Page 1 of 2
Opera
Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 7:32 pm
by alex.barylski
Is it ever a pleasure to develope for
So far I haven't found an IE/FF technique which didn't work in either direction, additionally it's DOM support is top notch...
I could switch browsers permenently if IE didn't ship with XP and become a standard part of the OS interface
I'm surprise that browser hasn't been better received by the masses

Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 8:18 pm
by Todd_Z
How have you not made the switch to linux, you can jam on opera exclusively and not have to deal with the XP bull*&(#
Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 8:23 pm
by alex.barylski
Because I have years of vested interest in Windows development???
Over the years I've slowly started reading about Linux Windowed development: wxWidgets, Qt, GTK, etc...
Photoshop, that I am aware of isn't available on *nix and I NEED PS not knock offs like GIMP. For those who would argue...you can do anything in GIMP that I can do in Photoshop...probalby I'm non an overly talented designer...but people I contact who beg to differ, whose designs are much better than mine...
Convince them to switch...
I need to get one my computers running Linux though...I agree...if anything to properly test Konqueror kHTML engine and FF and any others meant for Linux...
Now I just need a Mac...and I could test and valid B$ on Safari too
Cheers

Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 8:25 pm
by feyd
Or you could go entirely Mac and virtualize/bootcamp from there.
Shocking thoughts.
Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 8:30 pm
by alex.barylski
Mac has never appealed to me...I like nice designs...but not for my OS...
I still run XPSP2 as Windows 95, with a gradient window caption background
I don't like bright colorful buttons they strain my eyes...I like square, fast rendering linera graphics for my environment...I dunno...
Mac (except for the very early ones which were white and black) always seemed waaaaay to glossy, round, button-y for me
Plus they have few (if any) flight simulators

Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 8:45 pm
by Todd_Z
Trip-boot on a new mac.
If i ever wanted to touch windoze again, that's what i would do. Seems like a simple setup from the articles i have read.
Give it a shot, who knows, could be a good time
Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 6:54 am
by panic!
OS X isn't just about the pretty interface..
extremely powerful command line...DOS prompt what now?
Virus free.
Xcode 3
http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/xcode.html
Time machine...soon.
Great 'free' software: GarageBand, Mail, iMovie.
You can still boot into Windows XP, Linux or anything else that will run on an Intel machine....if you must
Authough the interface is nice..
Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 9:04 am
by matthijs
Hockey wrote:Mac has never appealed to me...I like nice designs...but not for my OS...
I still run XPSP2 as Windows 95, with a gradient window caption background

I don't like bright colorful buttons they strain my eyes...I like square, fast rendering linera graphics for my environment...I dunno...
Mac (except for the very early ones which were white and black) always seemed waaaaay to glossy, round, button-y for me

Then be sure to stay with 95 and not switch to Vista, from what I've seen they have copied the glossy, rounded looks of OSx and multiplied it with factor 10

Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 10:37 am
by Jenk
The Vista GUI will be making use DX10 functionality. (!!)
It's not a nice confidence filler to see an OS vendor spending so long on their GUI - honestly, how many actually care how pretty there desktop looks, beyond the want to brag with "look at my desktop!" posts on forums?
Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 11:07 am
by jayshields
Jenk I have to disagree. I reckon 50% of people who will buy Vista will buy it for the GUI alone.
I'll probably upgrade to Vista when it comes out (and the early/major bugs are gone) and just set it to the Win 95/98 look again. I'm like Hockey in that sense.
I use Windows for ease of use and compatibility, and the lack of motivation to spend hours switching stuff over to a new OS.
Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 11:33 am
by Jenk
Yeah, I guess on the grand scheme of things that is the case.. I was limiting my self to 'competent' users who do more than just buy a computer because it's the must have gadget of the times and check their mail once a year.
Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 11:56 am
by MrPotatoes
i LOVE Opera
and on Vista, 15 GB is too damned much for an OS. that's stupid large and no reason they cant fit it in ALOT less. i want an OS that is networking and GUI. everything else i can compile in there (as well as the OS). and make it a completely custom OS for me. that would rule
Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 12:18 pm
by jayshields
MrPotatoes wrote:i LOVE Opera
and on Vista, 15 GB is too damned much for an OS. that's stupid large and no reason they cant fit it in ALOT less. i want an OS that is networking and GUI. everything else i can compile in there (as well as the OS). and make it a completely custom OS for me. that would rule
I'm by all means trying not to sound like a Microsoft loving freak but I'm going to have to defend them again...
15gb? Do you know how much hard drives cost these days? You can get a
250gb SATA hard drive for £50. That's peanuts.
You can probably get someone to give you a 20gb hard drive for free and use it only for your OS install.
Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 12:59 pm
by MrPotatoes
and no operating system should be 15GB LARGE. not that new HDD's now adays cost so little. it's that this is so huge.
you wouldn't be annoyed if someone wrote a book that is 1500 pages long when it should have been a 1 chapter 10 page tutorial on how to make a user authentication thingy? i would
Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 9:57 am
by panic!
I remember the days when people used to say 400MB was too much for an OS, things change and grow, you can't fight it!
