@blakeyrat said:
@dhromed said:
@FrostCat said:
The default Metal look and feel is deliberately different from any given OSes native lnf. It is a reasonable thing to think that some OS may not have "click on a label counts a a click on the button" so Java didn't include it in the installer...
The java installer uses a native look, not the metal one.
Not on Windows it don't. Unless its developers are using Windows 3.11.
Java is developed on an embedded system with no file system.
Congratulations on registering to post that.
You're only a couple years late!
-
-
@Ragnax said:
@dhromed said:
Then why doesn't Minecraft run faster?
Good compiler, bad developer.
That's going to be my new programming motto.
-
@dhromed said:
@FrostCat said:
The default Metal look and feel is deliberately different from any given OSes native lnf. It is a reasonable thing to think that some OS may not have "click on a label counts a a click on the button" so Java didn't include it in the installer...
The java installer uses a native look, not the metal one.
Of course--the Java installer is probably not written in Java for reasons that should be apparent. But that doesn't change my conjecture.
-
@Ragnax said:
@dhromed said:
Then why doesn't Minecraft run faster?
Good compiler, bad developer.
As ably demonstrated by Optifine, for example.
-
@FrostCat said:
It is a reasonable thing to think that some OS may not have "click on a label counts a a click on the button" so Java didn't include it in the installer...
A self-hosted Java installer would be funny …
-
@Daniel Beardsmore said:
@FrostCat said:
It is a reasonable thing to think that some OS may not have "click on a label counts a a click on the button" so Java didn't include it in the installer...
A self-hosted Java installer would be funny …
I think a Flash-based one would be even funnier, honestly
-
@Buttembly Coder said:
I think a Flash-based one would be even funnier, honestly
IIRC Adobe Air installs through Flash, and Flash installs through Air.
-
@MiffTheFox said:
And yet nobody accepted that same argument about me using Firefox 3.5 until about the era of Firefox 10.
I was about to hell-yeah you on running legacy Firefox... And then I noticed that my tabs aren't the way they should be anymore. And went digging for an about box. VERSION TWENTY? WTF IS THIS SHIT?I must gotten annoyed by the constant nagging and drunk-upgraded.
-
@Weng said:
@MiffTheFox said:
And yet nobody accepted that same argument about me using Firefox 3.5 until about the era of Firefox 10.
I was about to hell-yeah you on running legacy Firefox... And then I noticed that my tabs aren't the way they should be anymore. And went digging for an about box. VERSION TWENTY? WTF IS THIS SHIT?I must gotten annoyed by the constant nagging and drunk-upgraded.
You stayed on an old, buggy, insecure version of a program... because the version number was scary?
-
@Ben L. said:
You stayed on an old, buggy, insecure version of a program... because the version number was scary?
Because back in the day AMO wouldn't let an add-on declare compatibility for a Firefox version until it was finally released, and it took several days for them to push out a new version of an extension. By the time they fixed that I had moved to Opera, and now I'm on Chrome because it's leagues faster (and is the new de facto web standard).
-
@MiffTheFox said:
@Ben L. said:
You stayed on an old, buggy, insecure version of a program... because the version number was scary?
Because back in the day AMO wouldn't let an add-on declare compatibility for a Firefox version until it was finally released, and it took several days for them to push out a new version of an extension. By the time they fixed that I had moved to Opera, and now I'm on Chrome because it's leagues faster (and is the new de facto web standard).
Yeah, but you use Chrome 26, not Chrome 2.6.
-
@Ben L. said:
Yeah, but you use Chrome 26, not Chrome 2.6.
Yeah, but each new Chrome version doesn't take twenty minutes to install, require manual intervention, and break half my addons.
