Microsoft Study Finds Technology Hurting Attention Spans

jones_supa writes: Conducting both surveys and EEG scans, Microsoft has published a study suggesting that the average attention span has fallen precipitously since the start of the century. While people could focus on a task for 12 seconds back in 2000, that figure dropped to 8 seconds in 2013 (about one second less than a goldfish). Reportedly, a lot of that reduction stems from a combination of smartphones and an avalanche of content. The study found also a sunny side: while presence of technology is hurting attention spans overall, it also appears to improve person's abilities to both multitask and concentrate in short bursts.

Comments

what?

[turkeydance]

when?

Re:what?

[ClickOnThis]

when?

TL;DR

Re:what?

[Barsteward]

Form the university of the bleeding obvious. All they needed to do was read the post on /. to realise that posters are generally don't have the attention span to RTFA - a bit like me on this article

Re:what?

[BitZtream]

Worse than the first posts here on /. ... the full article is about 2 sentences longer than the summary!. Its literally 2 poorly formed paragraphs. Thats it.

Re: what?

[Anonymous Coward]

They cant mske it too long... attention spans you know?

Re:what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Squirrel!

And What Technology Would That Be?

[BBCWatcher]

I blame Microsoft Internet Explorer. The timing lines up perfectly.

Re:And What Technology Would That Be?

[TWX]

Heh. You know, IE was the first browser that was supplied with the dominant desktop operating system integrated right into the UI, dating back to Windows 95 OSR2. Before that you had to rely on an OEM or other systems integrator if a browser was to be preinstalled. Otherwise you had to get one on disk or download one via FTP.

Re:And What Technology Would That Be?

[linebackn]

Otherwise you had to get one on disk.

Which is exactly how normal people obtained software back then. Most cheap computers didn't come with that much useful software pre-installed.

Don't forget to click the buttons below to share this on facebook and twitter :P

Already forgot what else I was going to type :P

Re:And What Technology Would That Be?

[Livius]

You mean you had to do what you did with every other piece of software on your computer?

Re: And What Technology Would That Be?

[Anonymous Coward]

Time sure has changed. Most cheap computers has tons of not useful software preinstalled.

Re: And What Technology Would That Be?

[Shadow of Eternity]

That's because back then the software was sold to the customer, instead of the customer being sold as the product.

Re:And What Technology Would That Be?

[Anonymous Coward]

Every piece of software that was pre-installed. What's your point? That MS Paint doesn't exist?

Re:And What Technology Would That Be?

[BitZtream]

Most cheap computers didn't come with that much useful software pre-installed.

This is more of an issue now than it was even then. Buying a pre-made PC is just buying a bunch of trial offers, which you then have to remove. Or more appropriately, reinstall the OS cleanly.

Unless you build your own hardware and install from scratch or buy OS X or Linux, you're going to get a bunch of trial-ware spam.

Impossible!

[penguinoid]

I have a really cleaver proof that this is not possible, which regrettably does not fit within this 8 seconds to typ

Re:Impossible!

[myowntrueself]

I have a really cleaver proof that this is not possible, which regrettably does not fit within this 8 seconds to typ

'Cleaver proof', is that like Occams Razor?

Re:Impossible!

[ClickOnThis]

I have a really cleaver proof that this is not possible, which regrettably does not fit within this 8 seconds to typ

'Cleaver proof', is that like Occams Razor?

No, Occam's Cleaver: Given a choice between two theories, pick the shortest.

Re:Impossible!

[Anonymous Coward]

God did it.

Re:Impossible!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to spend the next seven years proving that this is not possible. It will take 150 pages of tightly packed theorems at minimum.

Re:Impossible!

[Anonymous Coward]

We doctors have a word for this: premature attentulation.

Re:Impossible!

[Phoghat]

I have a really cleaver proof that this is not possible

while I just have a cleaver

O RLY?

[ArcadeMan]

,___,
{O,o}
|)``)
O RLY?

TL;DNR

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't get past the headline.

you are probably ri...

[Anonymous Coward]

squirrel!!!!

Ability to multitask

[Anonymous Coward]

As in "the ability to do 5 things in parallel with crappier results than doing 5 things sequentially."

Multitasking efficiently and effectively is a myth.

Re:Ability to multitask

[Anonymous Coward]

Feel free to provide some proof of that claim. (Of course, you won't be able to, since it's obviously false.)

Re:Ability to multitask

[binarylarry]

While reading your proclamation I could help but notice that you

Re:Ability to multitask

[zkiwi34]

Zheng Wang, Illinois University is but one of a throng of people that have debunked the bollocks that is multi-tasking.

Multitasking is only possible if at least one of the tasks is so well learned that it is almost automatic, like walking or eating but it's epic fail for the most part when we try to both walk and eat). The general case where it appears that we can multitask are when two activities involve different types of brain processing, such as auditory and visual, like driving and listening to the radio although it's pretty bloody obvious that one has to focus far far more on the driving to not be a complete and utter disaster.

At best all we are doing is task switching, and that pretty bloody inefficiently.

Attention span of a gnat is what passes as a "true multi-tasker."

Re:Ability to multitask

[Anonymous Coward]

As in "the ability to do 5 things in parallel with crappier results than doing 5 things sequentially."

Multitasking efficiently and effectively is a myth.

COMPLETE CRAP!

I at this very moment am multitasking and doing very well! Right now I am simultaneously:

1- Having hot sex with my girlfriend
2- Playing chess against a grand master
3- Solving a Rubic's Revenge Puzzle
and
4- Lying my ass off to you on /.

Re:Ability to multitask

[Anonymous Coward]

Feel free to provide some proof of that claim. (Of course, you won't be able to, since it's obviously false.)

You can't handle the proof!

Re:Ability to multitask

[the grace of R'hllor]

Ever notice how, when you're driving and need to find your way, so you're peering at all the street signs, you turn the radio down? Most people can't do it with a high radio volume.

Multitasking is a myth.

Re:Ability to multitask

[drinkypoo]

Multitasking is only possible if at least one of the tasks is so well learned that it is almost automatic, like walking or eating but it's epic fail for the most part when we try to both walk and eat)

I can handle walking and eating, no problem. But if I try to talk at the same time I tend to bite something besides my food. Guess from now on it's make -j2 for me.

At best all we are doing is task switching, and that pretty bloody inefficiently.

Some jobs are easier to task-switch than others. It depends on how much context they have, and how realtime they are. Sometimes, tiny amounts of latency have massive effects, sometimes they're fairly irrelevant.

Re:Ability to multitask

[Phoghat]

proven that multitasking up to 5 tasks works

Re:Ability to multitask

[Reziac]

I don't, but I use music to "fill up the cracks in my brain" that would otherwise be full of distractions.

Re:Ability to multitask

[steelfood]

The thing with walking is that you're going at such slow speeds that your field of view gives your brain plenty of time to context switch when necessary. I've seen plenty of people (and done it myself) walking and eating or texting or whatnot, and responding to obstacles (other pedestrians, street crossings, etc.) at the very last second.

So walking is usually a bad example, because there's so much time to do the context switch it fools people into thinking they're multi-tasking Driving is a better example. Writing code and holding a coherent verbal conversation or holding multiple verbal conversations at the same time is even more pertinent. IM doesn't count because switching between IM windows is context switching. And I suspect that's where most people get the idea that they're so good at multi-tasking; they mistake multi-tasking for (assisted) rapid context switching.

Goldfish?

[JaredOfEuropa]

What kind of goldfish? An African one, or a European? Or a demented goldfish living in a bowl of cheap tequila?

Re:Goldfish?

[myowntrueself]

What kind of goldfish? An African one, or a European? Or a demented goldfish living in a bowl of cheap tequila?

We should start giving goldfish smartphones.

Re:Goldfish?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be interested in seeing a study on people who do studies on the attention spans of goldfish.

Re:Goldfish?

[multimediavt]

What kind of goldfish? An African one, or a European? Or a demented goldfish living in a bowl of cheap tequila?

Pepperidge Farm Goldfish, of course!

Re:Goldfish?

[ShanghaiBill]

Goldfish do not have particularly short attention spans. That is a myth. They can pay attention long enough to learn behavior and remember it for months.

Re:Goldfish?

[MrIlios]

...or dragging a coconut by the husk?

Re:Goldfish?

[steelfood]

Squirrel!

...

Are you happy now, Sinofsky and Larson-Green?

[AFCArchvile]

I like how this study is coming from the perpetrator of Metro tiles being foisted on anything and everything Microsoft (the non-touchscreen Windows OS, XBox, even Microsoft support websites, to a certain extent).

Oh, but the upside is that we're better multitaskers... very slightly, since we're so accustomed to seeing about 55 different tiles with two-word captions and stock image tile backgrounds. Unfortunately, that counts very little, as it doesn't make up for the depth one can reach with dedicated concentration on a single topic at a time.

Averages

[Anonymous Coward]

The key word here is average.
Averages are a terrible tool for measuring any kind of lopsided, bimodal or other oddball distribution.
In this case is it likely that no one actually got dumber. It's just that there is a smart group and a dumb group, and the dumb reproduced faster.

Re:Averages

[chipschap]

I need to read the article, but it seems like 12 seconds is really, really short, let alone 8 seconds.

Seriously? People can't concentrate for more than 12 seconds?

Re:Averages

[Dunbal]

Makes me wonder how I managed a 16 hour surgery the other day without ever getting bored or distracted (kind of hard to do when the patient is trying so hard to die on your table). I guess that sort of thing is not accounted for in terms of length of attention span, or if it is, then god help us because between the anesthesiologist, my colleague, myself and the instrument nurse I think we skewed the average for the year and the "real" value is on the order of a second or so...

Seriously this kind of study is just BS, a make believe study designed to prove some particular point or other the marketing department wants to make. I'll wait for the peer reviewed version (and even then I'll reserve judgement).

Re:Averages

[fropenn]

Did you post this during the surgery? Ultimate example of multitasking (or recklessness).

Re:Averages

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you don't understand. This study is the run-up point to draft legislation that will pour Ritalin into the nations water supply. Fluoridation set the precedent.

I know which stock I will be purchasing tomorrow.

Re:Averages

[deviated_prevert]

No, you don't understand. This study is the run-up point to draft legislation that will pour Ritalin into the nations water supply. Fluoridation set the precedent.

I know which stock I will be purchasing tomorrow.

Your attention span has been altered by your precious bodily fluids being polluted by the Commies. Here is proof of the conspiracy! remember to deny your essence to women, then your attention span will return to normal. Naturally if you are using computer to stimulate your senses all bets are off. As far as Ritalin is concerned it can easily be replaced by an XBOX in every living room a cell phone in every pocket and thousands of true believers walking down the street playing this

Re:Averages

[Anonymous Coward]

Like any statistics, if you reduce the actual domain objects to meaningless terms, you can get any result you want.

Sure, you focused 16 hours on a surgery. But you only focused a few seconds on a particular incision, a few seconds on waiting for suction, and all these other terms I remember from House M.D.. So your average focus was probably just 8-12 seconds.

Not the most useful study, indeed.

Re:Averages

[udippel]

You seem to be a doctor, and not a bad one, and I wouldn't mind you being the doctor to operate on me (god willing, as few operations as possible, better zero needed during my life span),
but I would on the other hand not want you to be one of my co-scientists in a research project. Because 'attention span' in this context is not the notion that you operate for 8 seconds only before you fiddle with the nurse's lower back for 8 seconds, look out of the window for eight seconds, think of your wife for eight seconds, and so forth.
Of course, we all can attend to things for much longer. What is meant is the time you spent looking at the dailies shown in the shop of your clinic, finding out what the headlines were, and decide if you wanted to buy one. 8 seconds. And that blonde nurse in the elevator that you never saw before, could she spontaneously be the object of your desire? 8 seconds. Reading this post of mine:

You seem to be a doctor, and not a bad one, and I wouldn't mind you being the doctor to operate on me (god willing, as few operations as possible, better zero needed during my life span),
but I would on the other hand not want you to be one of my co-scientists in a research project. Because 'attention span' in this context is not the notion that you operate for 8 seconds only before you fiddle with the nurse's lower back for 8 seconds, look out of the window for eight seconds, think of your wife for eight seconds, and so forth.
Of course, we all can attend to things for

8 seconds

Re:Averages

[AthanasiusKircher]

I need to read the article, but it seems like 12 seconds is really, really short, let alone 8 seconds.

Is it just me, or did anyone actually look at the original Microsoft report and find it nearly impossible to read efficiently? It's over 50 pages of "infographic" nonsense, with too many random distractions -- changes in font size, colors, random meaningless clip art, etc. It seems to be structured to be "skimmable," but it's not. It's like a really bad Powerpoint presentation with way too many words and too many details, all dressed up in wacky graphics and colors.

I kept waiting to find out what the methodology was, e.g., how they determined the "8 seconds" thing or whatever. It's still not clear to me, though the closest they get to explaining methodology is buried in a 2-page appendix at the very end.

This kind of layout would be great for a document that effectively summarized information in a couple pages. It doesn't work AT ALL for a 50-page document.

If this were an actual published research study in a journal, I could have read a report that would probably take up 2 or 3 pages and give me a much more useful and organized summary. As it is, I couldn't even figure out enough information from the report to evaluate whether the methodology actually makes sense or could lead to any of the (supposed) conclusions. The kind of tests they did and how they interpreted these things were grouped into three different kinds of attention (given very broad terms whose relationship to the tasks is questionable), which all were then applied to various other ideas in seemingly arbitrary ways. It all reeks of marketing BS.

TL;DR: This report is TL;PO;HS;BM (i.e., "too long; poorly organized; highly suspect; [likely] bogus methodology," or, in a less charitable light: "too long piece of horse-sh*t bowel movement").

Re:Averages

[jma05]

> Makes me wonder how I managed a 16 hour surgery the other day without ever getting bored or distracted (kind of hard to do when the patient is trying so hard to die on your table).

Clearly, without your patient's help in keeping you focused, you would have gotten distracted and wandered away from the OP after seeing a squirrel in the window :-).

Seriously, you know enough Statistics to know that your circumstance does not make a case against the study in any way, even if it was a comparable task. Your surgery task is a compound, concurrently distributed team task. It is not anything like the candidate tasks under consideration in this study. You don't need to have special powers of concentration to not be distracted in a surgery (at least no more than passing boards).

Re:Averages

[Dunbal]

you would have gotten distracted and wandered away from the OP

Kind of like the esophagus did... the trick was finding it again.

As for your second paragraph - I know. I was bored and I felt like posting. It was a... long day.

Re:Averages

[Dunbal]

Lol no, but seriously I could tell you stories... One hospital I worked at had to go so far as to outright ban cell phones in the OR...

Re:Averages

[Dunbal]

Seriously, avoid nurses. It might make for fine sexual tension on medical shows but if you want your life at the hospital to become a living hell, get involved with a nurse. They are valued team members (most of them) and indispensable (most of them) and you never poo where you eat. The hospital is no place for shenanigans, our patients deserve better.

Did the study include Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

BSD?

Re:Did the study include Linux?

[deviated_prevert]

BSD?

Certainly not, but perhaps low adoption rate of BSD and Linux on the desktop indicates that the average computer user does not have the attention span necessary to use real operating systems. Thus you have finger painting kindergarten software and OSes like Win8, Android and IOS dominating a market of consumers with lower attention spans than Goldfish. Most of whom could be out classed running Linux or BSD by a trained Rhesus Macaque or properly trained PE teacher for that matter!

Re:Did the study include Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

We found the Arch Linux user... :)

Re:Did the study include Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

Arch: The Gentoo of the 2010s!

I use Slack.. lawn.. off.. now...

Interesting topic, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

I read the beginning of the article summary, but my attention jumped to the next article before I completed the summary.
Oddly enough, this pattern continued through the rest of the page.

I'm sorry

[HangingChad]

What was the question?

Re:I'm sorry

[Anonymous Coward]

who ?

Seems about right to me

[Maclir]

That seems to be in agreement with ... oh look! A squirrel! That can't be a kitty cat doing that?

Re:Seems about right to me

[linebackn]

I think that was on Family Guy.

my opinion

[randalware]

I feel very stongly about

oh wait, shiny thing !

its the digital broadcasting

[Anonymous Coward]

and its going to get worse.

yes, citation needed.. but you know what.. many many doctors signed petitions to take the bio effects into account before that became a world-wide standard and i can't be bothered to look that up for you now since you have forgotten all about it or have let yourself get misdirected by the idea that its the gadgets.. and not the broadcasters that are frying our brains and nervous systems.

long-term effects such as we are seeing... well.. fuck.. you sub-goldfish.. whats the point in

They must be right.

[fustakrakich]

I can't even remember the last time it was discussed here

You know

[koan]

You know this sort of thing... wait pop up, OK now where was I? oh yeah this sort of ... wait IM...

TL;DR

[klingers48]

TL;DR

Re:TL;DR

[Anonymous Coward]

TL

You can blame clippy ..

[nickweller]

Binky

Multi tasking?

[Anonymous Coward]

You surely mean task switching.

Dupe?

[ClickOnThis]

I think I saw this story already.

Re:Dupe?

[mrprogrammerman]

It's obviously affecting the slashdot editors too.

Re:Dupe?

[ClickOnThis]

It's obviously affecting the slashdot editors too.

And the moderators. My post was intended as a joke. My link points to this story, not a dupe. Yet I was modded "Insightful."

Yes and No

[Murdoch5]

Technology has switched the child mind from being content with getting an answer in one day, to getting the answer in one minute, but on the other hand it allows children to focus there interests more in depth at certain areas and focus into them. For instance if a child like to program, then you'll notice they'll have a great attention span well they program. Where as a child into music would have there attention span put towards that. I wouldn't say that technology has shortened the attention span of children, it's merely refocused from a broad horizon down to more narrow sight lines.

Re:Yes and No

[udippel]

I'd wish you had rather put some of your attention spans into your post, sorry. Because I can feel that there is something interesting you want to say, and that I would like to read (reference to children), but that seems to have gone into some bin for ... lack of attention?

Re:Yes and No

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you didn't have the attention span required to parse his paragraph? The symptom of shorter attention spans - blaming WRITERS for not accommodating them. You should re-read if you don't get it. Complaining that you didn't get it on a casual glance and it should be simplified for you is exactly the point.

A note to the webmasters

[Anonymous Coward]

Not a what or a when, but a note to the webmasters ...

Now that the human beings' attention span is one second less than that of the goldfish, you have to choices left -

1. Re-design your site so that it can attract the attention of the visitors in less than 8 seconds
 
... or ...
 
2. Dedicate your site to the goldfish

Look at the monkey!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ohh shiny.

Re:Look at the monkey!

[Anonymous Coward]

Shiny monkey?
What did you do, polish it?

I think I'm mixing my metaphors, when I should be mixing my drinks. Carry on.

I guess their point is ...

[CaptainDork]

... they want us to pay more attention to them.

tldr

[Anonymous Coward]

Tldr

Short takes

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe the most likely explanation is that the average cut time between takes for a scene in a movie, tv show, or video ad has dropped from a few minutes to about 1.5-2 seconds in recent years. If I had to guess, it started with commercials, as your brain is retuned to pay attention ever time a clip cuts and starts again (likely an innate dopamine response involved).

Goldfish Attention Log

[TheRealHocusLocus]

[swims back and forth] "click." TFA here I come. Don't tell anyone.
[opens and closes mouth] Oh Gawd, it's Engadget [enables golly gee-whiz filter]
"...dropped to 8 seconds in 2013 -- about one second less than a goldfish"
Now that's... Huh? Sorry, I missed that. [eats a bubble]
"Thankfully, it's not all bad. While tech is hurting attention spans overall, it also..."
Yeah something good right? Not in the mood for good news. I'll click on something blue.
Oh it's the actual study! "Click". [swims back and forth] Oops, advertising.microsoft.com? Hello.
It's about Canadians. [spits out bubble] That's nice. What a nice couple.
[something something] "and where the true scarce commodity is increasingly human attention"
Glad I'm a goldfish then. We're still not at the research report yet. "Click." Oops, a dialog.
"Download the Canadian attention spans research report (2.0M)
Download the infographic (173K)"
Now why would I just want to get the infographic...? Oh!
I get it! THIS IS the attention span test! "Click: the report"
[plays on bubble Ferris wheel as PDF loads]
That woman is either taking a picture or is trying to scroll text by moving the computer up and down.
She had to stand up to scroll to the top of the page. License plate "71"?. Hmmm. [scroll]
"Think digital is killing attention spans? Think again."
I read this twice, so my opinion is back to what it originally was.
[yadda yadda] "Good news! It's not as bad as you think."
[continuous sirens in the distance] Tornado warning! [rain/branches beat on window]
Maybe it IS as bad as I think. [wind shrieks] Confound this nuisance. [lightning strikes!]
[Power goes out] [minutes pass] [sirens stop] [power comes on]
"AMI BIOS" "Select profile" "Welcome" "starting wlnotify.dll"
[sleeps with eyes wide open CLICK HERE FOR IMPORTANT INFO ]
[open browser] [access slashdot] "Welcome to AT&T (The Fucking Modem)" What the fuck.
[looks at lights] DSL not up. It's NAT-ting my browser traffic to itself. F'king UVERSE.
"Click to run diagnostics." Okay. Click. "Enter modem access code." FUCK.
[fortunately fishbowl is next to modem and curvature magnifies tiny sticker] [enters 10 digit number]
"Ethernet/DSL/PTM: Pass Authentication:Fail" Their computer rebooting after 10 minutes?
I thought nothing was slower than XP. [5 minutes pass] [reload] "Authentication: Pass"
[tabs remembered by voodoo magick] First thing that's gone right. [glances up]
MUSICAL SOUNDTRACK BEGINS FUCK! OH NOOOOOOOOES!
(every icon next to every browser tab has been replaced by an AT&T DEATHSTAR logo.
the only reason this is not in all caps is slashdot's lameness filter. shhhh. don't wake up the lameness filter)
On no, AT&T Is in my mind. I can feel it. Do I have NATty favicon corruption?
[warily, with nervous dread} "192.168.1.254/favicon.ico" [ENTER] [hideous 32x32 AT&T icon fills screen]
[exit viewer] NOO! What brain-dead thweep would serve favicon from a NAT-redirected router?
[slaps Firefox around] It's all your fault! I should downgrade you to 1992! Favicon support!
[AT&T logo still icon on all tabbed sites] THAT LOGO, it keeps winking and blinking at me! I'm insane!
[thrashes about, bumps on glass] Do we have a potion for this? Yesss. A potion [rustles about in bubble castle]
[opens js console]
var fS = Components.classes["@mozilla.org/browser/favicon-service;1"].getService(Components.interfaces.nsIFaviconService);
[squeak] (have old js console it always squeaks)
fS.expireAllFavicons(); [squeak]
[whoosh!] [all icons missing] Already, an

Who says a shorter attention span is bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

What exactly is the disadvantage of a shorter attention span?

Perhaps the need for a long attention span is disappearing.

Re:Who says a shorter attention span is bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

productivity suffers. if you have a clever idea, but it takes say 2 days of good, solid work to get it "done", with such crappy attention span, you realize you haven't actually started on it for five YEARS.

Yes, there are other factors to that, but inability to sit down and do something for a few hours without being distracted is way up there.

Re:Who says a shorter attention span is bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

What exactly is the disadvantage of a shorter attention span?

Proper engineering becomes impossible.

Known for sometime ....

[Anonymous Coward]

This was well demonstrated in this comic:

http://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2010/05/23

Of course there is an updside.

[ChadSmith4920]

Microsoft is doing the study.....Uh (checking facebook)... Nevermind.

Good news: we can now do 12 seconds work in 8!

[Richard Kirk]

This could be the right conclusion. It's hard to tell from the paper itself, which is a bit light in experimental detail; and it comes with an 'executive summary' which is even lighter still, and referenced by articles which have almost no content left. Maybe it is an inevitable reaction of the users to the torrent of fractal summaries of summaries we get today.

popup dialogues and rebooting

[cmdr_tofu]

Could Microsoft's "popup dialogue" windows and being forced to reboot in the middle of work be a factor?

Especially with Microsoft software.

[Anonymous Coward]

I find that I became more stupid and agitated whenever I had to use Microsoft software because it is so ass backwards and unintuitive that I want to smash the keyboard in half with my forehead.

Some examples:
Ribbon. It is terrible. No, your opinion is wrong.
Microsoft Project. ONE UNDO LEVEL?! ONE?! %&^$$*@
Paint. Why is there even anti-alias in a god damn pixel editor? Why the HELL can't I disable it?!
Windows itself. Why are all these windows inconsistent in design? Don't even fire that designer, cut them in to pieces and fly the organs to someone that would make use of them. Prick.

Definitions

[Livius]

I suspect this is a lot to do with the definition of task. When I switch to FTP or e-mail at work, it's because that's part of the job I'm doing, not to do something wholly unrelated.

In a classic Unix system, a 'task' might mean three or four programs piped together for each command.

It's the Moving Pictures!

[Anonymous Coward]

Moving pictures are the bane to the society and the good people of the Christ. Ban moving pictures just like alcohol before they manage to destroy livelihoods, family values and corrupt our daughters and sons! I fear for the day when most people get their telephone. The unscrupulous might share their values and corrupt the innocent remotely, or even tell about vulgar gestures involving thumbs!

Thanks, Microsoft

[drinkypoo]

So Microsoft is saying that if they were better at writing software, my attention span would be better? Because I blame all the workflows interrupted by a blue screen... Shit, just saw one yesterday. Apparently running Firefox, Chrome, and a DX11 game at the same time is a bit hard on the nvidia driver. It doesn't crash immediately, just randomly.

Re:Thanks, Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're getting blue screens in Windows 7 or 8, you're doing something wrong. Or more likely, your game is buggy.

Re:Thanks, Microsoft

[drinkypoo]

If you're getting blue screens in Windows 7 or 8, you're doing something wrong. Or more likely, your game is buggy.

Show me a game without bugs, especially a modern one.

I wonder

[Ol Olsoc]

How this fits in with their "Anyone can learn to code" initiatives.

Sorry, what?

[stinkbomb]

I got as far as "Microsoft Study..." and lost interest.

Yo mama is a goldfish

[Anonymous Coward]

She couldn't remember me when I called the morning after.

Microsoft to the Rescue!

[Carcass666]

Microsoft will be pre-installing Candy Crush Saga to help people, well, focus... I guess...

Re:Microsoft to the Rescue!

[kmoser]

Just the extra attention span required to get around all the BSODs in Windows will make people smarter.

That's not true

[Cro Magnon]

I've never had a problem with att--, oh look, a squirrel!