Well, they deliberately avoided the issue of the blue tint on viewing angles - don't think they had much choice there, they would have been well aware of that prior to launch. More and more it seems like they had to choose this panel because of supply issues.
When the iPhone X launched and they showed how you swipe up from the bottom of the screen to get back to home, I thought it was a bit odd, but their decision to avoid onscreen buttons does look smart now they've switched to OLED. Will Android follow suit now that phones are converging on an all-screen front with no hardware buttons?
These phones will not get recalled, what a load of crap. Do they seriously thing that Google would put a screen in a phone without evaluating it first, and then decide to recall it because users are dissatisfied? These screens are operating as expected. That off-axis blue shift off is a trait of the panel they chose and they knew about this well before release.
I understand the issues with the screen (and it would concern me as a buyer) parameters. Should they have put a better screen in the Pixel 2XL - yes definitely at the the price point they are hitting. But they chose what they chose and that's that.
This was probably a supply issue - with Samsung and Apple buying every AMOLED screen that can be made, they had no choice but to go with an inferior LG panel.
I've recently started using Ubuntu Gnome and am surprised that the Gnome desktop is both original (it doesn't just straight rip off old versions off Windows or the Mac like other DE's), and very pleasant to use. I think it's great.
Windows 10 is a decent OS but with a UI full of hangovers from Windows 8 - itself a failed attempt to take over the tablet market.Windows 7 was the last version of Windows with GUI that was ideal for desktop computer use.
Jacking up the price and slapping a "Workstation" brand onto a product with so many obvious flaws is ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as slapping an S on the end of the name and trying to pass it off as a ChromeOS product.
The disconnect between the product teams and the dev teams at Microsoft must be huge.
There's a valid viewpoint that the web would be a better place without JavaScript running in the client. John Gruber has been saying this recently.
It's too late to go back now of course - we have got used to web apps (as opposed to sites) that are responsive, dynamic and mimic desktop applications. But if client-side scripting had never been invented, the web would now be a better place in terms of having much less of the crappy payloads we get with modern sites.
I love the open web but the problem is that JavaScript has been abused by people in the marketing/advertising/big-data space, and notifications and worker processes would be their next target.
Microsoft has amazing engineering teams. Although the UI of Windows 8 and (to a lesser extent) 10 is not ideal, they pulled off massive tech improvements in those releases compared to Windows 7. Memory usage and performance are way improved. Then look at what they did on the Xbox One emulating PowerPC.
But, for desktop/professional use, Windows 7 still represents the high point of usability and UI refinement 8 years after release. The article highlights my biggest annoyance:
Live Tiles are still worthless, and it is time for Microsoft to kill them. Nobody opens an app launcher and stares at the icons for information. It is distracting and pointless. If I want the weather, I'll open a weather app and see it -- not stare at the icon for the information. It sort of made sense in the Windows 8.x era since you were presented with a full screen of app icons more often, but with a more traditional start-button design in Windows 10, it is time to retire it.
Totally this. Trying to combine an information portal and an app launcher just doesn't work. It's usability disaster. My guess is that the only reason they've not got rid of live tiles is because they do look attractive in screenshots and it is a very original piece of design that gives them an identity. But it's just not a good solution in practice.
I blame the product teams, or whoever the guys are at Microsoft that are telling the devs what to do. Outside of Phil Spencer, they haven't got a clue how to respectfully evolve a product and avoid alienating their user base.
Is this a free OS where the user is the product, or is it a "Pro" product where users pay nearly £200/$200, yet is exploited for additional revenue. Microsoft don't seem to know.
Given the price of the product I don't want any commercial stuff in the core Windows shell. Promoted apps on the launcher, popups telling me Edge is faster than Chrome, and this, are not acceptable. The only place it's acceptable is in the Store.
With previous models, the products weren't as highly developed and there was scope for large advances in design and features. Now that we're up to the level of the iPhone 6/7, Galaxy S7 Edge and Pixel, there's far less that can be done.
Wwitching to wireless for audio and charging is now a thing, and the design could change in future with bezel removal/reduction, but the curve has definitely tailed off.
Why are people still developing/improving/refining lunatic weapons like this? The one we have already (even the ones we had in the 1940's) are plenty powerful enough. Being able to incinerate an entire capital city is surely enough "deterrent".
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know if this can be stopped but it should be.
Well, they deliberately avoided the issue of the blue tint on viewing angles - don't think they had much choice there, they would have been well aware of that prior to launch. More and more it seems like they had to choose this panel because of supply issues.
When the iPhone X launched and they showed how you swipe up from the bottom of the screen to get back to home, I thought it was a bit odd, but their decision to avoid onscreen buttons does look smart now they've switched to OLED. Will Android follow suit now that phones are converging on an all-screen front with no hardware buttons?
These phones will not get recalled, what a load of crap. Do they seriously thing that Google would put a screen in a phone without evaluating it first, and then decide to recall it because users are dissatisfied? These screens are operating as expected. That off-axis blue shift off is a trait of the panel they chose and they knew about this well before release.
I understand the issues with the screen (and it would concern me as a buyer) parameters. Should they have put a better screen in the Pixel 2XL - yes definitely at the the price point they are hitting. But they chose what they chose and that's that.
This was probably a supply issue - with Samsung and Apple buying every AMOLED screen that can be made, they had no choice but to go with an inferior LG panel.
I've recently started using Ubuntu Gnome and am surprised that the Gnome desktop is both original (it doesn't just straight rip off old versions off Windows or the Mac like other DE's), and very pleasant to use. I think it's great.
Windows 10 is a decent OS but with a UI full of hangovers from Windows 8 - itself a failed attempt to take over the tablet market.Windows 7 was the last version of Windows with GUI that was ideal for desktop computer use.
Jacking up the price and slapping a "Workstation" brand onto a product with so many obvious flaws is ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as slapping an S on the end of the name and trying to pass it off as a ChromeOS product.
The disconnect between the product teams and the dev teams at Microsoft must be huge.
There's a valid viewpoint that the web would be a better place without JavaScript running in the client. John Gruber has been saying this recently.
It's too late to go back now of course - we have got used to web apps (as opposed to sites) that are responsive, dynamic and mimic desktop applications. But if client-side scripting had never been invented, the web would now be a better place in terms of having much less of the crappy payloads we get with modern sites.
I love the open web but the problem is that JavaScript has been abused by people in the marketing/advertising/big-data space, and notifications and worker processes would be their next target.
Microsoft has amazing engineering teams. Although the UI of Windows 8 and (to a lesser extent) 10 is not ideal, they pulled off massive tech improvements in those releases compared to Windows 7. Memory usage and performance are way improved. Then look at what they did on the Xbox One emulating PowerPC.
But, for desktop/professional use, Windows 7 still represents the high point of usability and UI refinement 8 years after release. The article highlights my biggest annoyance:
Live Tiles are still worthless, and it is time for Microsoft to kill them. Nobody opens an app launcher and stares at the icons for information. It is distracting and pointless. If I want the weather, I'll open a weather app and see it -- not stare at the icon for the information. It sort of made sense in the Windows 8.x era since you were presented with a full screen of app icons more often, but with a more traditional start-button design in Windows 10, it is time to retire it.
Totally this. Trying to combine an information portal and an app launcher just doesn't work. It's usability disaster. My guess is that the only reason they've not got rid of live tiles is because they do look attractive in screenshots and it is a very original piece of design that gives them an identity. But it's just not a good solution in practice.
I blame the product teams, or whoever the guys are at Microsoft that are telling the devs what to do. Outside of Phil Spencer, they haven't got a clue how to respectfully evolve a product and avoid alienating their user base.
Is this a free OS where the user is the product, or is it a "Pro" product where users pay nearly £200/$200, yet is exploited for additional revenue. Microsoft don't seem to know. Given the price of the product I don't want any commercial stuff in the core Windows shell. Promoted apps on the launcher, popups telling me Edge is faster than Chrome, and this, are not acceptable. The only place it's acceptable is in the Store.
With previous models, the products weren't as highly developed and there was scope for large advances in design and features. Now that we're up to the level of the iPhone 6/7, Galaxy S7 Edge and Pixel, there's far less that can be done. Wwitching to wireless for audio and charging is now a thing, and the design could change in future with bezel removal/reduction, but the curve has definitely tailed off.
Why are people still developing/improving/refining lunatic weapons like this? The one we have already (even the ones we had in the 1940's) are plenty powerful enough. Being able to incinerate an entire capital city is surely enough "deterrent".
Why are they anti-web. This advert story is about ads in their native app platform.