I don't really know if they already have differences
For example, On Windows you go through Tools -> Preferences, while on Linux you have to Edit -> Preferences (I don't know on Mac OS version). Another difference would be the update option, but that is logical because on Linux you use package manager.
Actually, I think my favorite menu gripe in Firefox is the "Options" menu option. It's like no other menu option in Firefox.
In Windows, it's part of the "Tools" menu.
In Linux, it's part of the "Edit" menu.
God only knows where it is on Mac. I don't have one.
And to top it off, it also has no direct keyboard shortcut.
Additionally, unlike all the other options, it opens up a multitabbed dialog box. If you want to be consistent, it really should be a main menu of its own with submenus instead of tabs. That one screen controls just about everything, requires a good deal of mouse interaction, and just looks clumsy.
Keep in mind that this is (to me certainly, and I imagine to most) the SINGLE MOST USED menu option in Firefox. It's the only way (other than about:config) to change most of the settings in the browser. And yet it's in a different place depending on which OS you are running, and there's no keyboard shortcut to it.
Actually the ribbon style is not built for eye candy but rather for usability. The problem with menu style systems is that it is not intuitive
Not even remotely true. There are still multiple tabs on the ribbon, so you still have to click through
all the tabs to find what you want. But with menus you can quick scan the words to find what you
want, and 99% of what you want is on the first level. Scanning the ribbon icons is a much slower
and more tedious process (and you still have to go multiple levels deep to access the more obscure
features. Plus it takes a lot more screen real-estate.
The reason I feel so confident walking around and fixing my user's problems even though I may never have worked with the program they are using before, is because menus make things easy to find. http://www.xkcd.com/627/ [xkcd.com]
I think you need to read the text in that first decision box a bit more closely.
Great, they were the answer to a crappy browser, and now they are going the way of that same crappy browser.
I really hate the IE interface and Office 2007 has only been a greater pain.
Thanks for listening to your users guys!
QT is probably horrible
No, Qt is not horrible and there is no reason at all to say so.
How about you spend a few minutes researching before you make such idiotic and baseless comments
The weasel word is that it depends on how you define complexity. It is true for all things.
A solar pumped electric grid would eliminate a number of nasty problems with current electricity production. One is pollution, of course. Another is a dependence on fuel that occurs in finite deposits that are becoming increasingly labor intensive to recover. (since we can only get so much energy from hydro, and nuclear power is currently MORE expensive than solar)
A bulldozer requires a society to build it and maintain it that is vastly more complex than a simple camp of fruit pickers.
Yes, a modern PC is radically different. There are MANY more layers of abstraction in the code you are running right now...from BIOS layers that are nearly as complex as DOS was in 1989, to the OS kernel, GUI, browser, and now virtual machines running in the browser that are as complex as whole applications were in 1989. The main block components may look the same, but there's a LOT more in that CPU than there was in 1989, and a lot more memory cells in the DRAM as well.
There is no such thing as "guaranteed" bandwidth on the internet. ALL bandwidth is shared, somewhere.
Your ISP does NOT have 40 megabits of bandwidth for every user. Do you know how much you would be paying if they did? Your connection would be hundres of dollars a month, not $60 or less.
If you want to bitch about the price of bandwidth, bitch to the big telcos that own most of the fiber in the US, and charge exorbitant fees to use it.
So we've had a defined standard that was, arguably, not the easiest to understand. THEN harddrive manufacturers started their fraud. And THEN people started complaining. So what, and please think about this, would be the right decision here?
The "right" solution is that things dependent on the number of address lines (cache size, RAM size) are in units measured in 2^10, and things not dependent on the number address lines (network bandwidth, HDD/SSD size) are in units measured in 10^3. Files are interesting in that the base unit is a 512 byte sector but they don't depend on address lines, so they should be measured like floppy disks where 1kB is 1024 bytes, 1MB is 1000kB
>>>It makes me angry that some feel they can use them for their own political purposes
We use the National Socialists of 1930s Germany because they are relevant. Adolf Hitler was actually a decent guy when he was elected, bringing restoration to his people and abundance in a once-failing economy, and even received praise from people like Churchill and FDR as an excellent leader. The German people loved him and were proud to call Hitler their leader (sound familiar?). The relevance is that a smiling happy politician can so quickly-and-easily turn into a tyrant.
If you don't like me using Hitler as example, I could use Napoleon instead. Or Henry the 8th. Or Nero. Or Julius Ceasar.
Pick your poison Socrates.
Auto-execute seems pretty silly now, but back at the time it wasn't totally stupid. This was back in '95
The principle of not executing something arriving off host had only been established about a decade before. Shar (shell archives and the typical distribution format) was invented shortly after Usenet source groups were invented. Unshar was invented in the mid 1980s because everyone with half a brain was terrified of executing something coming from even the venerated and moderated `comp.sources.unix'.
We made our own mistakes http://www.regatta.cs.msu.su/doc/usr/share/man/info/ru_RU/a_doc_lib/cmds/aixcmds5/uux.htm but competent administrators had learned long before 1995 to disable uux.
Now, get off my lawn!
As a cast member in a web series (Break A Leg) we have been struggling not to gain an audience, respect, or critical acclaim since we have all of that. We just need money.
Having just looked at your website, I can't see anywhere that I could pay to get access to your episodes. I can't see anywhere I could pay to get a DVD.
Assuming that you're giving away your product for free (seriously? then complaining about cashflow?) I also can't see anywhere that I can pay to have an enhanced experience of some kind.
Have you considered actually... y'know... *CHARGING* for access to watch the shows? Like giving away eps 1-3 from a series for free, then charging $1 an episode after that? Or letting viewers watch the first X minutes of each episode then 50 cents for the rest? Or selling a DVD with added-value material that SERIOUS fans would appreciate like commentary, actor/cast bios, extra bits to flesh out personalities, "deleted scenes", extra scenes, mini-episodes fleshing out a real one etc?
If the first thought that enters your head is "people won't pay money to watch our series" then perhaps your series isn't compelling enough? But assuming it *is* compelling and appealing it seems to me that you need someone with a commercial brain to work out how best to monetize it... I bet you have some "experts" or talented and/or experienced people in their field for certain roles like costume, scriptwriting, make-up, camerawork, soundwork, editing.. acting etc... so why not someone talented/experienced in commercial aspects?
Once it hits the fan, the only rational choice is to sweep it up, package it, and sell it as fertilizer.