Look at those window control buttons, they are far from the window edges. No more shoot your mouse to a corner. And they're on top of active content, so if you miss it'll trigger the media underneath. "Borderless" was supposed to refer to societies, not windows. I hate trying to resize windows with thin or non-existent borders and I'm not even old yet.
Yes! Especially that "borderless" nonsense. Of all the copious bad UI fads in play right now, that has to be one of the absolute worst.
It's do-able, and you have a wonderful example right in front of you - responsive web pages.
I would argue that responsive web pages demonstrate how flawed such approaches are. Responsive web design simply blows, and breaks all kinds of use cases for me. I hate it with a passion.
It may be doable, but I can't see how it could be done and have not seen any examples of anyone successfully pulling it off.
Agreed. While I'm very well used to the ribbon, that doesn't make it suck any less at all.
And it looks like Microsoft is doubling down on a few of the worst aspects of the Win 10 look and feel. It's like they're going out of their way to make the UI as annoying and difficult to use as possible.
Yes, but how does any of that support the thesis that "Windows users should want Windows 10 S to succeed"? It only supports "Windows users who prefer a walled garden should want Windows 10 S to succeed", which is a rather obvious point that is unworthy of an article.
I read that entire editorial, but could not find his actual argument for why Windows users should want 10S to succeed. The closest thing I could find was "if it succeeds, then there will be more App store apps". Which is fine if you want an app store, I suppose, but is entirely meaningless and without value for those of us who have less than zero interest in such a thing.
I don't see how the success of 10S has the potential of improving my Windows experience, but I do see numerous ways that it has the potential to degrade it.
I do a lot of Windows programming, so if Microsoft went away I'd take a short-term hit. But only short term -- I'd just switch to whatever took its place.
People, particularly the most desirable group aged 18-24, are watching less TV and spending more time online.
In sum, between 2011 and 2016, Q4 traditional TV viewing by 18-24-year-olds dropped by almost 10 hours a week, or by roughly 1 hour and 25 minutes per day. In percentage terms, Q4 traditional TV viewing by 18-24-year-olds was down by 7.1% year-over-year and has now fallen by 39% since 2011. In other words, in the space of 5 years, almost 40% of this age group’s traditional TV viewing time has migrated to other activities or streaming.
I told them I'd take it if they would keep the TV out of the plan, it took a lot of complaining, but they eventually did it.
I don't understand -- why didn't you take the $60 plan as offered and just not connect the cable TV box? That's what I do, and I didn't have to argue with anyone.
But is it still significantly cheaper once you've added CBS All Access, Hulu, Amazon Prime, and Seeso?
Probably not, but if your such a heavy TV viewer that you feel the need to subscribe to all the services, then why in the world would you cut the cable? Cable makes total sense for those people.
But most people (in my experience) don't have such heavy habits, and for those people, cable TV makes no economic sense. The only thing that's changed is that more of those people no longer need to pay for the full banquet when all they want is a couple of slices of the roast.
just favored one set of corporations over another.
In a sense, but there's a very huge difference between Google, etc., and ISPs. While I agree that the all behave terribly, Google, Facebook, etc., are different animals than ISPs are and it's not so crazy that regulations between the two groups should not be identical.
ISPs are like the phone company -- they supply the pipe. Google, Facebook, etc., supply stuff that flows through the pipe, like services that you would call through your telephone.
Pipes should be hands-off and not look at anything you do that isn't required to keep the pipes working well, just like the telephone.
One of the evil things the telecoms keep doing is conflating these two things, as if Facebook and ISPs somehow are engaging in the same sort of business. They're not. Not even close.
That's a bit pedantic. The rule may not have been in play yet, but now it won't be. To use your spigot analogy, the spigot is open, was scheduled to be shut off, and now it won't be.
The end effect is the same -- lawmakers sold us all out to the telecoms.
So Taser, an already highly creepy company of dubious ethics, has decided to become an even creepier company and is changing their name to help hide who they are?
They're all terrible in terms of most of the things I care about, so I avoid any service contracts whatsoever and pay as I go, using whichever service is currently giving me the best rates.
True, they have grown increasingly rare over time, but they do still exist. I, as well as a number of people that I know, have run them in the past and are running them now.
The time has long passed, however, that you can assume good intentions from any service. Research is the watchword of the day.
I'm glad that the vigilance of the media compels Uber to work harder to be a scrupulous and ethical company
Uber has exactly the same interest in being a scrupulous and ethical company as it has always had: zero. The only ethical way to deal with a company like Uber is to refuse to do business with them.
Slashdot Mirror
Look at those window control buttons, they are far from the window edges. No more shoot your mouse to a corner. And they're on top of active content, so if you miss it'll trigger the media underneath. "Borderless" was supposed to refer to societies, not windows. I hate trying to resize windows with thin or non-existent borders and I'm not even old yet.
Yes! Especially that "borderless" nonsense. Of all the copious bad UI fads in play right now, that has to be one of the absolute worst.
It's do-able, and you have a wonderful example right in front of you - responsive web pages.
I would argue that responsive web pages demonstrate how flawed such approaches are. Responsive web design simply blows, and breaks all kinds of use cases for me. I hate it with a passion.
It may be doable, but I can't see how it could be done and have not seen any examples of anyone successfully pulling it off.
Agreed. While I'm very well used to the ribbon, that doesn't make it suck any less at all.
And it looks like Microsoft is doubling down on a few of the worst aspects of the Win 10 look and feel. It's like they're going out of their way to make the UI as annoying and difficult to use as possible.
As for no one wants or will use, the files on demand feature sounds useful as does Pick Up Where You Left Off.
They do sound useful. It's too bad that they require placing so much trust in the likes of Microsoft.
I disagree that Windows 10 is almost as good as Windows 7. For my purposes, it is substantially worse (although certainly better than Win 8).
Yes, but how does any of that support the thesis that "Windows users should want Windows 10 S to succeed"? It only supports "Windows users who prefer a walled garden should want Windows 10 S to succeed", which is a rather obvious point that is unworthy of an article.
Also, on Android you can install software without the use of an app store at all.
I read that entire editorial, but could not find his actual argument for why Windows users should want 10S to succeed. The closest thing I could find was "if it succeeds, then there will be more App store apps". Which is fine if you want an app store, I suppose, but is entirely meaningless and without value for those of us who have less than zero interest in such a thing.
I don't see how the success of 10S has the potential of improving my Windows experience, but I do see numerous ways that it has the potential to degrade it.
I do a lot of Windows programming, so if Microsoft went away I'd take a short-term hit. But only short term -- I'd just switch to whatever took its place.
The rest of them are entirely optional.
I've been saving somewhere around $15/mo by getting the internet+TV bundle vs just internet from Comcast for years now.
People, particularly the most desirable group aged 18-24, are watching less TV and spending more time online.
In sum, between 2011 and 2016, Q4 traditional TV viewing by 18-24-year-olds dropped by almost 10 hours a week, or by roughly 1 hour and 25 minutes per day. In percentage terms, Q4 traditional TV viewing by 18-24-year-olds was down by 7.1% year-over-year and has now fallen by 39% since 2011. In other words, in the space of 5 years, almost 40% of this age group’s traditional TV viewing time has migrated to other activities or streaming.
http://www.marketingcharts.com...
I told them I'd take it if they would keep the TV out of the plan, it took a lot of complaining, but they eventually did it.
I don't understand -- why didn't you take the $60 plan as offered and just not connect the cable TV box? That's what I do, and I didn't have to argue with anyone.
But is it still significantly cheaper once you've added CBS All Access, Hulu, Amazon Prime, and Seeso?
Probably not, but if your such a heavy TV viewer that you feel the need to subscribe to all the services, then why in the world would you cut the cable? Cable makes total sense for those people.
But most people (in my experience) don't have such heavy habits, and for those people, cable TV makes no economic sense. The only thing that's changed is that more of those people no longer need to pay for the full banquet when all they want is a couple of slices of the roast.
$25 in 1990 is worth $48 now. Inflation doesn't explain an increase to $100.
just favored one set of corporations over another.
In a sense, but there's a very huge difference between Google, etc., and ISPs. While I agree that the all behave terribly, Google, Facebook, etc., are different animals than ISPs are and it's not so crazy that regulations between the two groups should not be identical.
ISPs are like the phone company -- they supply the pipe. Google, Facebook, etc., supply stuff that flows through the pipe, like services that you would call through your telephone.
Pipes should be hands-off and not look at anything you do that isn't required to keep the pipes working well, just like the telephone.
One of the evil things the telecoms keep doing is conflating these two things, as if Facebook and ISPs somehow are engaging in the same sort of business. They're not. Not even close.
That's a bit pedantic. The rule may not have been in play yet, but now it won't be. To use your spigot analogy, the spigot is open, was scheduled to be shut off, and now it won't be.
The end effect is the same -- lawmakers sold us all out to the telecoms.
I have never seen one "in the wild", personally.
OK, I won't let Win 10S specifically stop me from buying a Surface. I'll let the presence of any form of Windows 10 stop me from buying it.
So Taser, an already highly creepy company of dubious ethics, has decided to become an even creepier company and is changing their name to help hide who they are?
Sounds about normal.
Most Americans are painfully aware that both US cellular services and the US health system are terrible for anyone who isn't wealthy.
They're all terrible in terms of most of the things I care about, so I avoid any service contracts whatsoever and pay as I go, using whichever service is currently giving me the best rates.
We need to start doing what used to be done to corporations when they egregiously misbehaved: revoke the corporate charter.
This is why Adam Smith himself asserted that there can be no free market in the absence of regulation.
True, they have grown increasingly rare over time, but they do still exist. I, as well as a number of people that I know, have run them in the past and are running them now.
The time has long passed, however, that you can assume good intentions from any service. Research is the watchword of the day.
I'm glad that the vigilance of the media compels Uber to work harder to be a scrupulous and ethical company
Uber has exactly the same interest in being a scrupulous and ethical company as it has always had: zero. The only ethical way to deal with a company like Uber is to refuse to do business with them.