Mac is for usability
-
@morbiuswilters said:
The only bright spot is Google Navigation which is, hands down, the best GPS in the world.
Apparently, Nokia Drive on the Nokia Lumias is meant to be pretty good too. I have the original HTC Desire at the moment, and while it was a nice phone, it [i]was[/i] a nice phone. It didn't help that HTC said "fuck it, we can't be bothered getting Gingerbread to fit on it ourselves, tough luck". If it weren't for the fact that it costs almost $300 to get out of my contract and onto a new one now (the phone is not worth that much) I would get a Lumia 800 and be happy with that.
-
@Lorne Kates said:
Aside from that, I'm willing to concede that not every Windows 7 Orb overlays like a carrotfucker, but mine did, and that's why I changed it. Can't seem to reproduce for a screenshot, alas. :|
So you're ferociously complaining about an issue you can't even reproduce? Wow...just wow.
-
@Lorne Kates said:
Aside from that, I'm willing to concede that not every Windows 7 Orb overlays like a carrotfucker, but mine did, and that's why I changed it. Can't seem to reproduce for a screenshot, alas. :|
Yes, that is because you are literally insane and hallucinated the whole thing!
Or more likely, you spent months foaming out the mouth at Vista and memorized all of the Slashdotter reasons why its a bad OS, and once of the reasons was the Start button sticking above the task bar by a few pixels and since you are literally insane and have OCD that argument really stuck with you, and since you are literally insane and frequently hallucinate you thought Windows 7 did the same thing because you have no way of telling if what you are looking at is reality or your literally insane mental demons shitting on your optic nerves.
Seriously, you need more help than switching back to Windows XP. You need powerful psycho-active drugs to get back to normalcy.
-
For some reason, one of my courses at uni requires that I do programming on a Mac for the practical. We do programming in Python (which is not only slower on an i3 Mac than it is on my 3 year old Core 2 Duo Windows 7 machine, it's WTFy in itself). Anyways, after using OS X for a few pracs, I figured out that it's a piece of crap.
- Command+Tab switches between apps, not windows and is therefore completely pointless because I generally want to Command+Tab into something that is minimized.
- One cannot press the Alt key to dive through menus (ie. in Word for Windows, you can hit Alt, F, A to do a Save As)
- As opposed to Windows, which won't let you login until it's good and ready, OS X will let you log in when it's not ready and communicates its readyness to you through a little light. Why not just say "Please wait while I connect to the network"? And if you login and it fails, as opposed to bringing up an intelligible error (e.g. cannot find domain, incorrect password, etc.), the window shakes. Useful!
- By default, the F keys act like hotkeys instead of F keys. This is a Very Bad Thing. Especially the Gadgets one. They were promptly disabled.
- The Genie animation is quite possibly the most idiotic thing I have ever seen. Ditto for the bouncing icons: flash if you want my attention. What is wrong with subtle animation that catches your eye in an unobnoxious fashion?
- As said before, the “Make Window Bigger” button never behaves the same between programs - it should make the window cover the entire screen and not just get slightly larger. Apparently there's an app that can fix this, but because it's a uni PC I can't do shit (more on that later)
- As also said, the menu bar up the top is annoying and requires that one have thw window that one wants to use the menu for to be in focus.
- Close all the windows of an app and the app will remain open most of the time. Uhhh… why? That behaviour was abandoned long ago on Windows because it fucking sucked, sometime around Works 4.5 in Windows 95 if I do recall correctly.
- The entire Control\Alt\Command nonsense. Every other OS uses Ctrl\Super\Alt, why not OS X?
- Open windows aren't represented anywhere. So if I have about five Python windows open, two Preview windows open and a couple of Chrome windows, and I want to go to a Chrome window, I have taken to just minimizing everything until I find the Chrome window that I want.
- The search doesn't do natural language control panel search (example: type "change association" into the Windows 7 search box, first option is to do so. OS X shows random irrelevant files).
- Ironically, I spend more time in the Window menu on a Mac than I have ever done in Windows.
It doesn't help that the uni have also locked them down in stupid ways. I can't unpin things from the dock, I can't pin things that I find useful to the dock, either changing file associations is verboten or I'm not doing it right or you can't change them on OS X and I can't create aliases (or whatever) to things in the Applications directory. So I have to put up with Firefox and other crap I don't use on the dock and when I want something that I actually use I have to go digging around for it in the Applications folder.
What amazes me is that people use this OS full time and don't feel like throwing their machine at a wall.
-
@mott555 said:
@Lorne Kates said:
Set the taskbar to small icons and it sticks up a little. If you set your taskbar to autohide (like I do because I love screen real estate and 1280x800 is a shitty resolution), you don't see a thing when it's hidden.[img]http://i45.tinypic.com/25a3guw.png[/img]Aside from that, I'm willing to concede that not every Windows 7 Orb overlays like a carrotfucker, but mine did, and that's why I changed it. Can't seem to reproduce for a screenshot, alas. :|
So you're ferociously complaining about an issue you can't even reproduce? Wow...just wow.
-
@blakeyrat said:
And what OS component are you claiming did this? Because the Start button in Windows 7 certainly doesn't. (It did in Vista, though.)
7 does too, if you use small icons. But I always have auto-hide on, so it’s not an issue anyway. Even if I didn’t, it’s only 5 frickin’ pixels anyway.
-
@Douglasac said:
Set the taskbar to small icons and it sticks up a little. If you set your taskbar to autohide (like I do because I love screen real estate and 1280x800 is a shitty resolution), you don't see a thing when it's hidden.
Ah, yes, there it is. And yes, it's only 5px, but those 5px covered up part of the status bar in FF. Not all of it, but enough that instead of glancing, I had to glance, stop, read around it, then go back to what I was doing. Not a major issue, but one of many minor issues that build upon each other like combining waves.
Glad you found that screen shot. I was starting to hear a zucchini in my head telling me to clean all the keys on my keyboard in a specific order, which would be annoying because I already HAVE an order that I clean them in.
(Start in the upper left then switch to the alphabetically next key as if you were using DVORAK, then switch to the alphabetically next key as if you were using QWERTY. Continue to switch between the two, skipping over any already cleaned keys. Numeric keys are cleaning in alphabetical order according to the name of the symbol. Function aren't cleaned, because they have rounded tops, so the germs just fall off anyways. I replace the ESC key bimonthly.)
-
@Douglasac said:
Set the taskbar to small icons and it sticks up a little. If you set your taskbar to autohide (like I do because I love screen real estate and 1280x800 is a shitty resolution), you don't see a thing when it's hidden.
So what you're demonstrating is that all the people who said Lorne was insane for knowing about a Win7 feature that they didn't were just talking out of their asses?
-
@boomzilla said:
@Douglasac said:
Set the taskbar to small icons and it sticks up a little. If you set your taskbar to autohide (like I do because I love screen real estate and 1280x800 is a shitty resolution), you don't see a thing when it's hidden.
So what you're demonstrating is that all the people who said Lorne was insane for knowing about a Win7 feature that they didn't were just talking out of their asses?
What you're missing is:
1) That's not a Windows 7 screenshot. At least, I'm pretty sure it's not-- I just turned on "small icons" and the IE icon looks totally different on my machine:
Or wait, let me guess, one of his customizations was to slightly change the IE icon?2) Assuming it was, it doesn't change the fact that crazy-pants there went WAY OUT OF HIS WAY to pick the ONE configuration in which the Start button extends above the taskbar, then got frothing-at-the-mouth-insane because the Start button extended above the taskbar.
Here's a thought for you sane people out there: if you don't like the "small icons" setting, why not turn it off? Instead of spending 8 hours installing third-party shitware and researching buggy Registry settings? Just a thought.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@boomzilla said:
@Douglasac said:
Set the taskbar to small icons and it sticks up a little. If you set your taskbar to autohide (like I do because I love screen real estate and 1280x800 is a shitty resolution), you don't see a thing when it's hidden.
So what you're demonstrating is that all the people who said Lorne was insane for knowing about a Win7 feature that they didn't were just talking out of their asses?
What you're missing is:1) That's not a Windows 7 screenshot. At least, I'm pretty sure it's not-- I just turned on "small icons" and the IE icon looks totally different on my machine:
Or wait, let me guess, one of his customizations was to slightly change the IE icon?2) Assuming it was, it doesn't change the fact that crazy-pants there went WAY OUT OF HIS WAY to pick the ONE configuration in which the Start button extends above the taskbar, then got frothing-at-the-mouth-insane because the Start button extended above the taskbar.
Here's a thought for you sane people out there: if you don't like the "small icons" setting, why not turn it off? Instead of spending 8 hours installing third-party shitware and researching buggy Registry settings? Just a thought.Yes, and so now I will deflect the conversation.
FTFY
-
Or you can go double bar small icons like a normal person. That would prevent the windows button from extending outside its bar.
-
@Zemm said:
UI feature that annoys me the most in Windows: scroll wheel tends to scroll the active window (or active "frame"), but sometimes the thing that the mouse is over. Mac software is actually more consistent in this despite only getting more than one mouse button "yesterday". I guess this scrolling feature lulls one into a false sense of the current window.
This behavior is application-defined IIRC.
-
@boomzilla said:
@blakeyrat said:
@boomzilla said:
@Douglasac said:
Set the taskbar to small icons and it sticks up a little. If you set your taskbar to autohide (like I do because I love screen real estate and 1280x800 is a shitty resolution), you don't see a thing when it's hidden.
So what you're demonstrating is that all the people who said Lorne was insane for knowing about a Win7 feature that they didn't were just talking out of their asses?
What you're missing is:1) That's not a Windows 7 screenshot. At least, I'm pretty sure it's not-- I just turned on "small icons" and the IE icon looks totally different on my machine:
Or wait, let me guess, one of his customizations was to slightly change the IE icon?2) Assuming it was, it doesn't change the fact that crazy-pants there went WAY OUT OF HIS WAY to pick the ONE configuration in which the Start button extends above the taskbar, then got frothing-at-the-mouth-insane because the Start button extended above the taskbar.
Here's a thought for you sane people out there: if you don't like the "small icons" setting, why not turn it off? Instead of spending 8 hours installing third-party shitware and researching buggy Registry settings? Just a thought.Yes, and so now I will deflect the conversation.
FTFY
Aha! My image is un-cross-out-able! I win again!
-
@blakeyrat said:
Assuming it was, it doesn't change the fact that crazy-pants there went WAY OUT OF HIS WAY to pick the ONE configuration in which the Start button extends above the taskbar
All me to state one more time: That was the [b]default[/b] state of the computer as I received it.
@blakeyrat said:
if you don't like the "small icons" setting, why not turn it off?
Since you seem to be mistaken that "1 fix == 8 hours", when really it was "~dozens of fixes == 8 hours", I will state one more time:
Because if I'm going to be investing hours making tweaks to dozens of minor settings, which involve researching what those settings are, and how to fix them-- and I am only going to invest this time once-- I will spend the time configuring the machine to be the way I want it to be, rather than the way Microsoft wanted it to be.
IF there were better settings, then those should have been the default. If they wanted to "wow" me with thier amazing UI, then it should have been the default. If I have to spend extra time and effort to make things look the way though should have, then you (not you, but the general you) lost your chance.
Since something got lost between your eyes and your brain, I'll step-by-step this for you:
1) Microsoft chose a default set of settings. Presumably, this is putting their best foot forward.
2) For all intents and purposes, those settings made the system unacceptable to me.
3) To make the UI usable, I must now make several configuration changes.
4) To learn how to make those UI changes, I must turn to Google for each and every one of them.
5) For some number, let's say half, there exists a Microsoft interface that allows me to change the setting. I now have the choice of Microsoft's "wait, you'll love 7 if you pick this one" setting, or my own. Since I only want to do this once, I chose the one I know I'll like: my own.
6) For the other half, there is no Microsoft interface to set these settings, a lack of customization deliberately chosen by Microsoft.
7) To address these settings, I turn to reg hacks and 3rd party add-ons. These are extremely easy to find and use. This implies that several other people have also sought them out, and because of the way a search engine works, made them popular. Thus, there is indeed a demand for these configuration settings / add ons, obstensibly for the same reason: people want their familiar UI.
8) Given the choice of "learning curve time", or "this will never be fixed, suffer and be eternally annoyed by your PC", or "invest time installing 3rd party add on", I go with the third option. Neither of us has hard numbers to back up the claim that Learning Curve or Customziation time would be greater than the other. I have only personal experience with myself, and thus am in a greater authority to tell you to stuff it and I'm right.
9) In the end, I have the machine set up the way I want, and am a happy Windows 7 user. But the fact remains that the upgrade from XP to 7 was painful. Rather than seeing all the wonderful new features of 7, they were overshadowed by the negative user experience of not only being in unfamiliar territory, but not having the ability to change it out of the box. Thus, I would now be hesitant to reccomend Windows 7 to another person who is used to XP, especially if they do not have the technical knowledge to make the changes I did.
10) If Microsoft had spent more time on making a smoother transition from xp->7, and had met me at least halfway with a "familiar but with new features" UI, rather than "completely unfamiliar UI too bad", I wouldn't have had anything to complain about. And given that at least half the features I wanted/were used to were available natively, but not by default, then it was entierly within their power to do so.
So in conclusion, is 7 a bad OS? No, not at all. Is the upgrade path from XP to 7 difficult? Yes, and it is clearly evident by the significant number of people still using an 11 year old OS, and by the significant number of easily accessible, in demand and often accessed 3rd party tools used exclusively to recreate the XP experience for those who had no choice in an upgrade.
If you still have a raving problem with other people's UI customization, I have a sig picture I can refer you to.
-
Normal people (that us, not us) don’t want the computer to ask them elevety-seven questions when they turn it on the first time. They want to turn it on, click the “Internet” button, go to Facebook, and water their crops in Farmville.
-
@_gaffer said:
@morbiuswilters said:
…snip endless goalpost moving, ranting based on personal taste mixed with claims that the argument isn't about personal taste…
Complaining about OS crashes is "goalpost moving"? UI elements that clearly destroy productivity are "personal taste"? It sounds like I just beat your ass but you're too ashamed to admit it.
@_gaffer said:
The MacBooks are pretty reasonable.
$2200 for 15", 2.4ghz and 4gb of memory is "reasonable" to you? Hey, a sucker is born every minute..
@_gaffer said:
Vague claims of far more security problems is an interesting one too.
I take it you don't follow the security industry.. For example, the recent comments by Eugene Kapersky on Apple being a decade behind Microsoft in terms of security. And this is nothing new, anyone who's paid attention to the security experts knows that the only thing protecting OSX from being overrun with malware was its laughable market share.
@_gaffer said:
I'm not going to trot out the old "Macs don't get viruses" claim, because it's a load of horseshit that only reinforces the stereotype that mac users are delusional idiots.
Well, that's a relief considering OSX is going through a bad virus outbreak right now.
-
@Lorne Kates said:
All me to state one more time: That was the default state of the computer as I received it.
Blame whoever created your corporate image for that; they picked the configuration that seems to annoy you so much.
@Lorne Kates said:1)
MicrosoftMy company chose a default set of settings. Presumably, this is putting their best foot forward.2) For all intents and purposes, those settings made the system unacceptable to me.
FTFY.
-
@Lorne Kates said:
All me to state one more time: That was the default state of the computer as I received it.
From the psychiatric ward's IT department? I'm mildly surprised they let someone as crazy as you have a computer, but I guess it's harmless enough with a web filter if you're non-violent.
@Lorne Kates said:
Because if I'm going to be investing hours making tweaks to dozens of minor settings, which involve researching what those settings are, and how to fix them-- and I am only going to invest this time once-- I will spend the time configuring the machine to be the way I want it to be, rather than the way Microsoft wanted it to be.
Yes, but my general point is you shouldn't be "investing hours" at all. Just explore the Windows 7 interface when you first get it-- believe me the Help is up-to-date and everything has a tooltip-- and then use it for a couple days. That is what sane people do, here on the outside.
@Lorne Kates said:
If there were better settings, then those should have been the default.
"Better" meaning "identical to a 11-year-old product", yes? I do not agree with your definition of "better".
@Lorne Kates said:
If they wanted to "wow" me with thier amazing UI, then it should have been the default.
It is. You received a computer that wasn't in the default configuration. You either think we're all stupid, or you're terrible at debating.
@Lorne Kates said:
If I have to spend extra time and effort to make things look the way though should have, then you (not you, but the general you) lost your chance.
But you don't have to do that now. You're just so pants-shittingly afraid of change, you can't even conceive of an OS that doesn't look and work exactly like Windows XP. That is a horrible, horrible attitude to have and if people are making fun of you in this thread, it's well-deserved.
Without change there is no improvement. People in the IT industry who are afraid of change are the reason so much software is shit. I don't want shit software. I don't want people who create software to be afraid of change. I want improvement. You don't. You want stagnation. You are my enemy.
@Lorne Kates said:
2) For all intents and purposes, those settings made the system unacceptable to me.
Did you try working with the new settings? Maybe you would have found out that, hey, he likes it! Hey Mikey! I wager you didn't even give it a chance. I wager your mind was made-up before you even saw the Start button.
@Lorne Kates said:
3) To make the UI usable, I must now make several configuration changes.
The Windows 7 UI is significantly more usable than the Windows XP UI using any reasonable definition of the word.
@Lorne Kates said:
6) For the other half, there is no Microsoft interface to set these settings, a lack of customization deliberately chosen by Microsoft.
Yes; we've already beat this to death. Microsoft is trying to release a quality product. Microsoft has limited time for QA. Apple does the same thing and they get praised for being "simple", but when it's Microsoft suddenly it's some huge conspiracy against you personally.
@Lorne Kates said:
7) To address these settings, I turn to reg hacks and 3rd party add-ons. These are extremely easy to find and use. This implies that several other people have also sought them out, and because of the way a search engine works, made them popular. Thus, there is indeed a demand for these configuration settings / add ons, obstensibly for the same reason: people want their familiar UI.
People only want their familiar UI because, like you, they have calcified brains and are incapable of learning anything new. This is not a good thing, this is a terrible thing and we should show those people that their behavior is not acceptable.
@Lorne Kates said:
8) Given the choice of "learning curve time", or "this will never be fixed, suffer and be eternally annoyed by your PC", or "invest time installing 3rd party add on", I go with the third option. Neither of us has hard numbers to back up the claim that Learning Curve or Customziation time would be greater than the other. I have only personal experience with myself, and thus am in a greater authority to tell you to stuff it and I'm right.
Did you even try to learn it?
@Lorne Kates said:
9) In the end, I have the machine set up the way I want, and am a happy Windows 7 user.
No, you're a happy Windows XP user who tolerates Windows 7. That's not the same thing. A happy Windows 7 user would look at your computer, go "where the fuck is the search box in the Start menu?" and walk away in disgust.
@Lorne Kates said:
But the fact remains that the upgrade from XP to 7 was painful.
Because you had to bend your brain into new shapes? You might have actually gasp had to mouse around for a half-hour to find where things moved to? Poor baby! Did you cry?
@Lorne Kates said:
Thus, I would now be hesitant to reccomend Windows 7 to another person who is used to XP, especially if they do not have the technical knowledge to make the changes I did.
Even if that person is less insane than you are?
@Lorne Kates said:
10) If Microsoft had spent more time on making a smoother transition from xp->7, and had met me at least halfway with a "familiar but with new features" UI, rather than "completely unfamiliar UI too bad", I wouldn't have had anything to complain about.
You skipped Vista, dumbshit.
Anyway, this argument is bullshit, you know it's bullshit, and stop trying to bullshit us. YOU SKIPPED A VERSION. You are not qualified to talk about how "smooth" the transition is, because you do not fucking know. We're not stupid, and we're not going to be bullshitted.
@Lorne Kates said:
If you still have a raving problem with other people's UI customization, I have a sig picture I can refer you to.
Is it a plant in a window sill, because I totally love that one.
-
@Sir Twist said:
Normal people (that us, not us) don’t want the computer to ask them elevety-seven questions when they turn it on the first time. They want to turn it on, click the “Internet” button, go to Facebook, and water their crops in Farmville.
I resent that insultingly accurate stereotype.
-
@Lorne Kates said:
All me to state one more time: That was the default state of the computer as I received it.
Weird, it was not the default on my computer, and I installed win7 myself so I know, but whatever (I'm talking about the 8 pixels things)
@Lorne Kates said:
Microsoft chose a default set of settings. Presumably, this is putting their best foot forward.
Indeed, they actually make studies to check what settings are best to present at default.
@Lorne Kates said:
For all intents and purposes, those settings made the system unacceptable to me.
Ok, I guess
@Lorne Kates said:
For some number, let's say half, there exists a Microsoft interface that allows me to change the setting. I now have the choice of Microsoft's "wait, you'll love 7 if you pick this one" setting, or my own. Since I only want to do this once, I chose the one I know I'll like: my own.
So what is exactly your complain here?
@Lorne Kates said:
For the other half, there is no Microsoft interface to set these settings, a lack of customization deliberately chosen by Microsoft.
Yes, they actually want you to use the new features, if people were let to their own accord we would still be using DOS [insert either CLI vs GUI or penis joke]
@Lorne Kates said:
To address these settings, I turn to reg hacks and 3rd party add-ons. These are extremely easy to find and use. This implies that several other people have also sought them out, and because of the way a search engine works, made them popular. Thus, there is indeed a demand for these configuration settings / add ons, obstensibly for the same reason: people want their familiar UI
You know was else is popular? Horse porn. Popularity does not make it good.@Lorne Kates said:
Neither of us has hard numbers to back up the claim that Learning Curve or Customziation time would be greater than the other
Again, we test that shit.
@Lorne Kates said:
In the end, I have the machine set up the way I want, and am a happy Windows 7 user. But the fact remains that the upgrade from XP to 7 was painful. Rather than seeing all the wonderful new features of 7, they were overshadowed by the negative user experience of not only being in unfamiliar territory, but not having the ability to change it out of the box
To avoid that, you should upgrade more often, had you come from Vista, your opinion would differ. Mind you there are still stuff that annoy me of 7 (like the Event Viewer and some filesystem stuff) but all in all after learning to let I had a good experience.
@Lorne Kates said:
Thus, I would now be hesitant to reccomend Windows 7 to another person who is used to XP, especially if they do not have the technical knowledge to make the changes I did.
Most people won't be bothered by this, recommend away!
@Lorne Kates said:
If Microsoft had spent more time on making a smoother transition from xp->7
Again, why they would bother? They provided that in Vista (kind of)
@Lorne Kates said:
I wouldn't have had anything to complain about.
You would, but about different stuff, or other people would, MS can't make everybody happy
@Lorne Kates said:
And given that at least half the features I wanted/were used to were available natively, but not by default, then it was entierly within their power to do so.
MS already does too much for the sake of backward compatibility and it has come to bite them in the ass, repeatedly, heck they included the the old explorer (win95 era) in their OS until XP just because maybe somebody might use it along with a bunch of other stuff
@Lorne Kates said:So in conclusion, is 7 a bad OS? No, not at all. Is the upgrade path from XP to 7 difficult? Yes
Agreed, but let me tell you that 90% of the people that didn't upgrade to Vista because it was "bad" are morons
@Lorne Kates said:
it is clearly evident by the significant number of people still using an 11 year old OS, and by the significant number of easily accessible, in demand and often accessed 3rd party tools used exclusively to recreate the XP experience for those who had no choice in an upgrade.
It is also clearly evident by the number of searches about horse porn that people are interested in it and is a really popular hobby, you should totally get into it.
-
@_gaffer said:
The MacBooks are pretty reasonable.
Out of curiosity, I just went to Dell's site and specced out an XPS 15 (their high-end, 15" consumer laptop). Same exact proc as the MBP (2.4ghz quad core), 1gb discrete graphics (nVidia whereas the MBP was Radeon).. I tried to match hard drives but the lowest HD Dell offered was 750GB 7200 RPM, whereas Apple's is 750GB 5400RPM (which is going to perform like shit). Also, the minimum amount of memory the Dell comes with is 6GB whereas the Mac only has 4GB. So the XPS 15 has a decent hardware edge over the MBP. Prices:
MBP: $2200
XPS 15: $1100
Yep, a somewhat better computer for literally half the price. Fuck you and your "reasonable", you jackass.
-
@heterodox said:
@Lorne Kates said:
All me to state one more time: That was the default state of the computer as I received it.
Blame whoever created your corporate image for that; they picked the configuration that seems to annoy you so much.
That would be the office admin person, who got the bog-default computer from Dell, slapped Office on it, and handed it over.
Thus-- out of the box defaults. This isn't a hard concept. If, between install and hands-on, nothing has changed, then it's in a default state.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@Lorne Kates said:
Because if I'm going to be investing hours making tweaks to dozens of minor settings, which involve researching what those settings are, and how to fix them-- and I am only going to invest this time once-- I will spend the time configuring the machine to be the way I want it to be, rather than the way Microsoft wanted it to be.
Yes, but my general point is you shouldn't be "investing hours" at all. Just explore the Windows 7 interface when you first get it-- believe me the Help is up-to-date and everything has a tooltip-- and then use it for a couple days. That is what sane people do, here on the outside.Some people can't handle change. I know a guy who spends hours configuring Windows 7 so it looks and behave exactly like Windows XP, down to the lame wallpaper with the field and the visible wheel tracks from the lawn mower. He, too, feels that Windows 7 requires hours of tweaks. He also is adamant that there was not a single good song written after 1988. There is no way to convince one of those people to try something new.
These people are in the last segment in the technology adoption lifecycle.
-
@Lorne Kates said:
That would be the office admin person, who got the bog-default computer from Dell, slapped Office on it, and handed it over.
Thus-- out of the box defaults. This isn't a hard concept. If, between install and hands-on, nothing has changed, then it's in a default state.
No. Wrong. Stop. You are being a dick. You are being a lying dick. You know you're lying. You are not doing it by accident.
Windows 7 ships like this:
You know that is the case. Do not bullshit us.
-
-
@serguey123 said:
@Lorne Kates said:
For some number, let's say half, there exists a Microsoft interface that allows me to change the setting. I now have the choice of Microsoft's "wait, you'll love 7 if you pick this one" setting, or my own. Since I only want to do this once, I chose the one I know I'll like: my own.
So what is exactly your complain here?
Nothing. My complaint is that I'm being accused of spending too much time customizing, when there were perfectly good Microsoft options right there. I'm just saying that if I had to spend time picking (and I had to), and I'm only going to do it once, I'm not going to risk it on a "perfectly fine" options, when a) I don't have the time to test it to see if it is fine and b) I have no trust that it will be perfectly fine given my experience already and c) I know for sure my choice will work.
@blah said:
... blah blah blah Vista...
Without being insulting, fuck you. I honestly don't give a flying shit what Vista does. You know why? Because I never used it. You know why? Because my job isn't to test drive operating systems every single time one of them comes out. And honestly, if my complaint is "there exists a group of users who do not upgrade because their current OS is just fine, and if you want them to follow your upgrade path, make the transisition as easy as possible", then you can safely assume that a significant portion of that target group never used Vista either-- because it would have involved upgrading away from a perfectly fine OS to an unproven one.
Microsoft should also know damn well that a lot of people skipped Vista. It doesn't matter how good/bad Vista was or became, the fact remains that a vanishingly small number of people in this defined group would have ever taken that upgrade path.
In fact, if Vista did this, great for it-- but it only serves to further re-inforce my point: Microsoft was perfectly capable of making a "transition" UI skin/set of customizations. They could have even killed two birds with one radiobutton group. "Hey, I'm trying to give you the best UI I can. What OS did you come from ( ) XP ( ) Vista (x) It's ok, give me the full on 7! "
And this isn't even touching on the complaints I have about some of the defaults will never be worth "getting used to", because they're fucking braindead decisions. Maximize on screen corners, mixing quick launch icons and task blocks, hiding important notification icons, making the Show Desktop icon nigh invisible. I mean for fuck's sake-- go try to change the year on your Windows calendar. XP: double click time, change the year. Win7: double click time... ?????????
(And to head off questions-- how often do I change the year? Lots. When I want to see what a certain date will be a year from now, or a year past. It's a hell of a lot faster than using a dedicated Calendar program)
-
-
@blakeyrat said:
1) That's not a Windows 7 screenshot. At least, I'm pretty sure it's not-- I just turned on "small icons" and the IE icon looks totally different on my machine:
Internet Explorer 9 has been out for what - 1 year? Because that's it's icon.
-
@Lorne Kates said:
Without being insulting, fuck you. I honestly don't give a flying shit what Vista does. You know why? Because I never used it. You know why? Because my job isn't to test drive operating systems every single time one of them comes out. And honestly, if my complaint is "there exists a group of users who do not upgrade because their current OS is just fine, and if you want them to follow your upgrade path, make the transisition as easy as possible", then you can safely assume that a significant portion of that target group never used Vista either-- because it would have involved upgrading away from a perfectly fine OS to an unproven one.
Nobody's claiming that you are required to adopt every OS the instant it comes out.
What we ARE claiming you can't speak intelligently about the upgrade path you yourself didn't follow. If you didn't use Vista, you have no fucking clue how smooth the upgrade path was.
@Lorne Kates said:
In fact, if Vista did this, great for it-- but it only serves to further re-inforce my point: Microsoft was perfectly capable of making a "transition" UI skin/set of customizations. They could have even killed two birds with one radiobutton group. "Hey, I'm trying to give you the best UI I can. What OS did you come from ( ) XP ( ) Vista (x) It's ok, give me the full on 7! "
FOR THE UBER-KRAJILLIONTH TIME THEY DID NOT DO THAT BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO SHIP A BUG-FREE OS.
They also want to encourage people to use the new features, because the new features make people significantly more productive in the long-run, which is basically the end-goal for Windows or any other OS.
@Lorne Kates said:
Maximize on screen corners,
I don't know what that is.
@Lorne Kates said:
mixing quick launch icons and task blocks,
I don't know what a "task block" is, and Windows 7 doesn't include Quick Launch at all.
@Lorne Kates said:
I mean for fuck's sake-- go try to change the year on your Windows calendar. XP: double click time, change the year. Win7: double click time... ?????????
This is the use-case you think they need to optimize for? Changing the year? (BTW: the answer is, "the obvious link underneath the calendar you're looking at that says "Change the date or time". Assuming you have permissions to.)
Hey how about the millions of XP users who accidently changed the clock because they thought the calendar-thing was just an informational display and not actually changing the system's time? How about the millions of hours of support calls that resulted from failed logins or other issues resulting from that brain-dead XP behavior? Even if you're following Microsoft recommendations and have users run with the correct permissions, you still get an annoying, useless error dialog when you clicked the calendar. That is something you miss from XP? That is the Windows behavior you defend?
You. Are. Crazy.
@Lorne Kates said:
(And to head off questions-- how often do I change the year? Lots. When I want to see what a certain date will be a year from now, or a year past. It's a hell of a lot faster than using a dedicated Calendar program)
So you CHANGE the year to VIEW a calendar?
You could just use Windows 7's sidebar calendar widget to do that, you know. Although *gasp* it might require *shock* learning something *horror* new!
Or just click the month name in the Windows 7 taskbar calendar, which allows you to arrow to different years. From there, click the year to see 20 years at a time. Hell you can even do centuries, apparently-- I've never clicked up that far before... I just selected Dec. 1st 2099 in like 8 clicks.
-
@blakeyrat said:
FOR THE UBER-KRAJILLIONTH TIME THEY DID NOT DO THAT BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO SHIP A BUG-FREE OS.
I'll also point out (although I'm sure you probably already have) that maintaining multiple GUIs is a fucking nightmare. I don't know if Lorne has done GUI work, but I have and I've had a similar request "Can we have an option to use the old GUI instead of the new one?" It more than doubles your testing time "Gotta test both GUIs." It drives your support people nuts "You don't see the checkbox? Um... Oh, are you running the old GUI? Okay, let me log into the old GUI version."
And then you get three GUIs. And then you get requests to back-port features to the old GUIs. All because 1 particular 800 pound gorilla of a customer didn't want to learn a new, cleaner, better way of doing things. (And believe me, I'm sympathetic towards people learning new GUIs. I wouldn't change things lightly. But the old GUI was a clusterfuck that consumed tons of training and support to do simple things. The only reason we had 3 GUIs is because I wanted to do it all at once, like a band-aid, but some dipshit manager thought it would be easier if we made a "transition GUI".)
Oh, and I never would have supported the old GUI, but I was forced to. Originally management agreed that we'd make the change and take whatever flak because it was for the good of our customers in the long-run. The buckled right out of the gate. The company eventually went under, years later.
So I understand why Microsoft didn't build multiple GUIs. I do think you guys are being harsh on Lorne for customizing things. Should he learn the new way? Yes. But I'm pretty OCD when it comes to UI look-and-feel so I know I'd probably do some of the same stuff he is. Who really cares if he wants to sink his time into it? But criticizing Microsoft for not making it a "checkbox" is silly.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@blakeyrat said:
Windows 7 ships like this:
With Chrome?Duh, just another example of vendor crapware. The fact that vendors add crapware to their install images kinda shows that there's no single "Windows 7 ships like this." I would believe that a "clean" retail copy wouldn't do that, however. What I won't do is care. Which is why I'm posting about it here.
-
@boomzilla said:
Duh, just another example of vendor crapware.
Dude, it's Chrome not Firefox..
Yeah, I dunno. Surely there's an xkcd about the differences between OEM versions of Windows 7?
-
@Lorne Kates said:
there were perfectly good Microsoft options right there.
So you are actually praising MS? Ok@Lorne Kates said:
Without being insulting, fuck you. I honestly don't give a flying shit what Vista does.
Ok, I guess@Lorne Kates said:
I never used it.
You should have, it was an ok OS, better than what people give them credit for.@Lorne Kates said:
my complaint is "there exists a group of users who do not upgrade because their current OS is just fine
That is your prerrogative
@Lorne Kates said:d if you want them to follow your upgrade path, make the transisition as easy as possible
They do, for adjacent OS, again if we follow your argument, there should be an easy transition mode from win 3.x to 7 and that is simply not cost effective@Lorne Kates said:
ou can safely assume that a significant portion of that target group never used Vista either-- because it would have involved upgrading away from a perfectly fine OS to an unproven one.
And they upgraded to 7 instead? An unproven OS at the time? Tsk, tsk, they should have upgraded to Vista, and when win 8 comes out to 7.@Lorne Kates said:
Microsoft should also know damn well that a lot of people skipped Vista
For certain definitions of a lot
@Lorne Kates said:the fact remains that a vanishingly small number of people in this defined group would have ever taken that upgrade path.
Again, most people are not bothered by this, even if they came from XP
@Lorne Kates said:In fact, if Vista did this, great for it-- but it only serves to further re-inforce my point: Microsoft was perfectly capable of making a "transition" UI skin/set of customizations.
Agreed, but as blakey explained there is so much that it can be done in time for release. Again think about this, that is an 11 years old OS, it is like saying that cars should be horse compatible (and yes, I keep mentioning horses because they scare me to death)
@Lorne Kates said:
I mean for fuck's sake-- go try to change the year on your Windows calendar. XP: double click time, change the year. Win7: double click time... ?????????
(And to head off questions-- how often do I change the year? Lots. When I want to see what a certain date will be a year from now, or a year past. It's a hell of a lot faster than using a dedicated Calendar program)
Dammit I forgot this part!, ok....hmmm, oh yes, you can actually calculate this in your head (or with a calculator) or there are sites that do this for your, heck, googling a date, any date, will get you whatever information you want about that specific date (ex October 13 0199 was a tuesday)
-
@blakeyrat said:
@Lorne Kates said:
Maximize on screen corners,
I don't know what that is.
"windows sn", as discussed.
@blakeyrat said:
@Lorne Kates said:
mixing quick launch icons and task blocks,
I don't know what a "task block" is, and Windows 7 doesn't include Quick Launch at all.
Whatever the fuck you call those things. Look down. See that icon to launch Chrome. Okay, launch it. Notice it turns from a small icon into a large block. That. Now have five icons in a row, just like the Quick Launch bar was. Click the middle one. Now you have two icons, a block, two icons. Ever since Windows 95, icons stayed to one side, blocks stayed to another, and they didn't mix. Losing icons in the middle of whateverthefucks looks, feels and acts wrong. Hence my desire to restore the Quick Launch, so the icons stay put, in one predictable place.
@blakeyrat said:
Or just click the month name in the Windows 7 taskbar calendar, which allows you to arrow to different years. From there, click the year to see 20 years at a time. Hell you can even do centuries, apparently-- I've never clicked up that far before... I just selected Dec. 1st 2099 in like 8 clicks.
XP: clicks to switch to the next year: 1
Windows 7: 8.
Improvement. Thanks.
And FWIW, to use that taskbar calendar (which I don't have and never had in my delusional default install), I assume you'd have to show the desk top, then do 8 clicks to switch years, then restore everything. (After figuring out where the Show Desktop icon was, of course).
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@_gaffer said:
The MacBooks are pretty reasonable.
Out of curiosity, I just went to Dell's site and specced out an XPS 15 (their high-end, 15" consumer laptop). Same exact proc as the MBP (2.4ghz quad core), 1gb discrete graphics (nVidia whereas the MBP was Radeon).. I tried to match hard drives but the lowest HD Dell offered was 750GB 7200 RPM, whereas Apple's is 750GB 5400RPM (which is going to perform like shit). Also, the minimum amount of memory the Dell comes with is 6GB whereas the Mac only has 4GB. So the XPS 15 has a decent hardware edge over the MBP. Prices:
MBP: $2200
XPS 15: $1100
Yep, a somewhat better computer for literally half the price. Fuck you and your "reasonable", you jackass.
You really get pissed off easily over fucking nothing, don't you?
Also, yeah, you can always play the "can I spec something up much the same at Dell and get it much cheaper?" game, but it doesn't yield anything particularly useful. Not that I think it's great, but actual Apple stores and the website offer the worst deals you can possibly get on macs, and resellers are generally the way to go.
Dell also can offer a better price in general because they're entirely based on the idea of extremely high volume at lowest possible price. I'm not saying that's a particularly bad thing in and of itself, it's just that they're in a better position to haggle with suppliers. You're comparing the cheapest of the various windows based pc suppliers with the only one from the mac side, which doesn't actually say a lot.
Also, with the XPS laptops I've used on various jobs, I haven't exactly been blown away by their quality.
-
@Lorne Kates said:
That would be the office admin person, who got the bog-default computer from Dell, slapped Office on it, and handed it over.
Thus-- out of the box defaults. This isn't a hard concept. If, between install and hands-on, nothing has changed, then it's in a default state.
Stuff and nonsense. I've seen a number of Dell Windows 7 images and none of them has had Small Icons on by default. Even OEM imagers, as stupid as they are, aren't going to turn on a setting that a tiny, tiny percentage of people would find acceptable. I'm in my
mid-early twenties and Small Icons are too small for my eyes.
-
@Salamander said:
@superjer said:
Linux does not really have 2 clipboards. The middle click thing is a shortcut for drag-and-drop. It does the same thing as selecting some text and dragging it to some other spot. It has nothing to do with the actual clipboard.
Highlight some text, then click elsewhere to deselect it. Then, middle click somewhere; it puts the previously selected text where you middle click (despite the fact that it is not selected anymore). Kind of like it has been copied to a buffer somewhere.
It seems to be application dependent. Your method doesn't do anything in gedit for example. I have to leave the text selected. TBH I wasn't aware it worked different anywhere, but I'm pretty sure the intention is for middle click to be a shortcut for dragon drop.
-
@serguey123 said:
So you are actually praising MS? Ok
I think that's the whole point of this. "You guys have a fine OS. Whydja fuck it up with such stupid default UI settings?"
@serguey123 said:
there should be an easy transition mode from win 3.x to 7 and that is simply not cost effective
Or reasonable. I think I'm trying to say that there should be a clear upgrade path from an older version of the OS that is currently in active circulation that your customers are using and that you want to upgrade them off of.
FWIW, some bad googlepediaing shows XP has, by guistimate, 30-40% marketshare (depending on which stat you pick), and 7 has pretty much an equal share. That's a lot of XP users to be concerned about upgrading.
3.x is just-- no.
@serguey123 said:
Again think about this, that is an 11 years old OS, it is like saying that cars should be horse compatible
No, it's like creating a hybrid automatic/manual transmission. Which they have. And which is the only UI interface change I can actually think of for cars.
@serguey123 said:
(and yes, I keep mentioning horses because they scare me to death)
Have you considered getting over your fear and learning to love a horse? Physically? With genitals? Because I hear videos of that are a booming industry.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
So I understand why Microsoft didn't build multiple GUIs. I do think you guys are being harsh on Lorne for customizing things. Should he learn the new way? Yes. But I'm pretty OCD when it comes to UI look-and-feel so I know I'd probably do some of the same stuff he is. Who really cares if he wants to sink his time into it? But criticizing Microsoft for not making it a "checkbox" is silly.
But my point is that half of the ui tweaks I wanted were already support natively by Microsoft, but ranged from hard to find to near impossible. (See "windows snap" being hidden in the Easy of Accessiblity menu, and that I would never have thought of searching for "windows snap").
There already are skins, themes, etc available in Windows 7 that modify the look, feel and options.
So if Microsoft had put in a theme called "XP for OCD horsefuckers who can't get used to the real shizzle", even if it only covered those half of features, I would have happily clicked it and gone on. It's easy because it's already supported, the features have already been QA'd, and the mechanism for doing so already exists in the OS.
They could have even put in a popup. "Hey, hey, whoa. Okay, slow down. I know you like XP, but there's tons of great shit in 7. You sure? Maybe you want to try the 'Almost like XP' theme instead? Srsly! [OK] [Cancel]"
Then, for the cost of 30 seconds of my time, we'd have reached a happy compromise. Instead, the attitude is "Fuck you, you should have used Vista so maybe you'd get used to this shit. Go figure out how to change shit yourself." To which my reply is "If I'm going to spend that time, then fuck all your new features, I'll make sure it's exactly how it was so I never have to bother with this shit again".
And for the record, I'm saying those theme names and dialogs should contain the EXACT text I just typed, to the letter.
-
@serguey123 said:
Dammit I forgot this part!, ok....hmmm, oh yes, you can actually calculate this in your head (or with a calculator) or there are sites that do this for your, heck, googling a date, any date, will get you whatever information you want about that specific date (ex October 13 0199 was a tuesday)
What was the last Tuesday in June last year. Please figure that out for me in 3 clicks, zero keystrokes, and under 5 seconds.
-
@_gaffer said:
Also, yeah, you can always play the "can I spec something up much the same at Dell and get it much cheaper?" game, but it doesn't yield anything particularly useful. Not that I think it's great, but actual Apple stores and the website offer the worst deals you can possibly get on macs, and resellers are generally the way to go.
I think you mean the opposite of "not useful," since it's easy to get a reasonably priced non-Apple machine but apparently not the other way around. Next time, you could save the extra typing and just say, "You're right."
@_gaffer said:
Dell also can offer a better price in general because they're entirely based on the idea of extremely high volume at lowest possible price. I'm not saying that's a particularly bad thing in and of itself, it's just that they're in a better position to haggle with suppliers. You're comparing the cheapest of the various windows based pc suppliers with the only one from the mac side, which doesn't actually say a lot.
Yeah, not a lot, except that it proves his point.
.
-
@Lorne Kates said:
@blakeyrat said:
@Lorne Kates said:
Maximize on screen corners,
I don't know what that is.
"windows sn", as discussed.
Windows Snap activates when your cursor (while dragging a window) is close to any edge of the screen. It has nothing to do with corners, AFAICT.
@Lorne Kates said:
See that icon to launch Chrome. Okay, launch it. Notice it turns from a small icon into a large block. That.
No it doesn't. It just gains a background that makes it look "active". And what is a "block" anyway? Like a Lego?
@Lorne Kates said:
Now have five icons in a row, just like the Quick Launch bar was. Click the middle one. Now you have two icons, a block, two icons.
That doesn't happen.
@Lorne Kates said:
Ever since Windows 95, icons stayed to one side, blocks stayed to another, and they didn't mix.
So whatever a "block" is, they were in Windows 95... ok that provides a clue I guess?
@Lorne Kates said:
Hence my desire to restore the Quick Launch, so the icons stay put, in one predictable place.
In the default Windows 7 configuration, task bar icons do stay put. Remember, you're not (or weren't) using the defaults.
@Lorne Kates said:
XP: clicks to switch to the next year: 1
Windows 7: 8.
I love how you're just ignoring all the other drawbacks of the shitty XP calendar design, and also the sheer amount of confusion and support calls caused by its shitty design.
For the record, switching to the next year only takes two clicks. My eight click example was changing to 2099, then going back to the month view. So in addition to being insane and having a calcified brain, you also lack reading comprehension skills.
@Lorne Kates said:
And FWIW, to use that taskbar calendar (which I don't have and never had in my delusional default install), I assume you'd have to show the desk top, then do 8 clicks to switch years, then restore everything. (After figuring out where the Show Desktop icon was, of course).
... what? You're saying your copy of Windows 7 didn't have a taskbar calendar at all!?
-
@_gaffer said:
You really get pissed off easily over fucking nothing, don't you?
Who said I'm pissed off? I love flaming fools.
@_gaffer said:
but it doesn't yield anything particularly useful.
Except proving my point..
@_gaffer said:
Not that I think it's great, but actual Apple stores and the website offer the worst deals you can possibly get on macs, and resellers are generally the way to go.
Can you customize things with retailers? Are the prices half of the Apple store? No? Then STFU, you lost.
@_gaffer said:
Dell also can offer a better price in general because they're entirely based on the idea of extremely high volume at lowest possible price. I'm not saying that's a particularly bad thing in and of itself, it's just that they're in a better position to haggle with suppliers. You're comparing the cheapest of the various windows based pc suppliers with the only one from the mac side, which doesn't actually say a lot.
Blah blah blah.. I'm right and you know it. I mean, seriously, your argument is now "Well, Apple's the only company that sells Macs so they're actually pretty cheap when it comes to selling Macs, just not when compared to identical fucking hardware (with a better OS)." Talk about moving the goalposts..
@_gaffer said:
Also, with the XPS laptops I've used on various jobs, I haven't exactly been blown away by their quality.
They never seemed particularly bad to me. I've always used Latitudes, but that's a real business laptop so it's not comparable to the consumer pieces of shit Apple churns out. And I really wasn't thrilled with the MBPs I've used; the hardware is okay but the unibody keyboard is a goddamn joke and the aluminum case is (although flashy) heavy as shit.
-
@Lorne Kates said:
I think that's the whole point of this. "You guys have a fine OS. Whydja fuck it up with such stupid default UI settings?"
Huh? The fact that some people might dislike them doesn't make them stupid, Again, we test that shit. A lot of thinking and testing goes into this, some people will be bothered but you can't please everybody.
@Lorne Kates said:
I think I'm trying to say that there should be a clear upgrade path from an older version of the OS that is currently in active circulation that your customers are using and that you want to upgrade them off of.
Somewhere somebody is still using win98 SE. It is just not possible, sorry.
@Lorne Kates said:
some bad googlepediaing shows XP has, by guistimate, 30-40% marketshare (depending on which stat you pick), and 7 has pretty much an equal share.
Yes, but that doesn't make it right, or a good idea overall, is the same with browser, a lot of people still use IE 6 and because of that web dev live in perpetual hell, people need to learn to fucking let go, this is a bad practice, heck the fucking internet is still retarded because of this.
@Lorne Kates said:
Have you considered getting over your fear and learning to love a horse? Physically? With genitals? Because I hear videos of that are a booming industry
Last time I was really near a horse it tried to eat my cousin and kill me (true story, he still has a scar from the bites) so no, you can keep your horse loving to yourself
-
@Lorne Kates said:
What was the last Tuesday in June last year. Please figure that out for me in 3 clicks, zero keystrokes, and under 5 seconds.
This years, plus 2, so 28, (FYI there is a trick), done in 0 clicks, zero keystrokes and under 5 seconds
*Takes a bow
-
@serguey123 said:
This years, plus 2, so 28, (FYI there is a trick), done in 0 clicks, zero keystrokes and under 5 seconds
*Takes a bow
https://www.google.com/search?q=Windows+7+Serguey+Calendar+Plugin
Cannot find install program. =(
-
@Lorne Kates said:
Cannot find install program. =(
Sorry, we are out of stock but I'll link you to the source code and you can compile your own
-
@serguey123 said:
@Lorne Kates said:
Cannot find install program. =(
Sorry, we are out of stock but I'll link you to the source code and you can compile your own
Typical FOSS garbage.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Can you customize things with retailers? Are the prices half of the Apple store? No? Then STFU, you lost.
Yes, you can customise things. No, they're not half price, but from past experience you should be able to get something around 25-30% off what the Apple site says.
@morbiuswilters said:
Blah blah blah.. I'm right and you know it. I mean, seriously, your argument is now "Well, Apple's the only company that sells Macs so they're actually pretty cheap when it comes to selling Macs, just not when compared to identical fucking hardware (with a better OS)." Talk about moving the goalposts..
Yep, the comparison ends up pretty shitty both ways. Hurrah. Great observation skills. Have a gold fucking star for being today's most special window licker.
-
@Lorne Kates said:
What was the last Tuesday in June last year. Please figure that out for me in 3 clicks, zero keystrokes, and under 5 seconds.
It's 4 clicks:- Click on date/time to display the widget
- Click on month/year line to get year/month list
- Click on left arrow to go to last year
- Click on "jun" to get the calendar for June
Determination of the day of the week - Wikipedia
![http://i45.tinypic.com/25a3guw.png[/img]](http://i45.tinypic.com/25a3guw.png%5B/img%5D){kind=link}