You're missing the point. By introducing the ribbon UI to the Windows Explorer shell, it makes the UI more touch friendly, ala TABLETS. MS has had a tablet debacle on its hands for years now, and this iPad thing is shifting the market and killing a cash cow. They have to get into the tablet market, but they can't do it with a different OS.
That's why Windows Professional on ARM is so exciting to some (for app compat reasons) but the user experience with using a stylus on a Windows tablet still sucks balls if you ask the consumer buying public. To fix the UI, they've got to make the Windows Explorer shell touch friendly. They've spent a boat load of money on the ribbon, and the corpoate space is somewhat used to it, regardless of what many/. readers think of it. So, they're going to go with it.
I still love my iPad, it's the perfect couch top. But no Flash and certain vertical market websites used within my business make it hard for my company to adopt them as a laptop replacement for some user groups. If MS can kill the stylus and make a touch UI on top of the Windows Explorer shell that doesn't suck, they could have something. The harder part will be wowing over the consumer market, which seems to be driving tablets to the workplace in the first place.
It's all about getting a Windows tablet on ARM that people wil want... We'll see if Windows 8 is that product or not.
When the iPod came out, we had tons of competitors trying to develop an MP3 player that would match its grace and simplicity. Now, we're looking at the iPad 2 jump on the market, and everyone else is running around trying to build a better tablet that matches it grace and simplicity. We're all talking about price point, but Apple has already shown that price point isn't the real truth here.... it's about getting the user experience for the end user right, and Apple's found one that the also-rans can't quite meet up to. I'm no Apple fanboi, but I've seen this story play out before. Am I wrong?
RWA2, I really like this example. It's instructional and non-destructive. This kind of example could be used in a simple scripting lesson earlier in the course regarding how simple software installation scripting works. I think you could defend this example against the "what were you thinking when you taught them this?" rhetoric (see above "DON'T DO IT. You'll get fired" thread).
Unless they have dealerships in place for 2011, they can't run in a GT class.
Assuming Green GT isn't going to have a model in the dealerships by 2011, then doesn't that mean they'll have to run in the LMP2 class against the Spyders, Acuras, and the Lolas?
This previous post echoes the overall problem with trying to use Linux as a home/personal desktop system for the masses.
Server side, everything is close to ideal. There are thousand here who can tell you what's superior about Linux as a server OS (and do so every day).
On the desktop side, there's just something missing. Yes, I'm talking about pretty GUIs and driver support, but it's more about taking the desktop paradigm to the next level. Why has Linux clearly architected what so many of us believe is a better server platform, but not really wow'd the general populace on the desktop side? (I'm not talking to you who have used Linux as a desktop OS for many years and have learned to work around its limitations. I'm talking about the average Joe user.)
I've got 60,000 PCs 90% ready to take to some Linux desktop distro, but it's the last 10% where is where Microsoft is still superior that's holding me back. I haven't taken a look at Leonidas, and maybe I should, but the complaints in this thread talk about sound issues and Ext4 flaws that put Firefox config files in jeopardy.
When will the Linux community build a desktop distro that wows the pants off of average Joe user?
Slashdot Mirror
Does this mean we can keep our shoeson at the airport now?
That's why Windows Professional on ARM is so exciting to some (for app compat reasons) but the user experience with using a stylus on a Windows tablet still sucks balls if you ask the consumer buying public. To fix the UI, they've got to make the Windows Explorer shell touch friendly. They've spent a boat load of money on the ribbon, and the corpoate space is somewhat used to it, regardless of what many /. readers think of it. So, they're going to go with it.
I still love my iPad, it's the perfect couch top. But no Flash and certain vertical market websites used within my business make it hard for my company to adopt them as a laptop replacement for some user groups. If MS can kill the stylus and make a touch UI on top of the Windows Explorer shell that doesn't suck, they could have something. The harder part will be wowing over the consumer market, which seems to be driving tablets to the workplace in the first place. It's all about getting a Windows tablet on ARM that people wil want... We'll see if Windows 8 is that product or not.
When the iPod came out, we had tons of competitors trying to develop an MP3 player that would match its grace and simplicity. Now, we're looking at the iPad 2 jump on the market, and everyone else is running around trying to build a better tablet that matches it grace and simplicity. We're all talking about price point, but Apple has already shown that price point isn't the real truth here.... it's about getting the user experience for the end user right, and Apple's found one that the also-rans can't quite meet up to. I'm no Apple fanboi, but I've seen this story play out before. Am I wrong?
RWA2, I really like this example. It's instructional and non-destructive. This kind of example could be used in a simple scripting lesson earlier in the course regarding how simple software installation scripting works. I think you could defend this example against the "what were you thinking when you taught them this?" rhetoric (see above "DON'T DO IT. You'll get fired" thread).
Unless they have dealerships in place for 2011, they can't run in a GT class.
Assuming Green GT isn't going to have a model in the dealerships by 2011, then doesn't that mean they'll have to run in the LMP2 class against the Spyders, Acuras, and the Lolas?
Server side, everything is close to ideal. There are thousand here who can tell you what's superior about Linux as a server OS (and do so every day).
On the desktop side, there's just something missing. Yes, I'm talking about pretty GUIs and driver support, but it's more about taking the desktop paradigm to the next level. Why has Linux clearly architected what so many of us believe is a better server platform, but not really wow'd the general populace on the desktop side? (I'm not talking to you who have used Linux as a desktop OS for many years and have learned to work around its limitations. I'm talking about the average Joe user.)
I've got 60,000 PCs 90% ready to take to some Linux desktop distro, but it's the last 10% where is where Microsoft is still superior that's holding me back. I haven't taken a look at Leonidas, and maybe I should, but the complaints in this thread talk about sound issues and Ext4 flaws that put Firefox config files in jeopardy.
When will the Linux community build a desktop distro that wows the pants off of average Joe user?