nope, none of these fits my needs.
I don´t need the keys labeled, but I need quality keys, which i´ve got with my g80 - 5000
I had a similar like that:
but with its own metal dome under it. it realy worked great without any sort of feedback. though it took several hours to get used to it.
once apple manufactures these again (most probably with bluetooth or USB) i'll buy my next keyboard.
i'm pretty shure neither das keyboard nor the other ones can hold up against my cherry, and If, a clicky ibm would be my second best alternative.
yes, these IBM ones are nice. if you're alone in the dark ;-)
People in my office don't want to sit near me because of my type M and how fast I type.
Well tough shit on them.
I have the mission to install an Exchange Server 2010 here and I almost failed when I was asked to enter the organisation name. Until I realised that I can't use umlauts... I want to cry right now
No, this is just some leftover desktop with some pentium dual cpu. And they are planning on using it only for calendaring or whatever the boss came up with. The Installer itself is btw one of the crappiest pieces of software evar. Instead of activating all needed roles and install whatever servicepack or update it takes to finally get Exchange installed, it just keeps on failing each time I changed something, rebooted the machine and rerun the installer until all requirements are met. Hurray for automation!
Does anyone know of a good (free, open source preferred) .exe installation creator?
I've been using Setup Factory 9 Personal but I need something that has a bit less confusion and more get-it-done.
I suppose I could find the professional version of Setup Factory since it has what I'm looking for, but don't want to pay for it, nor do I want a cracked version, or "trial" version.
I want something that is _free_ and isn't just a dumbed-down version of the "pro" release.
Stephen D King
Hrm... most of my experience with setups involved working with Microsoft Installer, which isn't really an EXE so much as an MSI file (although it was still double-click install).
Even there, I don't know of a lot of free tools for it that are easy to work with.
I'd go with the pirated version myself.
yeah... i resorted to doing that for now... Setup Factory is the easiest option out there, but for an _actual_ license is like $380USD... so i found a cracked version and scanned it...
I always thought Advanced Installer was pretty easy to use.
Oh, heh... I didn't realize they had a freeware version. I doubt it makes .exes, though.
So I realized one of the benifits of this major version upgrade every 3 weeks thing is that all your plugins will always be out of date.
Chrome is at major version 13, clearly they have to keep incrementing until they've passed Chrome.
I don't understand this rapid release model. I used to wait but from what I understand once the new number is out, the old number is no longer supported.
the rapid release thing is to keep up with chrome.
The funny thing is everybody's working harder, but nobody's making any more money.
Version numbers have become a joke pretty much across the board anyway. No one knew why Sun chose to go from Solaris 2.6 to Solaris 7, instead of just calling it 2.7, for example. Then there's the whole Microsoft "the year is the version number" thing.
It used to be the whole x.yz or x.y.z thing, where incrementing X meant a major new release, incrementing Y was a minor new release, and Z was maintenance.
But ever since marketing people started getting involved in version numbers, it's been an area completely dominated by douchebaggery (like everything touched by marketing).
Since we are early in the century, perhaps the model Ubuntu uses, where the version number is x.y, and where x = (year % 100) and y = (month), makes the most sense. Projects which expect to release maintenance versions more than once per month could do x.y.z for that.
Microsoft "the year is the version number" thing.
I bet that will change soon enough when some ms marketing guru realized they have to release lots of new version numbers becuse google is.
Since we are early in the century, perhaps the model Ubuntu uses,
where the version number is x.y, and where x = (year % 100) and y =
(month), makes the most sense. Projects which expect to release
I dunno, that sounds just as dumb as any of the other schemes. If they're not going to release a version of software with the next integer number, they they should tag it with the build number. That way you know exactly what you're getting, and you should be able to go into the source repository and build an exact duplicate of your binary based onthe build number.
Actually you said "tag" which seems to make more sense; any time a build is distributed to the outside world you just bump the build number and create a tag.
Back when we were running Subversion the commit numbers were sequential integers, and at one point I proposed using those as the version numbers. No one else on the team liked the idea.