Did we just experience a software change?

[ForeverAutumn]

Or am I losing my mind?

All of the sudden the screen looks different, lighter, and it appears to be loading faster too.

HALLELUJAH!!!

[GMichael]

I'm lost. Where am I? Is this still AR?

[bobsticks]

Clearly we did. Kinda cool too in a minimalist way.

As an aside, if you want to improve the load time adjust your security level to "high" under Internet Options. It reduces the extemperaneous bullschnit that makes the pages take so long. The only disadvantage is that you have to switch back to "medium" in order to use the bold and italics functions, Insert Images, and view the embeded YouTube clips that some jerk keeps posting 'round here.

[Woochifer]

Clearly we did. Kinda cool too in a minimalist way.

As an aside, if you want to improve the load time adjust your security level to "high" under Internet Options. It reduces the extemperaneous bullschnit that makes the pages take so long. The only disadvantage is that you have to switch back to "medium" in order to use the bold and italics functions, Insert Images, and view the embeded YouTube clips that some jerk keeps posting 'round here.

Or just install Firefox (free download from Mozilla (http://www.mozilla.org)) and download the freeware AdBlock add-on (which keeps a lot of Flash animation and extraneous bloat code from loading). The latest version of Safari (another free download (http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/apple/application_updates/safari311.html)) purportedly smokes IE7, Firefox, and Opera in speed tests, so you could try that as well. I frequently use Safari with my Mac, but have stuck with Firefox on my Windoze PC.

[Rich-n-Texas]

Must you be such a non-conformist Wooch?:incazzato:

[kexodusc]

I have found Safari on Windows to be slightly less efficient and speedy than Firefox or Opera, which kinda baffles me because it seems to work better on my Mac? Still better than IE7.

So....big question...who's doing the changing? Thought this place was on auto-pilot waiting for the fuel to run out?

[ForeverAutumn]

So....big question...who's doing the changing? Thought this place was on auto-pilot waiting for the fuel to run out?

That's what I thought too. Just when you think that this place is sinking and there's no-one at the helm, someone steps up and shows that they care.

[Stone]

That's what I thought too. Just when you think that this place is sinking and there's no-one at the helm, someone steps up and shows that they care.

Or at least that they want to f*ck with things.

[Finch Platte]

Remember when it looked like this? (http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/music/rock/bbs.html)

fp

[Rich-n-Texas]

When I click on "Show Leaders" at the bottom of the main page, I see in the Administrators section the names "atomicAdam" and "SteveG", both of whom are online right now. Is this something new or have those names been there for a long time and I just didn't know it?

[Mr Peabody]

If I download Firefox will it exist on my system along with Explorer? I mean once I got used to Firefox and was sure it worked I could delete Explorer. I just don't want to download something and have a big conflict that will put me on the side lines.

[Woochifer]

I have found Safari on Windows to be slightly less efficient and speedy than Firefox or Opera, which kinda baffles me because it seems to work better on my Mac? Still better than IE7.

This is just what I've read (http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9069838). Also, be sure that you're trying out the latest version. Safari 3.0 and 3.1 each work off of very different rendering engines, and the open source Webkit code that underlies Safari constantly has updated builds posted to its website (http://webkit.org/). Safari 3.1 got some big-time speed increases. We'll see how the release version of Firefox 3 fares. My understanding is that Firefox 3 will significantly improve how the app's memory handling and reduce the footprint.

I got Firefox working pretty well in Windows, so I never felt the need to install Safari on my Windows PC. Of course, it comes with the Mac, so I do use it there. Most of the time I use Firefox because I'm used to the interface. IE7 is just wretched -- I only use that whenever I have to.

[Woochifer]

If I download Firefox will it exist on my system along with Explorer? I mean once I got used to Firefox and was sure it worked I could delete Explorer. I just don't want to download something and have a big conflict that will put me on the side lines.

It will. The Firefox download is relatively inocuous because it's a standalone app that only does web browsing. If you don't change any of the system defaults, you can try and/or remove Firefox relatively easily. Personally, I think IE7 is such a kludge that it's hard to imagine sticking with it after using Firefox.

Unfortunately, you cannot delete Explorer without disabling a whole bunch of other OS functions. MS basically embedded the browser deep into the OS years ago in order to kill off competitors like Netscape. But, it also made IE into big-time security hole that can take down your entire computer if it crashes, and frok your entire system by browsing over to the wrong website.

During the antitrust trial, MS employees couldn't even use the term "browser" because MS' lawyers were trying to make the argument that web browsing was now part of the operating system experience, and not something that could be separated.

As part of the antitrust settlement, MS had to include provisions in the Windows XP service packs to more easily use non-MS web browsing, e-mail, and utility applications as the defaults. They also included an "uninstall" for IE, which was pure BS because all that it does is hide IE from plain sight without deleting any files.

Just another reason I prefer Apple's OS X. There, you can delete the Safari browser in its entirety if you want. And because it's not embedded into the core of the OS like IE is, removing the application and all of its associated files won't affect any other functionality like file browsing, desktop search, and software updates.

[Smokey]

As an aside, if you want to improve the load time adjust your security level to "high" under Internet Options. It reduces the extemperaneous bullschnit that makes the pages take so long.

I have my IE in High mode, and it load the page in less than one second. The only thing can not do in this mode is watch embeded videos which I usually don't watch anyway. Also surf the net in this mode, and no pop ups :)

[ForeverAutumn]

Or at least that they want to f*ck with things.

You're such a cynic. :cool:


Remember when it looked like this?

It was so much fun playing with the post titles!! I miss those days.

[kexodusc]

This is just what I've read (http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9069838). Also, be sure that you're trying out the latest version. Safari 3.0 and 3.1 each work off of very different rendering engines, and the open source Webkit code that underlies Safari constantly has updated builds posted to its website (http://webkit.org/). Safari 3.1 got some big-time speed increases. We'll see how the release version of Firefox 3 fares. My understanding is that Firefox 3 will significantly improve how the app's memory handling and reduce the footprint.

I got Firefox working pretty well in Windows, so I never felt the need to install Safari on my Windows PC. Of course, it comes with the Mac, so I do use it there. Most of the time I use Firefox because I'm used to the interface. IE7 is just wretched -- I only use that whenever I have to.
That's interesting. I can honestly say I've noticed only minor performance differences between FF2 and Safari 3.1 on windows but FF2 still seems faster. I haven't done benchmark tests. Just observation. Safari doesn't like CNN as much as FF that's for sure. Haven't tried FF3 on Windows yet. Think my wife's laptop is running 32-bit vista though, not sure if that matters much for something resource light like browsing.

I've been using Firefox 3 Beta on Linux for a few months now though and so far so good. To me the add-ons make Firefox so great. There's still some bugs in 3 to workout though.

I see there's an IE8 on the horizon too. Oh boy.

[GMichael]

When I click on "Show Leaders" at the bottom of the main page, I see in the Administrators section the names "atomicAdam" and "SteveG", both of whom are online right now. Is this something new or have those names been there for a long time and I just didn't know it?

Dude! You got flat out ignored.

[Hyfi]

Remember when it looked like this? (http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/music/rock/bbs.html)

fp

And thats the point where this place took a nose dive. So great the page loads faster. There is still nothing going on so it's mute.

[ForeverAutumn]

And thats the point where this place took a nose dive. So great the page loads faster. There is still nothing going on so it's mute.

Please go and sit in the corner with Stone.

[Hyfi]

Please go and sit in the corner with Stone.

Pages loading faster has been the most traffic here in days and it's not even music related. Bobsticks and a few others and I have been having a hoot with Spanky over on the PC Audio forum but it drops off for a week or so until the troll returns with a new set of crappy speakers.

[ForeverAutumn]

Pages loading faster has been the most traffic here in days and it's not even music related. Bobsticks and a few others and I have been having a hoot with Spanky over on the PC Audio forum but it drops off for a week or so until the troll returns with a new set of crappy speakers.

Spanky's back??? :thumbsup:

[Finch Platte]

And thats the point where this place took a nose dive. So great the page loads faster. There is still nothing going on so it's mute.

Ahem. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moot)

;)

[Hyfi]

Ahem. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moot)

;)

Works both ways, moot or mute since nothing is being said but thanks for the quick correction.

[Woochifer]

That's interesting. I can honestly say I've noticed only minor performance differences between FF2 and Safari 3.1 on windows but FF2 still seems faster. I haven't done benchmark tests. Just observation. Safari doesn't like CNN as much as FF that's for sure. Haven't tried FF3 on Windows yet. Think my wife's laptop is running 32-bit vista though, not sure if that matters much for something resource light like browsing.

I've only used Safari 3.1.1 with OS X, and to me it's now noticeably faster than Firefox 2 on most webpages. But, like you I use Firefox a lot more because of the add-ons. What Apple's done with Safari's still pretty impressive considering how late they jumped into the browser fray.

The rumor going around now is that OS X 10.6 will come out early next year (only 15 months after 10.5 Leopard), and switch over to Intel and 64-bit exclusively with a significantly streamlined code base. In contrast, looks like Windows 7 will primarily add multi-touch functions to an already bloated code base. All those rumors (and wishful thinking) about paring down the core OS and losing some of the legacy baggage are apparently for naught.

[kexodusc]

I've only used Safari 3.1.1 with OS X, and to me it's now noticeably faster than Firefox 2 on most webpages. But, like you I use Firefox a lot more because of the add-ons. What Apple's done with Safari's still pretty impressive considering how late they jumped into the browser fray.

The rumor going around now is that OS X 10.6 will come out early next year (only 15 months after 10.5 Leopard), and switch over to Intel and 64-bit exclusively with a significantly streamlined code base. In contrast, looks like Windows 7 will primarily add multi-touch functions to an already bloated code base. All those rumors (and wishful thinking) about paring down the core OS and losing some of the legacy baggage are apparently for naught.
FF2 on my Mac is noticeably slower than Safari. I blame Windows for my experience - I'm sure they're running interference with Safari, just don't know how.

So Windows 7 will have some of the wow the earlier development versions of Vista tried to include? Cool.
I don't have Leopard yet - not likely to get it either, work owns the machine and they load the OS. But come to think of it, I think I get a new one in the fall and it'll probably have Leopard. I play with it in the store or when I use someone else machine. Haven't dug too deep yet though.
One of the nice things about non windows OS's, I don't feel the need to rush out and get the latest upgrades unless there's something substantial. Other than some amateur multimedia stuff, I'm not a resource intensive user.

[Woochifer]

FF2 on my Mac is noticeably slower than Safari. I blame Windows for my experience - I'm sure they're running interference with Safari, just don't know how.

:lol:

Apparently, MS last week issued a security bulletin on Safari. Here's their advice on Safari -- "Restrict use of Safari as a web browser until an appropriate update is available from Microsoft and/or Apple." Well, apparently part of the problem is with how XP and Vista handle downloaded executable files, and can actually be solved by simply switching the default file download location. Yet, here's MS warning people not to use a competing browser! (Yuh, like IE7 is a model for security and stability) :idea:


So Windows 7 will have some of the wow the earlier development versions of Vista tried to include? Cool.

I just wonder how much in the way of computing resources this new version of wow will gobble up in the process. Apple's already rolling out multi-touch on its newer laptops and the latest update of Leopard. How many OS X updates will have come out by the time Windows 7 rolls around?


I don't have Leopard yet - not likely to get it either, work owns the machine and they load the OS. But come to think of it, I think I get a new one in the fall and it'll probably have Leopard. I play with it in the store or when I use someone else machine. Haven't dug too deep yet though.

IMO, Time Machine alone is worth the upgrade. It's by far the easiest and most intuitive backup program I've ever used. It has already saved my backside a couple of times -- once when I accidentally overwrote a file, and another time when my root directory became unreadable and I had to restore the entire drive. Leopard had its share of glitches at the outset, but once version 10.5.2 came out, it has been rock solid. And w/ Leopard, my iMac's benchmark scores went up almost across the board compared to Tiger. Can't say that with any of the Windows upgrades I've used.

[kexodusc]

:lol:

Apparently, MS last week issued a security bulletin on Safari. Here's their advice on Safari -- "Restrict use of Safari as a web browser until an appropriate update is available from Microsoft and/or Apple." Well, apparently part of the problem is with how XP and Vista handle downloaded executable files, and can actually be solved by simply switching the default file download location. Yet, here's MS warning people not to use a competing browser! (Yuh, like IE7 is a model for security and stability) :idea:

Is that what it's come to? Built in flaws to scare users from other apps?


I just wonder how much in the way of computing resources this new version of wow will gobble up in the process. Apple's already rolling out multi-touch on its newer laptops and the latest update of Leopard. How many OS X updates will have come out by the time Windows 7 rolls around? I'm sure Windows 7 will be fully up to par with the latest 2008 i-phone technology. All you'll need is a 15 GHz, Dodeca-core processor with 2TB of RAM (Basic) or 4 GB Ram (Premium).



IMO, Time Machine alone is worth the upgrade. It's by far the easiest and most intuitive backup program I've ever used. It has already saved my backside a couple of times -- once when I accidentally overwrote a file, and another time when my root directory became unreadable and I had to restore the entire drive. Leopard had its share of glitches at the outset, but once version 10.5.2 came out, it has been rock solid. And w/ Leopard, my iMac's benchmark scores went up almost across the board compared to Tiger. Can't say that with any of the Windows upgrades I've used.
There's a few linux apps I use for periodic backups of my drives but I use them so infrequently that time machine wouldn't really benefit me much. What I like about linux is the ability to mount critical OS directories on their own partitions to allow for easy backup and restoring if necessary. Makes upgrading a breeze too.
I think Time Machine would be a hit in the corporate community though, where I think it would have more potential and appreciation, and I fully expect MS to jack that feature long before the next windows rolls out.

[Mr Peabody]

Remind me not to take any water from Donald Galen, who just picks up a half glass of water and gives it to some one else? Some one could have had their dentures in there! Or worse.....

[basite]

Or am I losing my mind?

All of the sudden the screen looks different, lighter, and it appears to be loading faster too.

HALLELUJAH!!!


First I thought my pc messed up again, but it seems like this is the 'new AR'...

wonder who's behind it though :)

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

[Woochifer]

I'm sure Windows 7 will be fully up to par with the latest 2008 i-phone technology. All you'll need is a 15 GHz, Dodeca-core processor with 2TB of RAM (Basic) or 4 GB Ram (Premium).

:thumbsup:

Apple has already applied for several patents on multi-touch technologies. They also supposedly own the trademark on the term "multi-touch." The speculation is that these features will expand with upcoming laptop revisions, and really go big across their entire product lineup when either OS X 10.6 or 10.7 come out.

At their developer's conference in SF, the signage has already gone up, and it points to Apple unifying OS X across all of their product lines. They now refer to the iPhone operating system as OS X iPhone, and the references to the Mac OS have dropped the Mac moniker and refer to it as simply OS X Leopard. Supposedly, a similar campaign will begin with Apple TV and the iPod.


There's a few linux apps I use for periodic backups of my drives but I use them so infrequently that time machine wouldn't really benefit me much. What I like about linux is the ability to mount critical OS directories on their own partitions to allow for easy backup and restoring if necessary. Makes upgrading a breeze too.

I know of people who do install the OS on a separate partition with their Macs. It's supposedly not seamless, so I don't know how well that is implemented with the Macs.


I think Time Machine would be a hit in the corporate community though, where I think it would have more potential and appreciation, and I fully expect MS to jack that feature long before the next windows rolls out.

The advantage to Time Machine is its simplicity. I just can't imagine anyone now buying a Mac, and not using Time Machine.

When you plug in an external USB drive, you're asked if you want to to use the drive as a Time Machine backup. You click yes, and the backup occurs automatically, with incremental backups every hour. I hardly ever know when it's going. Time Machine's different from other backup programs because every changed file gets backed up and stored as a separate noncompressed file. The restoration process is ridiculously easy -- you simply select the point in time you want to roll back to, and a snapshot of the finder for that time point appears. At that point, you can choose an individual file, folder, application, or the entire drive, and then click Restore to begin.

[Mr Peabody]

I heard P Skies bought AR, look for Pix and Sir T to be band soon. And, the rest of us had better watch our punctuation.

[filecat13]

:thumbsup:




The advantage to Time Machine is its simplicity. I just can't imagine anyone now buying a Mac, and not using Time Machine.

When you plug in an external USB drive, you're asked if you want to to use the drive as a Time Machine backup. You click yes, and the backup occurs automatically, with incremental backups every hour. I hardly ever know when it's going. Time Machine's different from other backup programs because every changed file gets backed up and stored as a separate noncompressed file. The restoration process is ridiculously easy -- you simply select the point in time you want to roll back to, and a snapshot of the finder for that time point appears. At that point, you can choose an individual file, folder, application, or the entire drive, and then click Restore to begin.

I used to have an "all or nothing" approach to back up. I'd off load the whole drive to an external when I thought of it, then maybe four or five months later off load the whole thing again. After a few of these, I just lost control. My main HD would get full so I'd dump some files that didn't get used much because I knew I had them on the back up. The back up drive would get full and I wouldn't know which one to erase because the most recent back up had the most recent files, but it didn't have the files I deleted to make space, so... :mad2:

With Leopard I purchased an external 500 MB FirewireŽ drive that I plug into my MacBook Pro at night when I get home, and sometime during the night it just does its thing, backing up what needs to be backed up without a hiccup. When I look at the drive contents, Holy Cow! I can find everything. It's almost too simple.

As far as the site update and a look at past iterations: I actually first joined during the line layout period, but found it too messed up to spend any real time here. I contributed some equipment reviews, but found I enjoyed posting at other sites that were easier to navigate and more pleasant to look at.

The recent changes are a nice evolution. Thanks. :thumbsup: