Stop Microsoft
Operating Systems => macOS => Topic started by: TheQuirk on 26 March 2003, 02:31
-
http://www.adobe.com/motion/pcpreferred.html (http://www.adobe.com/motion/pcpreferred.html)
:D
-
Intel is faster ha ha ha!
-
ehh. i guess this means i should get a pc and run windows :rolleyes:
-
quote:
Originally posted by ecsyle_one:
ehh. i guess this means i should get a pc and run windows :rolleyes:
Ya, because Linux doesn't have big name apps, like Photoshop, Flash MX, Dreamweaver MX, MS Office, or IE
Not that I like IE, just Linux aint got it.
Oh, lets not forget how difficult Linux is to use and change compared to Windows and the Mac.
I know PC's are faster, my 1.7 GHz Athlon blows my 733 PowerMac out of the water (and cost about half the price). But OSX is so insanely great, it is worth the extra money and the performance hit.
-
My prediction: Red Hat Linux 10 will be better than Mac OS 10.
Oh, and Windows and Mac OS are the proprietary OSes that can't be changed, not Linux, what are you thinking.
Why use flash when you can use Moho (http://www.lostmarble.com) They have a linux version.
Why use dreamweaver when you can use vim and Mozilla composer, or Quanta (http://quanta.sourceforge.net/) which will soon have WYSIWYG abilities due to khtml.
Why use Photoshop when you can use Gimp? Unless you're some huge photoshop pro, there is no reason. Name one thing you do in Photoshop that gimp can't do.
Why use MS Office when you can use Evolution and Openoffice, or KOffice/KMail
-
quote:
Originally posted by Billy Gates: Mac Comrade Captain:
Ya, because Linux doesn't have big name apps, like Photoshop, Flash MX, Dreamweaver MX, MS Office, or IE
Not that I like IE, just Linux aint got it.
Oh, lets not forget how difficult Linux is to use and change compared to Windows and the Mac.
I know PC's are faster, my 1.7 GHz Athlon blows my 733 PowerMac out of the water (and cost about half the price). But OSX is so insanely great, it is worth the extra money and the performance hit.
well. linux really isnt that hard (it is still hard though) to use. and we really do not need those "Big" name apps. we especially do not need ms office of IE. as soon as linux picks up on the desktop, you can be sure that adobe & macromedia will write native apps for it. shit, osX is unix, and we have those apps. so its only a matter of time. i do like photoshop over gimp though. so i welcome photoshop on linux. i wouldnt even mind Studio MX ;)
my dual athlon 1.2ghz w/1gig ddr does not compare to my dual 1ghz g4 w/512. my mac smokes it, so for me, the upgrade was worth it. and the money i spent would have been the same had i decided to get a new pc instead.
-
1) RH 10.0 will be better than OS 10, but by that time, I'm sure Apple will create something extremly cool (and by that time, I'll have a mac!).
2) Because more people use Flash than Moho by an insane amount of people.
3) How can you even BEGIN to compare Dreamweaver to Vim (not WYSIWYG), Mozilla Composer--a silly, worthless toy when it comes to real web work, Quanta, which is not a WYSIWYG, or to a non-existent product?
4) Because I know how to use Photoshop and the UI is much friendlier IMHO.
5) Agreed, except MS Office is still better than OO.org (aside from al lthe security holes and that god damn clippy).
-
I didn't know Mozilla composer was silly -- I've never laughed when using it. What do you mean by "real" web work? As opposed to unreal web work? What other type is there?
By the way, Moz composer + vi can be very powerful if you're not an HTML n00b Moz can be used to "flesh out" a webpage and then refined in vi.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Linux User #5225982375:
I didn't know Mozilla composer was silly -- I've never laughed when using it. What do you mean by "real" web work? As opposed to unreal web work? What other type is there?
By the way, Moz composer + vi can be very powerful if you're not an HTML n00b Moz can be used to "flesh out" a webpage and then refined in vi.
Dreamweaver is an app that can do everything, I don't know how to use 90% of the stuff in it. Mozilla Composer is for people that want to build their first web page. Dreamweaver is for building an enterprise size web site and managing it. Along with all of the things in that site, JSP, PHP, Java, Javascript, etc ,etc. I am, however, trying to do my site only with plain text. I think, though, I will make my site with dreamweaver, then fix it up in TextEdit.
Photoshop is much easier to use than the GIMP. Don't even know what MOHO is, don't even want to know. If it is like how Adobe tried to make an swf maker, it is probably terrible.
What is wrong with proprietary software? it is often better than Free Software. Its not like people shun proprierary cars or cpu's or stereos or tv's or light bulbs. Should we avoid those too?
-
quote:
Originally posted by Billy Gates: Mac Comrade Captain:
What is wrong with proprietary software? it is often better than Free Software. Its not like people shun proprierary cars or cpu's or stereos or tv's or light bulbs. Should we avoid those too?
!!!! You shouldn't have said that to him! He has the damn FSF in his sig! You are in for a RANT, my lad!
:D
I sense RMS quotes.
-
Proprietary software, by definition, can never be better than free software because it is socially oppressive. We shouldn't just all throw up our hands and switch to proprietary software just because some of it is technically superior. Imagine if the early pioneers of free software had thought that, why, we'd have nothing but proprietary software! The solution is to build a free replacement for that software. If your job demands Photoshop or other non-free software, then I say stick with it of course, but for 90% of users having something like Dreamweaver is really pointless. The only non-free software I have on my computer are the drivers for my nVidia card and Warcraft III -- and with games I don't consider it particularly useful to have access to the source code, and even if War3 was freely distributable you need a unique Cd key to play it on battle.net. I guess that's rationalizing the situation but I think games should be considered differently than other kinds software.
So rant all you want about how great your proprietary software is, but all your'e doing is helping rich men build walls between computer users.
-
what did I tell you? ;)
-
i like osX more than any other os i have used. therefor i use it. im not going to get rid of it becuase its proprietary. i will use the tools that can get the work done in the least amount of time, and retain a level of quality i demand of myself. sorry that mozilla composer does not do that. nor does gimp.
-
But can you at least admit that free software would do the job for most people? Not everyone needs the advanced features in Photoshop that Gimp doesn't have. Imagine what kind of free software we'd have if the public and corporations had donated all the money they've spent on Photoshop/3ds max/Flash/etc. to free software projects like Gimp.
-
that would be nice, but its not the world we live in. it will take time to get there. most of those apps would suffice, but not for me im sorry to say. someday/
-
quote:
Originally posted by Windows XP Hater #2874586:
what did I tell you? ;)
You were right....
quote:
So rant all you want about how great your proprietary software is, but all your'e doing is helping rich men build walls between computer us
I don't see how it seperates users. I see it the opposite. With proprietary software everyone has the same version, everyone can do the same things, variation is almost non existant. With Free Software, you can change it and make it do things that the standard distrobution couldn't do. Thus making your friends who have the same software incapable of doing the same things that you do with it.
And your right, free software is good for the bottom sonsumer who does not make money off of advanced expensive software. But then another problem arises. Free software is programmed by, usually smart, linux geekos. Thus making the product, usually, have a totally unintutive interface for the basic user, so that this user can not easily use it. Like the GIMP for instance. I had to look at that thing for at least an hour to figure it out. That hour was with years of Photoshop experience already behind me, imagine a user with no digital image experience jumping into the GIMP. Also, the basic user will most likely have problems compiling software.
In my opinion, Proprietary software helps everyone, except the people that for one reason or another expect everything to be free. I really hate that. Like with this Music "Sharing" thing. Your not fucking sharing, your stealing. Another thing that seems kind of a not so strange coincidence, is that most free software is a copy of some sort of proprietary software. Sure, some of it worked the other way around, but not much. And most of the free software is not an exact copy with more features, it is a semi-copy, with less features.
I think I'm done, but I can't rule the possibility of saying more, out.
-
One word...
WRONGO!!!!
How can someone be so inane, I mean really!
quote:
I don't see how it seperates users. I see it the opposite. With proprietary software everyone has the same version, everyone can do the same things, variation is almost non existant.
No everyone doesn't have "the same vision." First of all, with proprietary software the vision of the users is left out, and they have no say. It's a software dictatorship. We can have standards and freedom with free software, this binary world of "nazi software lockdown" or "splintered BSD fragmentation" is completely separated from reality. Just look at Xfree86, freedesktop.org, and the Linux kernel. There are people who end up having a say what goes into the official version of each major free software project. But I could download the Linux source code, fork it, and make my own kernel! Sure there are literally dozens of distributions of Linux, but that's what freedom is all about. You are free to create, even if you want to break standards to do so. Truly a boon to innovation.
quote:
With Free Software, you can change it and make it do things that the standard distrobution couldn't do. Thus making your friends who have the same software incapable of doing the same things that you do with it.
What does this mean? If I created some custom distro that did something fancy, what would stop me from giving it to my friends? And even if I didn't, that would still make it more free than proprietary software, where nobody but the software owner can make changes.
quote:
And your right, free software is good for the bottom sonsumer who does not make money off of advanced expensive software. But then another problem arises. Free software is programmed by, usually smart, linux geekos. Thus making the product, usually, have a totally unintutive interface for the basic user, so that this user can not easily use it.
Have you used KDE 3.1? Go download Mandrake Linux 9.1 right now.
quote:
That hour was with years of Photoshop experience already behind me, imagine a user with no digital image experience jumping into the GIMP.
years of photoshop experience
You see, you think photoshop is easier because you've been trained to use it from the start.
When I got heavily into Gimp I used it for quite a long time and came back to Photoshop one day and realized I liked the Gimp better. None of the shortcuts and commands I used in Gimp worked in Photoshop. At that point Photoshop was the hard to learn, unfamiliar program, not Gimp. It's all about what you were used to.
quote:
Also, the basic user will most likely have problems compiling software.
Who says they ever have to?
quote:
In my opinion, Proprietary software helps everyone, except the people that for one reason or another expect everything to be free.
Wrong. Proprietary software helps the software owners who use the threat of force to lord over the mere "consumers" of software. Everyone's a consumer in this system, something to be exploited. The software owners are the only benefactors, and use copyright to divide, dominate, and mistreat the public.
And the "free" I'm talking about refers to freedom, not price. Please read this page:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html)
quote:
I really hate that. Like with this Music "Sharing" thing. Your not fucking sharing, your stealing.
How exactly am I stealing? If you want to know what I really hate, it's when media companies and others try to apply our ideas and intuitions about whether it is right to take an object away from someone else and try to apply it to merely making a copy of something. If I make a sandwich, I do object if you eat it, because then I cannot eat it. But if I sell you a program I shouldn't have the power to tell you what you can and can't do with it, including making a copy and sharing it with your friends. No one should have that power.
I suppose if one day we have star-trek like machines that let people copy objects like food and computers you would support oppressive and greedy companies and people who try to restrict the copying in the name of profit, because that's exactly what they do in this country with published information. They mistreat the public and deny them their freedom to copy and share, all in the name of the almighty dollar.
quote:
Another thing that seems kind of a not so strange coincidence, is that most free software is a copy of some sort of proprietary software. Sure, some of it worked the other way around, but not much. And most of the free software is not an exact copy with more features, it is a semi-copy, with less features.
Well, a lot of it [end user software] is designed to replace a specific piece of proprietary software, so naturally it's designed to behave in a similar fashion. Since when was it a crime to do this?
[ March 26, 2003: Message edited by: Linux User #5225982375 ]
-
i absolutely love the idea of Free Software. with proprietary software, i am forced to create based on what adobe et al defince as the boundries. sorta sucks, but i deal with it (and create some nice work ;) ). now, with something like the gimp. shit man. in a few years, photoshop will be based on it. there is no denying it. look at netscape :D . look at macOS :D :D . but... right now, work sorta keeps me with adobe/macromedia/discreet. i do have chances to play with "alternatives", but have found them to be cumbersome and not very "intuitive". mozillas composer is fine for some quick html, but come one. i am an artist, not a programmer. i do not have time to really learn it to actually hand code it. i shoud focus on the design & style. adobes & macromedias software let me do just that. soon though, free software will be at the level i need it at. well, free graphics software anyways. so far, everything else has smoked proprietary software. linux OS r0x0rz ;) , Evolution r0x0rz :D , motha-fuckin mozilla?? kicks ass. i could go on & on... you get my point. free software will rule the world. just not yet....
-
quote:
With proprietary software everyone has the same version, everyone can do the same things, variation is almost non existant.
We are all one. Choice and variation must be destroyed... btw does anyone here think racism would be destroyed with one big white spraycan? Difference is good, difference is choice, free software is choice. Free softare is not just choice and freedom its the ability to improve something that you actually own, as compared to "renting" propietary software, which you cant even examine for yourself. Sure macs are good for what they do, (im using mac os x to write this - im in a public lab and Im not touching those windows boxes) but they're hardly a "serious" machine at anything else butbeing a desktop box... we have zero macs in our computer science labs... all solaris and linux boxes because linux *IS* a better power users OS. Also re : the "an editor isnt good unless its WYSIWIG... I'm editing eiffel programs in emacs and I know eiffel far better than someone who would use an IDE for the same task. Theres nothing "bad" about non wysiwig environments, they're just not user friendly. Still at least Apple isn't Microsoft... (but its still not Linux!)
-
They're just sore over this:
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2001/apr/30ronokamoto.html (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2001/apr/30ronokamoto.html)
"Okamoto was previously vice president of Product Management and Marketing for graphics products at Adobe Systems, where he was responsible for the worldwide marketing and management of many award-winning products including Photoshop, Illustrator and After Effects."
Anyway the graphs are all fucked up.
(http://www.adobe.com/motion/images/video_composite.gif)
The graph is made to look like a minute has 100 seconds, not 60. The Dell, at 54 seconds, would be at around 0.9 on a 60 second per minute graph, but is instead made to have an even shorter bar by using a minute with 100 seconds.
True, the raw numbers are the same, but the whole point of graphs is a quick visual representation. Manipulating scale is a VERY old trick for skewing perception.
How very Microsoftian of them. Shame on Adobe.
-
quote:
Originally posted by ecsyle_one:
free software will rule the world. just not yet....
Most likely true, when they get better UI and easier installations, etc, etc. I just hope I'm retired before this happens because I plan on making money by selling proprietary software.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Billy Gates: Mac Comrade Captain:
Most likely true, when they get better UI and easier installations, etc, etc. I just hope I'm retired before this happens because I plan on making money by selling proprietary software.
Why don't you get a job at IBM then you can make lots of money writing free software.
-
quote:
Adobe Says: Get a PC, Jerks!
I Say: Go To Hell, Adobe!!!
-
quote:
Originally posted by Linux User #5225982375:
Why don't you get a job at IBM then you can make lots of money writing free software.
I was thinking about this Free Speech not Free Beer. Which means I could sell the software correct? Then I could allow you to change the code, the only problem is distributing it freely. Because, basically that means I would sell one copy, and no one else would buy it. I don't see the point, Free Speech not Free Beer. But with Free Software everyone gets it free except for the very first person to purchase it, correct. Or do I have some information wrong?
-
The English word "free" is a confusing word because it can have two meanings: "free" as in freedom (free speech) and "free" as in no cost (free beer)
Free software is about giving everyone the freedom to study, change, and distribute copies of software. You may still sell free software, although the price usually isn't huge like proprietary software because there is no copyright monopoly. Look at Red Hat, they sell GPL software combined with support services for thousands of dollars. But you have the freedom to take the program and give it to your friends, or to study the source code or teach people with it. I payed 80 bucks for my copy of red hat linux 7, which is all free software.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Linux User #5225982375:
The English word "free" is a confusing word because it can have two meanings: "free" as in freedom (free speech) and "free" as in no cost (free beer)
Free software is about giving everyone the freedom to study, change, and distribute copies of software. You may still sell free software, although the price usually isn't huge like proprietary software because there is no copyright monopoly. Look at Red Hat, they sell GPL software combined with support services for thousands of dollars. But you have the freedom to take the program and give it to your friends, or to study the source code or teach people with it. I payed 80 bucks for my copy of red hat linux 7, which is all free software.
Ok, thx for confirming the exactly what I said. Only one copy gets purchased, the first one, then all the others are given out because you have the freedom to do so. RedHat sells tech support, and so to get that tech support you have to pay the $70 bucks or whatever. But if you want to sell software, it is impossible. You will only be able to sell it to one person, and then the others who are too lazy to get it from other people. So selling Free Software for profit is impossible. Therefore Free Software seems doomed to failure, except for people that have free time to work on it.
-
No it's destined for immense success in my opinion. Why do you think IBM is pouring billions of dollars into Linux development? Proprietary software is a horse-and-buggy business model whose time has come and gone. It's not only unethical but impractical.
-
(http://l337images.com/images/picture64.jpg)
-
quote:
Originally posted by Linux User #5225982375:
No it's destined for immense success in my opinion. Why do you think IBM is pouring billions of dollars into Linux development? Proprietary software is a horse-and-buggy business model whose time has come and gone. It's not only unethical but impractical.
but you can't make money off of it, only the tech support, or service that comes with it.
-
That's making money off of it in my book. Trampling people's freedom with copyright isn't the only way to profit from software. Red Hat has 270 million dollars in the bank, where do you think that came from?
-
there are many other companies with billions in the bank. Why would someone choose 200million when the could have 5-10 billion?
-
two things:
1. Because that money doesn't come from nowhere. It was taken from people.
2. Read my sig. It explains pretty much what proprietary software is about.
-
Nobody gives a fuck or apple.com?
-
you think you're funny but you're not
maybe I should just take apple.com out of the sig, its kinda confusing
[ March 29, 2003: Message edited by: Windows XP Hater #2874586 ]
-
Linux User: are you posting as multiple people on this forum?
-
i'm not linux user if thats what your asking him
-
BOOM!! BOOM!! BOOM!! EVERY TIME YOU DROP THE BOMB...
-
When I saw these charts and the text on Adobes site the other day, I thought to myself: How come they compare a 3.06 GHz wintel machine against a 1.25 GHz Mac? Is that the only wintel machine available to win against the Mac?
Later on I read about the software issue where a guy accused Adobe of making bloated software. All this is true but I have made one conclusion not many have made, yet. The so called significant lead over the Mac is made so in the chart to fool fools. There is no significant lead and, and, why isn
-
I would like to see a quote from someone at Intel claiming Mhz is the performace indicator between two different processor architectures...
Benchmarks are indeed for idiots, PC or Mac.
Also, did it occur to anyone that Adobe would recommend a system that would hold interest to a large majority of people?
-
Here I'll lend a interesting link about a discussion on the same theme in Mac in Touch (http://www.macintouch.com/apple-adobe.html#apr04). The people that posted has some interesting points of view about that issue...
-
I don't understand:
3gizillion GHZ Dell crap, is better that than a 1 GHZ G4!!!! somethings fucked up with that logic. So it takes 2GHZ to make it a 30 seconds seconds quicker!!! Yeah right.
As for Dreamweaver, guarantee I can hand code quicker using BBedit than Dreamweaver shit, Dreamweaver is for people that pretend to be developers. Learn how to code for christ sake! Point and click is the Microsoft way morron, you might as well use Visual Studio.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Zardoz:
I don't understand:
3gizillion GHZ Dell crap, is better that than a 1 GHZ G4!!!! somethings fucked up with that logic. So it takes 2GHZ to make it a 30 seconds seconds quicker!!! Yeah right.
As for Dreamweaver, guarantee I can hand code quicker using BBedit than Dreamweaver shit, Dreamweaver is for people that pretend to be developers. Learn how to code for christ sake! Point and click is the Microsoft way morron, you might as well use Visual Studio.
I bet you're one of those kids that think that they're elite because they can "program" in HTML.
Dreamweaver is a great product. It works very well. There's no reason to be dissing it--it create very good mark-up (nearly up to W3C standards), and it will allow you to create a great looking site in less the time it'd take to do the same site in whatever-text-editor-you-have.
In fact, I'd say that most of the time when people diss good WYSIWYG HTML editors in favor of a text edit it's because they have no experience to speak of and try to sound smart, or something.
There's nothing cool about using inferior tools just because they're "harder".
-
Well, it's always better to code by hand and that's what I always do, except when it comes to tables, which I totally despise. Dreamweaver is certainly not bad, and generates pretty decent HTML code but nothing gives you more flexibility than coding by hand. And it is not inferior or harder. I would dare to say that it is superior as well as easier, when you get used to it. (http://smile.gif)
-
quote:
Originally posted by Billy Gates: Mac Comrade Captain:
I was thinking about this Free Speech not Free Beer. Which means I could sell the software correct? Then I could allow you to change the code, the only problem is distributing it freely. Because, basically that means I would sell one copy, and no one else would buy it. I don't see the point, Free Speech not Free Beer. But with Free Software everyone gets it free except for the very first person to purchase it, correct. Or do I have some information wrong?
yes this is one hundred percent correct, and is one of the reasons that certain greedy bastards refuse to release their software under the GPL.
if you charge $6000 for your product (GPL as it may be) then you must make the source code available to anybody who buys it. However everybody who buys it and gets the code is legally allowed to sell or give the thing away (with or without modifications) for whatever price they like, so long as their customers get full source code for whatever they are buying/getting given for free too.
in effect this could mean that you'd sell a few at $6000 and everybody else would copy it, but possibly all your customers would be just as greedy and would refuse to copy it for free. sooner or later somebody will give it away for free though i think if it's under the GPL.
anyway, if you had charged $50 for it then perhaps you'd have sold a shitload more copies and made more money because people might have thought (wow! this software's worth paying for, i'll just pay for it!".
Another way is to release the program under the GPL and all the plugins you charge money for (that's a pretty obnoxious way of getting money if you ask me, but it's legal).
there are many other ways to make GPL software pay, as you can see it's quite a complex setup.
-
quote:
Originally posted by TheQuirk:
http://www.adobe.com/motion/pcpreferred.html (http://www.adobe.com/motion/pcpreferred.html)
:D
this no longer leads to any propaganda, btw.
-
i give you a sensible answer and then i notice this schlock!
quote:
Originally posted by Billy Gates: Mac Comrade Captain:
In my opinion, Proprietary software helps everyone, except the people that for one reason or another expect everything to be free. I really hate that. Like with this Music "Sharing" thing. Your not fucking sharing, your stealing. Another thing that seems kind of a not so strange coincidence, is that most free software is a copy of some sort of proprietary software. Sure, some of it worked the other way around, but not much. And most of the free software is not an exact copy with more features, it is a semi-copy, with less features.
ok, well stealing is when the original owner loses something. copying music is NOT stealing. just ask the grateful dead, ambassadors of the free music concept. they legally allow you to copy and distribute all their live material so long as you respect their copyright, and don't try to make money off the deal, and so long as you don't do any of that collecting dfatabases of information off people who download mp3s of them et cetera. now that's a good attitude and all those bastards who want to screw up people who only want to share good music around (music which will never be released commercially i might add) can fuck right off.
and what is this schlock about proprietary software being better than Free software? Free software developes faster, has security flaws and bugs patched faster and is generally more stable, reliable and secure as a result.
you need to go and renew your clue licence.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Panos:
Well, it's always better to code by hand and that's what I always do, except when it comes to tables, which I totally despise. Dreamweaver is certainly not bad, and generates pretty decent HTML code but nothing gives you more flexibility than coding by hand. And it is not inferior or harder. I would dare to say that it is superior as well as easier, when you get used to it. (http://smile.gif)
again i say dreamweaver is overkill, not only that it is expensive and closed source. mozilla composer and openoffice.org are WYSIWYG enough for me, and should be for most.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Calum: crusader for peace & freedom:
again i say dreamweaver is overkill, not only that it is expensive and closed source. mozilla composer and openoffice.org are WYSIWYG enough for me, and should be for most.
I agree completely. Mozilla Composer and OpenOffic should suffice for basic as well as advanced WYSIWYG HTML editing. I don't have any doubt that you can find more advanced features in Dreamweaver or other commercial products, BUT I don't see how these cannot be learned by someone with simple practise. C'mon people, don't be lazy. :D
-
dreamweaver mx is a bad ass program. its the combination of dreamweaver and ultra dev. so i can do all of my html, php, asp, jhtml, whatever inside dreaweaver MX. with the ability to link dynamically with fireworks & flash, my graphics and layout are very easy to manage as well. i created a layout scheme in photoshop, take that into fireworks, slice it up, add some elements, export it to dreamweaver, and im done. if i change something in that fireworks file, it updates my html for me. plus, i like the file management of dreamweaver. i suppose i could do it with mozilla. but dreamweaver seems to be a better wysiwyg editor. my opinion of course. can i create a library compenent in mozilla composer that will allow me to create a base file, for the nav lets say, thst is embedded in all the other docs, so when i update it, it updates all the other html files for me? probably. but it is easy to do in dreamweaver.
whatever. i should probably embrace open source & free software a little more, but i find some apps are not replaceable just yet ;)
-
quote:
Originally posted by Zardoz:
[QB]I don't understand:
3gizillion GHZ Dell crap, is better that than a 1 GHZ G4!!!! somethings fucked up with that logic. So it takes 2GHZ to make it a 30 seconds seconds quicker!!! Yeah right.[QB]
Mac GHZ and PC GHZ are different anyway.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Zardoz:
[QB]I don't understand:
3gizillion GHZ Dell crap, is better that than a 1 GHZ G4!!!! somethings fucked up with that logic. So it takes 2GHZ to make it a 30 seconds seconds quicker!!! Yeah right.[QB]
Mac GHZ and PC GHZ are different anyway.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Billy Gates: Mac Comrade Captain:
Ya, because Linux doesn't have big name apps, like Photoshop, Flash MX, Dreamweaver MX, MS Office, or IE
bottom line is it should!
;)
-
...and they all lived happily ever after. of course, linux became a fatass, and windows killed itself by driving into a brick wall and apple still hadn't released the g5 yet.
but all in all, it was a happy ending.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Big-Mac-Maniac:
...and they all lived happily ever after. of course, linux became a fatass, and windows killed itself by driving into a brick wall and apple still hadn't released the g5 yet.
but all in all, it was a happy ending.
I don't get it?
Linux became bloated... Windows, crashed into a brick wall.... ummmm... smiths law?.... and Apple still draged their buts on the g5?
umm maybe...
i don't get it.
-
lol, neva mind...i was just adding what i thought was a stupidly-funny little ditty to the end of this thread, which to me seemed like one big long bore.