It would be interesting if the browser took the items in ul's marked with id="navigation" and exposed those items in some sort of index module for users to click.HumanCompiler said:turrican said:*snip*
Not that I don't totally disagree with the general principle of what you're saying, but I think at this point, if websites started using frames again and putting menus that don't move at the top again I think THAT would be a usability flaw as internet users won't be acustomed to it.
It's really easy to get around. Hit the Home key and you're at the menu.
It seems sort of interesting to think about how websites could integrate into the browser though (context menus, skinning, etc).
Friends have the game.Bas said:Duncanma said:*snip*
Has anyone here played Fable 2 in multiplayer yet? I wonder how that is.
Of course, with a friends list of one, I suppose there's not much multiplaying going on for me.
Multiplayer co-op looks pretty fun. But can also get cheap. A kid who was playing for awhile did co-op with one of my friends and gave him a bunch of items you can get later on. Now, he can kill enemies like it was nothing.
I still don't think anyone (who does visit MS.com for a reason) cares about anything below "News".CKurt said:joechung said:*snip*
The menu should me more like www.windows.com menu
Well, that's not exactly why his analysis doesn't mean anything. His analysis assumes that both companies ONLY make OSes such that the figures for marketing and R&D apply to OS X and Windows. It's still possible that most of MS' marketing figure goes to marketing the Zune, 360, and other more consumerish products. For Apple, the money would be split between the iPod family and Mac. A proper analysis would isolate figures just for the OS side of things for both companies.Bass said:Wow, those facts were very convincing. </sarcasm>
First he shows that Microsoft spends more then twice on advertising then Apple does. Fine he says, Microsoft is a bigger company, lets break it down per capita...
And what do you know, Microsoft still spends more money on advertising then Apple does per capita.
So given this information he declares victory. (??????) Apparently pointing to how Microsoft spends more money on R&D. I am not exactly sure how he equates R&D to "fixing Vista", but somehow I don't think they are the same thing.
Well thank God he doesn't have to argue viewpoints for a living, because that was simply terrible.
After that advertising attack, Apple still wastes money on more of these ads.Harlequin said:mikexkearney said:*snip*
Maybe if she knew about these lunatic postings of his she'd wake up =)
I think when you can properly cut and paste items in finder and when you can resize windows from all sides, then OS X might be worthy enough to compare to other OSes.
Not to be a downer, but what you summarized can be found on various MS/windows enthusiast sites, so it's not anything new.
Also, why is your post all underlined?
Um, wouldn't that trend allow for SP2 anyway, if the previous version XP ended up getting an SP3...Shining Arcanine said:I doubt it. Look at the trend:
Windows NT 4.0 went to SP6
Windows 2000 went to SP4
Windows XP went to SP3 only because Microsoft could not kill it off on schedule
There is a general trend here. I doubt Microsoft is going to release a Vista SP2 or a Windows 7 SP1.
Sweet. Like the name.