It's a samsung, so it'll have touchwiz and that means laggy. You'll need the faster processor on the s4 just to overcome the lagginess of touchwiz apps.
I've had a s1 and currently have the s3 (since 8 months ago) and I'm a bit over it. The s3 is laggy. It wasn't bad with ICS but running JB it lags on many apps. Yes this is nitpicky and it's still a pretty good phone, but it's annoying to buy a phone with a fantastic processor only to have it crippled by laggy software. The nexus 4 feels much snappier to use.
Here's a list of all the laggy apps: Phone, Contacts, Gallery, Camera, Messaging. There are probably more, but note that these are all the apps that samsung touched. They've changed the theme to the ugly touchwiz theme. They've also crippled messaging so that it can't zoom MMS pictures. Gallery is cool but really slow. Camera has really good features but also really slow to open. Contacts takes ages to open.
I've switched to SuperNexus2 on my S3 and it is fantastic now. I think my next phone will be a nexus phone.
The only feature I really miss is 'smart stay'. The other samsung features are just gimmicks IMO.
Fair enough, but does the rest of what I said carry any merit? I find the "odds of life forming" a bit of a meaningless argument. At best it just says it couldn't have happened under known theories, but not that it couldn't have happened 'undirected'. We simply don't know enough to make that sort of claim yet.
Whilst all of these responses are correct, they miss the point. The point of my post was obvious. All these responses are focusing on the specifics of the word "lottery" instead of the fact that we simply don't know enough of what we're dealing with to come up with "the odds of life forming".
What you've posted is meaningless unless we also know how many "lottery tickets" have been purchased.
The odds of winning a lottery might be 1 in 8 million but if we bought all 8 million different tickets we could say we are 100% guaranteed to win. If we bought 2 of each, we'd expect to win twice.
What you've demonstrated is only half of the picture.
I suspect you'd have to do something like calculate the number of mutations occuring or the number of chemical reactions that have occurred from the beginning of the universe until now, and use that as the "number of tickets" to weigh against your "MUCH MUCH MUCH larger number" (which represents the odds of winning).
I suspect that the chance for life is looking pretty good right now, although more rationally I would put forward to you that talking about the formation of life in terms of probabilities like this is just silly. We don't even understand all of the variables yet, so until we know HOW life can form from non-life (we have some idea, but there's still a lot more we don't know), we cannot even imagine that we know what probability is required.
Your example also relied on pure randomness, which doesn't adequately describe evolution/abiogenesis. Many things in nature, and in the universe, are not random. This again demonstrates my point that we cannot even begin to look at the probability of anything to do with life because we are so far from understanding what we're talking about. That's not a criticism - just saying that in order to calculate probabilities, we need to know a lot more than we currently do.
The genome project offers a fair bit more credibility than this, and it's more than "a couple" of fossils here and there.
No one's saying it is all indisputable fact (science doesn't deal with facts) but to date no other theory has been put forward that can offer a better explanation of all the known data.
That's how science works...so until a more plausible theory shows up, evolution is where we are at.
As for this study, yeah there's a bit too much uncertainty for it to be much more than an opinion piece.
There was a sea change. KDE has gone just as mad as GNOME when it comes to adding ridiculous features. The only difference is that, in traditional KDE style, Plasma can be completely configured. And also in traditional KDE style, the one thing you can't configure it to do is look nice.
Of course, the fact that you can make KDE look identical to any major OS with a GUI that has ever been built, makes your comment a bit absurd.
Perhaps you're talking about more than the theming capabilities?
The only thing I'd say is that there is a lack of really nice widget styles (note, not window themes), but that's a question of current availability, not that you can't do it.
AFAICT it was a licensing issue for the longest time. Previously, the licensing options for Qt forced developers to either use GPL for their code, or to buy a commercial license from Trolltech if they wanted their code proprietary. It wasn't a bad deal for free software, but not a good proposition for luring developers to the platform. Of course, today the available licenses from Digia also include LGPL, but that came pretty late.
To me requiring an internet connection just means it comes with a cost, and that means I might still buy it but the price must be lower to compensate for that cost.
Of course, there's the argument that companies that do this don't deserve our support. I dunno. The game might still be fun in its own right....wait this is EA? nah scratch that. In my experience, they tend to do really good looking games that are frustrating as hell.
I'm not sure what your post meant - I didn't really understand it, but I just wanted to clarify that I was saying that people will generally pay more for something that they perceive is of greater value.
The funny thing is that it sometimes works the other way, people perceive something as being more valuable if the sale price is higher, but this isn't what I was originally getting at.
Huh? you can still sort by modified date in windows 8 explorer.
I agree that for your particular example it's a bit clunky - you have to select 'Search' -> 'Date Modified' -> 'Today' (for example) and then when it does the search you can click on where it says "datemodified:today" and it will pop up a date-range box allowing you to specify your own date using the mouse.
I worked that out in about 2 minutes. Surely you're not slower than me. I'm no windows expert - I mainly use linux. I just try things until I figure it out.
If your problem is just that you don't want to have to learn new things, then why not just say that instead of blaming it on some hypothetical shortcomings of windows 8. It seems that your problem is more that it is different, rather than worse. It's just that for you, different IS worse, but for anyone starting with windows 7/8, it's a non-issue.
Perhaps you should actually use it before commenting. I've been using it since late October and if it was like you describe, I too might hate it. But it isn't like that at all. In fact, it works just like Windows 7, but just incrementally better.
You can tell who has used it and who hasn't just be reading the comments. The ones who haven't used it are just feeding off the rumour mill.
People really have a lot of inertia against the start screen don't they?
Really, it isn't that bad. It can do everything the menu used to do. In most cases it is faster. It also allows you to search for apps by name, which is something the start menu could not do.
Are you pretending that they didn't touch a single line of the old windows code?
Of course they made improvements all over. It's like Windows 7 SP2. No one's forcing you to upgrade. My whole point was that metro shouldn't be the reason you don't upgrade, since you barely need to touch it.
If it was the usual $200-800 that previous versions were, I'd wholeheartedly agree with you. But it's $39. I found the new features enough to justify paying that low price.
Well no, because MS decided to call it Windows 8. Sure, if there was a Windows 7 with all of the OTHER benefits of Windows 8 then you might have a point, but the fact is that Windows 8 does have a lot of internal improvements over Windows 7, even if you never touch metro apps.
I found the improvements and new features (automatic backups - see File Versions) enough to justify the $39 upgrade from Windows 7. My Win7 used to take 2.5 mins to boot up. Contrast to about 30 seconds in Windows 8 (same machine).
I'm not trying to sell it. I don't care if you never buy it. I don't care if it's a flop. It works ok for me, no different to win7 in practice really. When the next version comes out, if they release it at a low price just like windows 8, then I'll again review the features and decide whether it's worth the upgrade. I was late moving to windows 7, and never bought XP on its own. I use Linux on my work pc and until last year used it on all my PCs as the main system. Windows 8 does what I need without much fuss, and I'm getting past caring about the intricate details of different OSes.
Slashdot Mirror
Whatever it is, it deserves credit :)
It's a samsung, so it'll have touchwiz and that means laggy. You'll need the faster processor on the s4 just to overcome the lagginess of touchwiz apps.
I've had a s1 and currently have the s3 (since 8 months ago) and I'm a bit over it.
The s3 is laggy. It wasn't bad with ICS but running JB it lags on many apps. Yes this is nitpicky and it's still a pretty good phone, but it's annoying to buy a phone with a fantastic processor only to have it crippled by laggy software. The nexus 4 feels much snappier to use.
Here's a list of all the laggy apps:
Phone, Contacts, Gallery, Camera, Messaging. There are probably more, but note that these are all the apps that samsung touched. They've changed the theme to the ugly touchwiz theme. They've also crippled messaging so that it can't zoom MMS pictures. Gallery is cool but really slow. Camera has really good features but also really slow to open. Contacts takes ages to open.
I've switched to SuperNexus2 on my S3 and it is fantastic now. I think my next phone will be a nexus phone.
The only feature I really miss is 'smart stay'. The other samsung features are just gimmicks IMO.
IIRC they said your eyes couldn't see the individual pixels at arm's length or something like that.
My understanding was that your eyes could see the individual pixels if the retina display was held closer.
That's how come the battery lasts two days
In my example, if there were multiple winners that just makes life even more likely to occur, does it not?
Fair enough, but does the rest of what I said carry any merit? I find the "odds of life forming" a bit of a meaningless argument. At best it just says it couldn't have happened under known theories, but not that it couldn't have happened 'undirected'. We simply don't know enough to make that sort of claim yet.
Whilst all of these responses are correct, they miss the point. The point of my post was obvious. All these responses are focusing on the specifics of the word "lottery" instead of the fact that we simply don't know enough of what we're dealing with to come up with "the odds of life forming".
Nice post :)
Correct - but I was talking about the Joe Sixpack definition, which as you pointed out, equals 'proof'.
Thanks for the correction :-)
I was responding to a post that said you cannot configure KDE to look nice. That is all.
What you've posted is meaningless unless we also know how many "lottery tickets" have been purchased.
The odds of winning a lottery might be 1 in 8 million but if we bought all 8 million different tickets we could say we are 100% guaranteed to win. If we bought 2 of each, we'd expect to win twice.
What you've demonstrated is only half of the picture.
I suspect you'd have to do something like calculate the number of mutations occuring or the number of chemical reactions that have occurred from the beginning of the universe until now, and use that as the "number of tickets" to weigh against your "MUCH MUCH MUCH larger number" (which represents the odds of winning).
I suspect that the chance for life is looking pretty good right now, although more rationally I would put forward to you that talking about the formation of life in terms of probabilities like this is just silly. We don't even understand all of the variables yet, so until we know HOW life can form from non-life (we have some idea, but there's still a lot more we don't know), we cannot even imagine that we know what probability is required.
Your example also relied on pure randomness, which doesn't adequately describe evolution/abiogenesis. Many things in nature, and in the universe, are not random. This again demonstrates my point that we cannot even begin to look at the probability of anything to do with life because we are so far from understanding what we're talking about. That's not a criticism - just saying that in order to calculate probabilities, we need to know a lot more than we currently do.
The genome project offers a fair bit more credibility than this, and it's more than "a couple" of fossils here and there.
No one's saying it is all indisputable fact (science doesn't deal with facts) but to date no other theory has been put forward that can offer a better explanation of all the known data.
That's how science works...so until a more plausible theory shows up, evolution is where we are at.
As for this study, yeah there's a bit too much uncertainty for it to be much more than an opinion piece.
There was a sea change. KDE has gone just as mad as GNOME when it comes to adding ridiculous features. The only difference is that, in traditional KDE style, Plasma can be completely configured. And also in traditional KDE style, the one thing you can't configure it to do is look nice.
Of course, the fact that you can make KDE look identical to any major OS with a GUI that has ever been built, makes your comment a bit absurd.
Perhaps you're talking about more than the theming capabilities?
The only thing I'd say is that there is a lack of really nice widget styles (note, not window themes), but that's a question of current availability, not that you can't do it.
AFAICT it was a licensing issue for the longest time. Previously, the licensing options for Qt forced developers to either use GPL for their code, or to buy a commercial license from Trolltech if they wanted their code proprietary. It wasn't a bad deal for free software, but not a good proposition for luring developers to the platform. Of course, today the available licenses from Digia also include LGPL, but that came pretty late.
Yep, 2009 in fact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qt_(framework)#Licensing
Time to pay a visit to the once-ler...
Does it have to be black and white like that?
To me requiring an internet connection just means it comes with a cost, and that means I might still buy it but the price must be lower to compensate for that cost.
Of course, there's the argument that companies that do this don't deserve our support. I dunno. The game might still be fun in its own right....wait this is EA? nah scratch that. In my experience, they tend to do really good looking games that are frustrating as hell.
What if this patent is so that the phone can do it without your approval?
That changes the ball game I think.
I'm all for my phone being smart, but only when I tell it to, or only when I'm aware of it, and when I'm ultimately in control of what it does.
I'm not sure what your post meant - I didn't really understand it, but I just wanted to clarify that I was saying that people will generally pay more for something that they perceive is of greater value.
The funny thing is that it sometimes works the other way, people perceive something as being more valuable if the sale price is higher, but this isn't what I was originally getting at.
It doesn't say anything about what stuff is better, just what sells for more.
...which has a lot to do with what the general public thinks about what stuff is better...
Huh? you can still sort by modified date in windows 8 explorer.
I agree that for your particular example it's a bit clunky - you have to select 'Search' -> 'Date Modified' -> 'Today' (for example) and then when it does the search you can click on where it says "datemodified:today" and it will pop up a date-range box allowing you to specify your own date using the mouse.
I worked that out in about 2 minutes. Surely you're not slower than me. I'm no windows expert - I mainly use linux. I just try things until I figure it out.
If your problem is just that you don't want to have to learn new things, then why not just say that instead of blaming it on some hypothetical shortcomings of windows 8. It seems that your problem is more that it is different, rather than worse. It's just that for you, different IS worse, but for anyone starting with windows 7/8, it's a non-issue.
Perhaps you should actually use it before commenting. I've been using it since late October and if it was like you describe, I too might hate it. But it isn't like that at all. In fact, it works just like Windows 7, but just incrementally better.
You can tell who has used it and who hasn't just be reading the comments. The ones who haven't used it are just feeding off the rumour mill.
People really have a lot of inertia against the start screen don't they?
Really, it isn't that bad. It can do everything the menu used to do. In most cases it is faster. It also allows you to search for apps by name, which is something the start menu could not do.
Are you pretending that they didn't touch a single line of the old windows code?
Of course they made improvements all over. It's like Windows 7 SP2. No one's forcing you to upgrade. My whole point was that metro shouldn't be the reason you don't upgrade, since you barely need to touch it.
If it was the usual $200-800 that previous versions were, I'd wholeheartedly agree with you. But it's $39. I found the new features enough to justify paying that low price.
Feel free to wait for Windows 9.
Well no, because MS decided to call it Windows 8. Sure, if there was a Windows 7 with all of the OTHER benefits of Windows 8 then you might have a point, but the fact is that Windows 8 does have a lot of internal improvements over Windows 7, even if you never touch metro apps.
I found the improvements and new features (automatic backups - see File Versions) enough to justify the $39 upgrade from Windows 7. My Win7 used to take 2.5 mins to boot up. Contrast to about 30 seconds in Windows 8 (same machine).
I'm not trying to sell it. I don't care if you never buy it. I don't care if it's a flop. It works ok for me, no different to win7 in practice really. When the next version comes out, if they release it at a low price just like windows 8, then I'll again review the features and decide whether it's worth the upgrade. I was late moving to windows 7, and never bought XP on its own. I use Linux on my work pc and until last year used it on all my PCs as the main system. Windows 8 does what I need without much fuss, and I'm getting past caring about the intricate details of different OSes.
I've seen no evidence of what you described about metro. I don't use it, and it doesn't ever bother me.