sid0

61 ms·

601.
by sid0 17y ago
I do have both line numbers and overflow indicators on, but I still find wrapped text (especially if an identifier is broken into two) harder to read.
602.
by sid0 17y ago
Windows.
603.
by sid0 17y ago
> Is the 80 col limit still valid in the modern day with such large screen displays? Yes. With my previous notebook screen (1440x900) I could fit two 83-character-wide Emacs buffers side by side. With my current screen (1600x900) I can
604.
by sid0 17y ago
Which IDE do you think is better?
605.
by sid0 17y ago
The number one thing that turned me off about IntelliJ IDEA was the horrible font rendering. I am not going to suffer the lack of cleartype for eight hours a day, thanks. The rendering made IntelliJ positively unusable. I really don't care
606.
by sid0 17y ago
Firefox 3 doesn't support font-face.
607.
by sid0 17y ago
> If you're on Windows, sorry. Both Firefox and IE have terrible font rendering on that OS which basically munges the font I'm not sure what you're talking about -- the only real problem I can see with Firefox on Windows is that the fon
608.
by sid0 17y ago
Given the number of people paid full-time to work on open source, I don't think the "you shouldn't need to be paid to work on open source" argument works at all. Again, they need to be paid to learn this stuff? Yes. You could think of i
609.
by sid0 17y ago
> which either already ships a licensed copy of the codec (Windows and OS X) Only Windows 7 does.
610.
by sid0 17y ago
> It doesn't matter if the new IE browser is faster than firefox, since any computer that is powerful enough to run Vista in the first place will probably not take a noticeable amount of time to render a page in Firefox. Probably not, b
611.
by sid0 17y ago
> I'm suggesting that it's very much an exception rather than a rule. I think the opposite is true. I don't have hard data to back up my thoughts, but the fact that IE8 is above IE7 seems suggestive. > I don't have the energy to dig
612.
by sid0 17y ago
But that still doesn't provide evidence that people buying a new computer are the only non-developers who will get IE9. You need to demonstrate that upgrades from IE6 to 7/8 are non-existent. In fact, I'd say the fact that IE7 has dropped b
613.
by sid0 17y ago
One very cool thing I learned today is that knowledge amongst a number of people, with the help of modal logic and Kripke possible world semantics, essentially reduces to a graph reachability problem.
614.
by sid0 17y ago
While the hardware acceleration will only be available on modern Windows, there's a good chance IE9 will come out for Windows XP too. (The lack of hardware acceleration on non-modern Windows is something that Firefox will face too once it f
615.
by sid0 17y ago
> (which of course are just about the only non-developers who will get ie9): Why so?
616.
by sid0 17y ago
It's certainly fast, but the lack of <canvas> is disappointing.
617.
Internet Explorer 9: Platform Preview(ie.microsoft.com)
86 points by sid0 17y ago|80 comments
618.
by sid0 17y ago
http://quotes.burntelectrons.org/683 comes to mind. :)
619.
by sid0 17y ago
I'd contend that the reason HTML5 actually paid attention to video and vector graphics was that Flash made them popular. I don't want Flash (or equivalent) to die because I want to see even more innovation from them, all of which eventual
620.
by sid0 17y ago
> dont you want flash to be doomed? I don't. > In 5 years why should the web require a plugin to show video or vector graphics? It shouldn't, but both your questions seem quite unrelated.
621.
by sid0 17y ago
Wrong game. :)
622.
by sid0 17y ago
Yeah, I'm not sure I buy it either. A full Mozilla build takes roughly 24 minutes on my Windows notebook (it's a Core i7, but Windows has slower process creation than Linux).
623.
by sid0 17y ago
OS X's biggest downside is that it doesn't allow an interface without menus. :)
624.
by sid0 17y ago
Peter did admit his mistake about superfetch (he thought the xpnet thing was counting that too as used memory), but he's still right about the overall metric being wrong -- see the comments to http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2010/02/editorial
625.
by sid0 17y ago
No, a large part of file caching in Vista and 7 is preemptive -- Linux doesn't do it by default (I think there's a utility called preload that does it).
626.
by sid0 17y ago
If you've spent any amount of time at the Ars forums, you wouldn't refer to Peter as "clueless". Committed bytes is completely the wrong metric to appeal to, since it includes pages that have been committed but have never been touched. Wind
627.
by sid0 17y ago
No, Windows 7 and Vista always abandon the Superfetch cache before paging out anything else -- this is verified in the comments section. It's the sensible thing to do, since a. Superfetch data is heuristic and application pages are mostly n
628.
by sid0 17y ago
Oh come on, you're using a Win9x argument in 2010? :)
629.
by sid0 17y ago
> Stability aside (which I think is a good thing) all that I can see that is different in windows is a bit of eye candy. Big wow. But that's wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_Vista alone is huge. > OSX an
630.
by sid0 17y ago
FTR, Windows supports real symlinks too.

More ›