|
big mean giraffe posted:Because they weren't full of any malware and you could check the hashes against what people who had officially downloaded it posted to verify it's authenticity. There's also the fact that a method like torrents is a more reliable method of downloading. I tried to download the beta directly from MS. The download speed was fine, but the file I got wouldn't install. I checked the hash, and it turned out it was wrong. If I downloaded it from MS again that would have been another 2+ gigs, but I just pointed a torrent at it and it was fixed in 5 minutes. It just had to download the pieces that had been botched. There's a million reasons not to download from the MS site. I wish MS would kind of embrace torrents for the reliability issue. I realize they have more bandwidth than god, but it's worth nothing if people have to redownload. It's one thing the open source community has really gotten right, and companies like Blizzard also employ it well. If MS provided an official torrent, I'd download from them in a heartbeat just to know the 2+ gigs I'm downloading don't have to be redownloaded if something goes wrong. Torrents are also a bit easier to resume, and you can also more easily set a download speed cap if that's your thing. A lot of people are used to managing torrents at this time from a separate program, but I don't think http download managers have quite the same penetration. Most people just aren't downloading 2+ gigabyte files regularly over http, but it's commonplace over torrents. ErIog fucked around with this message at 03:01 on May 17, 2009 |
#
¿
May 17, 2009 02:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 23:52 |
|
|
Data posted:Fyi, usability studies show that at least 35% of people read regular type more easily, and this on a tiny 15" screen with a large resolution, which is the best case scenario for ClearType. Have you tried going through the cleartype tuner in 7? It made text even look better on an old as holy loving gently caress Dell all in one machine with built in old rear end 1024x768 panel. I know you're set on getting rid of it, but I think you should give it one more try. When configured properly, I find the text to be clearer than without it. It's not supposed to be making type fuzzy in any way. It's supposed to be optimizing text for your monitor so that it IS crisp. Also, that study doesn't quite say what you're saying it says. The first problem is that they didn't allow users to configure Cleartype themselves. We don't really know if the Cleartype settings they chose were truly the best for that monitor for all people. Some users may have done better with self-chosen Cleartype settings. The second problem is that those results are mostly based on user judgement, and with such a small sample size all of the results outside of the quantitative measurements(most of them) are much more prone to user reporting errors. There's also the issue that some of the quantitative results, like accuracy, will vary quite a bit from person to person regardless of Cleartype. People's reading and scanning skills just vary, and they assumed that switching back and forth between Cleartype and regular would have no effect on the subject. They didn't prove that assumption, and it's reasonable to assume that there is some time required to adapt between Cleartype and regular type. It is A study that sort of agrees with you, but it's not a GOOD study by any means. 25 people is just ridiculous. ErIog fucked around with this message at 13:48 on May 22, 2009 |
|
#
¿
May 22, 2009 13:34
|
|