Yup, they are actually taking the lead... in the line of copiers following Apple, as usual.
The iPad has been around for almost two years now. Windows 8 is just now being publicly shown in its early testing phase. This is MS rightfully working to fix their tablet OS after someone else showed them how it's done. It's not done by tacking touch into their desktop GUI. It's done by starting from scratch with the UI.
MS is making a smart move, but they are by no means ahead of the industry.
If I'd replied to the thread as a whole, the comment would have been more appropriately placed.
Your comment is just one of many that make up this thread. It is an inextricable part of that thread, and thus the context is set, regardless of what you may intend.
As it turns out, I was replying to a specific comment within a thread.
And that comment was in the context of the thread as well. By ignoring the context, you are rewriting someone else's comment, which is not your place to do.
Also; you don't get to tell me what I can and cannot do. =)
No, but that's not what I've done. What I've done is describe to you reality. And reality is that you can't take a post out of context without altering the post. There may be exceptions, but this is not one of them.
I don't think you read the rest of this thread. The statement you were replying to wasn't made in a vacuum. It was specifically as regards H.264 support. You can't remove the context without changing the meaning. By changing the meaning, you are making a completely irrelevant reply.
In terms of market influence (such as, whether or not a website should stream video in H.264), you *ARE* completely irrelevant.
The few grand which I haven't spent in upgrades hasn't slowed me down one bit! The few grand which you've spent on upgrades has... cost you a few grand.
And has also... provided upgrades. The whole point of money is to spend it on things you need (first, generally) then things you want.
If those upgrades are things he either needed or wanting, he's doing it right. If those upgrades didn't offer you anything you needed or wanted, then you, too, are doing it right.
But that really doesn't address the question of relevancy.
The exact same argument applies to the supposed "18 year old Linux" the OP was babbling on about.
Which is a complete side issue anyway. That an OS originally designed and released before H.264 even existed does not have *built in* support for H.264 is pretty much meaningless. It can, however, have H.264 added very easily, just like MPEG-2 wasn't included by default, but can be added easily (and MPEG-2, at least, predates all versions of XP).
I would wager that a significant majority of consumer use XP machines have H.264 installed in one form or another.
What is that even supposed to mean? Windows XP *IS* 10 years old. Are only Windows users supposed to know that?
Linux is an 18 year old OS...
Windows is an almost 30-year old OS. Mac OS X is older still (in parts).
Just because a corporation wants you to move on doesn't mean that you have to... The age of an OS is irrelevant. The age of a tool doesn't render it useless...
He never said XP was useless. He said it makes sense that H.264 wasn't bundled with it. H.264 didn't even *exist* when XP first came out. Maybe it's just me, but temporal reasons like that do seem to make sense.
It is the availability of a better tool which renders it less useful, but no matter what advances occur, a hammer will always be a hammer.
Exactly. A better tool which, for example, includes H.264 with the system by default, as opposed to having to install it as an add-on, which is all one has to do to add H.264 support to XP. Not that that's a huge issue, but he was addressing the complaint of someone who was grasping at straws for reasons against using H.264.
Both Windows and Mac OSX include H.264 support in the system
Windows XP does not. Nor do Windows Vista Home Basic, Windows Vista Business, or Windows 7 Starter.
H.264 is available for every version of Windows. Of the versions you listed, only Windows 7 Starter is a current product, and it is highly restricted. So listing one of its restrictions is a problem with that OS, not the thing it's restricting.
and Linux has their own counterparts too.
These counterparts aren't included with Ubuntu or Fedora due to patent issues in the world's biggest industrialized anglophone market. Which counterparts are you thinking of?
Who cares? You can simply, and freely, add H.264 support to any Linux distro. "Ooh, it doesn't come by default!" Neither does Flash. And, unlike Flash, H.264 is simple to add, and works wonderfully.
H.264 is the best codec in contention for web streaming. Even if it was wholly incompatible with Open Source software (which it is absolutely not, and in fact *IS* available via open source), that would have very little market impact. People just truly don't give a shit.
But that's all just a red herring anyway, because H.264 works just *fine* on Linux, in every single legal jurisdiction on the planet. The only reason you bring up such completely inconsequential "issues", and go so far as to portray them as deal-breakers, is due to religious dogma so many nerds around here have.
Your problem isn't that it *can't* be done, but that it *isn't* done in the way you most favor.
It restricted his choice of operating systems to those that Apple supports.
Correct. But how, exactly, is that a mistake?
Why?
He seemed to be interested in keeping his operating system choices open.
He seemed interested in running a Unix or Unix-like OS. But he seemed even more interested in having an iPod.
Based on his implied preferences, you called the wrong thing a mistake. He even mentioned a solution which seems to fit his wishes perfectly: getting a Mac. This is a perfectly valid solution, contrary to what some people around here seem to think.
My use of vulgarities reflects my opinion of your contribution to this thread. Just as your use of snarky, self-satisfied comments starting with your first post here reflects your opinion of what I wrote.
That doesn't answer the question.
You claimed people buy the cheapest things that meet their needs, in spite of how absurd that is. Then you proceeded to lash out like a child (in a fantastically ironic fashion) when I pointed that out. There's something wrong with you. This is a discussion, not a personal indictment that will go on your permanent record. It's ok to be wrong.
People buy things in excess of their needs. If you can't agree with that, you're being dishonest. If you want to pretend like that's what you meant all along, be my guest.
Why do people here get so worked up over silly shit?
And I addressed this as well. If you meant "things people want" when you used the term "needs", then it's completely irrelevant. Of course people buy the things they want. When people talk about buying the "cheapest thing that meets their needs", that naturally excludes niceties and extras. It refers to basics.
Your argument is flawed. Cheaper isn't outright better. People pay more to get more. Please quit acting like you don't understand this very basic aspect of being human. That's why, for example, the iPad outsells every other tablet on the planet, even the cheaper ones which can easily be said to "meet their needs".
The problem with pedantic little shits is they think their current favorite definition of a word is the only definition. What are you, six?
Where's the pedantry? In noting the difference between "need" and "want" or "nice to have" or "worth paying extra for"? Because that's rather fundamental, and by no means splitting hairs over strict definitions. Or is it in calling you out on your initial claim, which somehow "implied" the word "need", even though it doesn't even fit?
So, which part did I get wrong? Did I somehow fail to add extra words to your initial post, or did I fail by showing why our "clarification" was also wrong?
The funny part of all this is that lashing out at others in a reasonable discussion is something you'd expect from an actual child.
That's why everyone drives the cheapest car they can find,...
Yes, they all do. For cars and everything else you listed. The thing is, you seem just a tad lacking in sophistication to realise the implied qualifier, "... that meets their needs."
Right, sorry I am lacking the "sophistication" to add words which completely change the meaning of your original statement.
But even your "implied" qualifier is wrong. It's the norm to buy things in excess of "one's needs". Do people *need* power windows and power locks? Do people *need* bluetooth speakerphones or iPod docks? Do people *need* $80 jeans? Do people *need* to supersize their lunch? Do people *need* Starbucks? Do they *need* popcorn and soda at a theater? Do they need to see the movie at first-run instead of waiting for it to hit cheaper theaters or Netflix? Do they *need* cable TV? Do they *need* TV at all?
The problem is you are treating subjective choices as though they are objective. That people don't pay extra for things that are nice to have. The best you can do is redefine "needs" to include things like "subjective desires", which makes it completely meaningless.
False, by that moronic statement you can also conclude the same is true of Windows.
No, you can't. Antivirus software is a must for PCs, unless you are particularly diligent (and even then, it's still a very good idea to at least manually scan occasionally). Antivirus software is *NOT* necessary on a Mac, even if you are especially careless.
Neither claim implies the absolute. No one is saying that no Mac ever gets infected, nor is anyone saying that every PC gets infected. Why do nerds seem to have such a hard time seeing the world in anything other than binary?
I guess the idea of trying to make a BETTER product never occurred to him.
Cheaper is better.
That's why everyone drives the cheapest car they can find, and wears the cheapest clothes they can find (I hear burlap sacks are making a comeback), and eat the cheapest food they can find (mmm, beans 24/7!). They don't go to the movies, don't have cable TV. They use dial-up internet...
The CrunchPad? You mean the product that never came out? That was only ever a "near final" prototype rendering that was shown *AFTER* the iPhone had been around for over two years, and that copied the iPhone look?
You think Apple copied a fake copy of their own product, instead of simply using their own, already existing product design style?
Slashdot Mirror
Still here, still free, and still being ignored by 99% of consumers.
As much of a train wreck Windows 8 is looking to be, I don't see how it will compel your average computer user to switch to Linux.
Yup, they are actually taking the lead... in the line of copiers following Apple, as usual.
The iPad has been around for almost two years now. Windows 8 is just now being publicly shown in its early testing phase. This is MS rightfully working to fix their tablet OS after someone else showed them how it's done. It's not done by tacking touch into their desktop GUI. It's done by starting from scratch with the UI.
MS is making a smart move, but they are by no means ahead of the industry.
Luckily, there is a patch and you can download it here. (It's not really a library, btw.)
And it's not really a patch, and it doesn't run on Metro...
If I'd replied to the thread as a whole, the comment would have been more appropriately placed.
Your comment is just one of many that make up this thread. It is an inextricable part of that thread, and thus the context is set, regardless of what you may intend.
As it turns out, I was replying to a specific comment within a thread.
And that comment was in the context of the thread as well. By ignoring the context, you are rewriting someone else's comment, which is not your place to do.
Also; you don't get to tell me what I can and cannot do. =)
No, but that's not what I've done. What I've done is describe to you reality. And reality is that you can't take a post out of context without altering the post. There may be exceptions, but this is not one of them.
I don't think you read the rest of this thread. The statement you were replying to wasn't made in a vacuum. It was specifically as regards H.264 support. You can't remove the context without changing the meaning. By changing the meaning, you are making a completely irrelevant reply.
And other than the first two (like I said), which of those aren't just made up fantasy bullshit?
If you think I'm irrelevant, that's cool...
In terms of market influence (such as, whether or not a website should stream video in H.264), you *ARE* completely irrelevant.
The few grand which I haven't spent in upgrades hasn't slowed me down one bit! The few grand which you've spent on upgrades has... cost you a few grand.
And has also... provided upgrades. The whole point of money is to spend it on things you need (first, generally) then things you want.
If those upgrades are things he either needed or wanting, he's doing it right. If those upgrades didn't offer you anything you needed or wanted, then you, too, are doing it right.
But that really doesn't address the question of relevancy.
The exact same argument applies to the supposed "18 year old Linux" the OP was babbling on about.
Which is a complete side issue anyway. That an OS originally designed and released before H.264 even existed does not have *built in* support for H.264 is pretty much meaningless. It can, however, have H.264 added very easily, just like MPEG-2 wasn't included by default, but can be added easily (and MPEG-2, at least, predates all versions of XP).
I would wager that a significant majority of consumer use XP machines have H.264 installed in one form or another.
"Windows XP is 10 years old OS."
Spoken like a Windows customer.
What is that even supposed to mean? Windows XP *IS* 10 years old. Are only Windows users supposed to know that?
Linux is an 18 year old OS...
Windows is an almost 30-year old OS. Mac OS X is older still (in parts).
Just because a corporation wants you to move on doesn't mean that you have to... The age of an OS is irrelevant. The age of a tool doesn't render it useless...
He never said XP was useless. He said it makes sense that H.264 wasn't bundled with it. H.264 didn't even *exist* when XP first came out. Maybe it's just me, but temporal reasons like that do seem to make sense.
It is the availability of a better tool which renders it less useful, but no matter what advances occur, a hammer will always be a hammer.
Exactly. A better tool which, for example, includes H.264 with the system by default, as opposed to having to install it as an add-on, which is all one has to do to add H.264 support to XP. Not that that's a huge issue, but he was addressing the complaint of someone who was grasping at straws for reasons against using H.264.
Please make a relevant point.
Yes, please do!
Both Windows and Mac OSX include H.264 support in the system
Windows XP does not. Nor do Windows Vista Home Basic, Windows Vista Business, or Windows 7 Starter.
H.264 is available for every version of Windows. Of the versions you listed, only Windows 7 Starter is a current product, and it is highly restricted. So listing one of its restrictions is a problem with that OS, not the thing it's restricting.
and Linux has their own counterparts too.
These counterparts aren't included with Ubuntu or Fedora due to patent issues in the world's biggest industrialized anglophone market. Which counterparts are you thinking of?
Who cares? You can simply, and freely, add H.264 support to any Linux distro. "Ooh, it doesn't come by default!" Neither does Flash. And, unlike Flash, H.264 is simple to add, and works wonderfully.
H.264 is the best codec in contention for web streaming. Even if it was wholly incompatible with Open Source software (which it is absolutely not, and in fact *IS* available via open source), that would have very little market impact. People just truly don't give a shit.
But that's all just a red herring anyway, because H.264 works just *fine* on Linux, in every single legal jurisdiction on the planet. The only reason you bring up such completely inconsequential "issues", and go so far as to portray them as deal-breakers, is due to religious dogma so many nerds around here have.
Your problem isn't that it *can't* be done, but that it *isn't* done in the way you most favor.
What monopoly have any of those listed had except for the first two?
How is that a mistake?
It restricted his choice of operating systems to those that Apple supports.
Correct. But how, exactly, is that a mistake?
Why?
He seemed to be interested in keeping his operating system choices open.
He seemed interested in running a Unix or Unix-like OS. But he seemed even more interested in having an iPod.
Based on his implied preferences, you called the wrong thing a mistake. He even mentioned a solution which seems to fit his wishes perfectly: getting a Mac. This is a perfectly valid solution, contrary to what some people around here seem to think.
Cause they're stupid? I've seen people complain about Linux on their netbook they use solely for Facebook and nothing else, not even mail.
"What?!! Someone doesn't like what I like? They must be stupid!"
Your mistake was buying an Apple digital audio player. Get one that supports USB mass storage mode next time.
How is that a mistake?
And watch out for the cameras coming out nowadays that don't support USB mass storage mode...
Why?
People buy things for their own purposes, not yours.
I know a lot of people who would much rather have the newer, simpler UI.
Exactly, but it's called "iPad".
What is wrong with you?
Your snotty attitude.
My use of vulgarities reflects my opinion of your contribution to this thread. Just as your use of snarky, self-satisfied comments starting with your first post here reflects your opinion of what I wrote.
That doesn't answer the question.
You claimed people buy the cheapest things that meet their needs, in spite of how absurd that is. Then you proceeded to lash out like a child (in a fantastically ironic fashion) when I pointed that out. There's something wrong with you. This is a discussion, not a personal indictment that will go on your permanent record. It's ok to be wrong.
People buy things in excess of their needs. If you can't agree with that, you're being dishonest. If you want to pretend like that's what you meant all along, be my guest.
Why do people here get so worked up over silly shit?
What is wrong with you?
And I addressed this as well. If you meant "things people want" when you used the term "needs", then it's completely irrelevant. Of course people buy the things they want. When people talk about buying the "cheapest thing that meets their needs", that naturally excludes niceties and extras. It refers to basics.
Your argument is flawed. Cheaper isn't outright better. People pay more to get more. Please quit acting like you don't understand this very basic aspect of being human. That's why, for example, the iPad outsells every other tablet on the planet, even the cheaper ones which can easily be said to "meet their needs".
Do people *need* power windows and power locks?
The problem with pedantic little shits is they think their current favorite definition of a word is the only definition. What are you, six?
Where's the pedantry? In noting the difference between "need" and "want" or "nice to have" or "worth paying extra for"? Because that's rather fundamental, and by no means splitting hairs over strict definitions. Or is it in calling you out on your initial claim, which somehow "implied" the word "need", even though it doesn't even fit?
So, which part did I get wrong? Did I somehow fail to add extra words to your initial post, or did I fail by showing why our "clarification" was also wrong?
The funny part of all this is that lashing out at others in a reasonable discussion is something you'd expect from an actual child.
That's why everyone drives the cheapest car they can find,...
Yes, they all do. For cars and everything else you listed. The thing is, you seem just a tad lacking in sophistication to realise the implied qualifier, "... that meets their needs."
Right, sorry I am lacking the "sophistication" to add words which completely change the meaning of your original statement.
But even your "implied" qualifier is wrong. It's the norm to buy things in excess of "one's needs". Do people *need* power windows and power locks? Do people *need* bluetooth speakerphones or iPod docks? Do people *need* $80 jeans? Do people *need* to supersize their lunch? Do people *need* Starbucks? Do they *need* popcorn and soda at a theater? Do they need to see the movie at first-run instead of waiting for it to hit cheaper theaters or Netflix? Do they *need* cable TV? Do they *need* TV at all?
The problem is you are treating subjective choices as though they are objective. That people don't pay extra for things that are nice to have. The best you can do is redefine "needs" to include things like "subjective desires", which makes it completely meaningless.
"Mac's don't get viruses"
"My Mac is secure"
Both are true.
False, by that moronic statement you can also conclude the same is true of Windows.
No, you can't. Antivirus software is a must for PCs, unless you are particularly diligent (and even then, it's still a very good idea to at least manually scan occasionally). Antivirus software is *NOT* necessary on a Mac, even if you are especially careless.
Neither claim implies the absolute. No one is saying that no Mac ever gets infected, nor is anyone saying that every PC gets infected. Why do nerds seem to have such a hard time seeing the world in anything other than binary?
I guess the idea of trying to make a BETTER product never occurred to him.
Cheaper is better.
That's why everyone drives the cheapest car they can find, and wears the cheapest clothes they can find (I hear burlap sacks are making a comeback), and eat the cheapest food they can find (mmm, beans 24/7!). They don't go to the movies, don't have cable TV. They use dial-up internet...
Yup, cheaper is better!
The CrunchPad? You mean the product that never came out? That was only ever a "near final" prototype rendering that was shown *AFTER* the iPhone had been around for over two years, and that copied the iPhone look?
You think Apple copied a fake copy of their own product, instead of simply using their own, already existing product design style?
"Fanboy" indeed!
Well, one thing you surely can't do is count GNU/Linux installations with Netflix.
This is what "Linux Counter" can be used for - to prove that there is enough demand in this market.
How do you prove true what's incorrect?
Except I didn't write "this time", I wrote "sometimes".
Maybe you should take that last sentence of yours to heart before you post next time.