I have a hard time imagining Tim League fabricating this. It would seem out of character from the way he runs the rest of his business, at least.
But the most important thing is, the enforcement of the rules behind the scenario in the voicemail is unflinchingly real. And given how much that clashes with the over-entitled brat crowd, I have little doubt that there have been voicemails like this left on the Alamo machines.
I'd imagine a particularly good screensaver would be profit-sharing, but everyone else would run a free one and get all the mining income. Solo-mining is not really an option any more, and it'd be easy to cheat (detect wins & claim for yourself), so it'd have to be pool-based to be useful.
Long-term, I want my design work to influence the direction of large groups and societies, and to do that I need to learn how to work with and persuade people who aren’t inclined or required to listen to professional designers.
Chrome's notification boxes have three major complaints from me:
A. They don't automatically close. (I think you can change this for each web app individually, but I would like a browser-wise setting). This wouldn't be a big issue, if not for...
B. The close button is freaking tiny. I can dismiss Growl notifications by clicking anywhere on them, which is much nicer on a laptop than trying to move to a small button.
C. The notifcation windows resemble what Apple calls panels. [1] The problem is, "Panels float above other windows and provide tools or controls that users can work with while documents are open." [2] The user isn't meant to be closing panels often, which is why the title bar can be small. Chrome's notifications feel out of place in that regard.
It would be more like the OS 9 -> OS X switch happening at the same time as the PPC -> Intel transition, but without the old CPU architecture being totally deprecated.
Apple's notable for having made 3 major transitions (68k to PPC, MacOS to OS X, and PPC to Intel), but all three of those were as minimal as they could be given the circumstances. The architecture transitions were made with almost completely transparent binary compatibility and minimal changes needed for source code, while the source-incompatible OS/API change was made as gradual as possible with a long grace period (which a few companies chose to exploit rather than update their apps before it was too late).
Windows as a system is clearly not clean enough at the moment to easily switch architectures without needing a lot of complex compatibility stuff thrown in. If they try to force developers off old APIs and introduce a new architecture, that new architecture will be a second class citizen and will need a lot of external factors to give it traction.
>"Windows as a system is clearly not clean enough at the moment to easily switch architectures without needing a lot of complex compatibility stuff thrown in."
Windows currently runs on two radically different architectures...x86/x64 and Itanium. It has for more than nine years.
I don't see how Microsoft will ever shed the x86 legacy in Windows. Intel would have an interest in killing off arm-based laptops with aggressive pricing, and there really isn't any history of Windows developers rebuilding apps to support other chip architectures.
Wow, that's a sad list. It looks like they didn't even port half of the server components to the Itanium, and they warn you not to use .NET for anything performance-sensitive. The closest thing they've got to a modern, portable environment and their first port of it is so embarrassingly slow that they have to warn you on the feature list. Even worse, their modern GUI APIs (WPF) weren't ported at all, so even simple .NET apps are at risk of not working due to not using an archaic GUI toolkit.
Clearly the NT kernel is quite portable. There's plenty of evidence of that (MIPS, PPC, Alpha, IA-64... ). But there's no evidence that even the most modern and supposedly portable components of the desktop experience are actually at all portable. Hardly any of it has (as far as we know) actually been ported.
There's no reason all of that stuff couldn't run on Itanium too, but it's a matter of choosing what to invest in; OS releases have a huge test cost with supporting anything, and Itanium is too small a market - ARM is different because it's clearly consumer-based and it's here to stay. I assure you, it is all portable.
