Best listen to your CUSTOMERS when they all tell you it's stupid and crap.
Thing is that during the development phase of Windows 8 that is exactly what they claimed to do, based on customer feedback data (through the customer improvement program) they determined that people didn't use the start menu and instead pinned applications to the taskbar or used the desktop (much like people do in OSX which has no start menu). Now I'm sure many people didnt participate in that program probably for privacy fears, though I'm sure the same people are also confident that MS has built backdoors into Windows anyway so I dont see the issue.
The really amazing thing I see with this is the amount of very passionate Windows users on/., I always thought most people here only used Windows infrequently when they had to.
people are complaining about the fact that it's a tablet interface that's been shoehorned into a desktop, and everything about it is designed to push you back to the tablet interface (which, conveniently for Microsoft, is a walled garden that they control).
What exactly is it you do with your computer? Everything I do with mine on a daily basis works the same in Windows 7 as it does in Windows 8. Now configuring some PC settings is a little different, and search is now dedicated (win+s) rather than in the start menu (which is of course gone). Now if I were futzing around in the OS and not actually doing anything or if I had developed an inexplicable dependence on Metro apps then maybe I could understand it but none of my applications - and hence tasks that I use my computer for - operate any differently. I don't particularly like the new interface on my desktop (though it's good on touch devices) so I just use the boot-to-desktop switch and things work just as they always have.
The ribbon shot that in the foot at the expense of precious screen space.
Oh come on, with dirt cheap high resolution monitors you should have gotten to a point where screen realestate is hardly an issue for doing office work.
Seriously, a very important feature of Microsoft products was the ability to customize them to a particular job or work environment.
You can customize the ribbon. You can create ribbons and within those you can create groups and put buttons in those groups, which is certainly more intuitive than toolbars and menus however if you already are indoctrinated in the use of toolbars and menus then changing is obviously of dubious value. Personally I'm not an office worker (as in I don't spend time producing and editing office documents).
In my experience Linux is far more unreliable than Windows these days. Sure, show-stopping kernel panics are rare, but little glitches here and there are very common.
It all depends on your distro and what drivers and other software you have installed. From a reliability and stability perspective the stock Windows 8.1 install and an up-to-date RHEL are both really as stable as eachother, but in both cases graphics drivers are often a quick way to compromise stability. Using "Linux" in this context is always a misnomer because nobody just runs Linux and certainly there is wide variance in the stability of Linux distros.
we make the patent office show that every element of a patent claim existed in the prior art before we throw it out as not new or obvious.
Which is why the patent system if obviously completely screwed up, all you need to do is take an existing idea and add "on a handheld device" and they call that innovation and you can patent it. You really think that's a good system? Obviously a bunch of European countries don't as many have invalidated some of these patents.
Like BestBuy cares when you walk out with 20 boxes of MS Office Home and Student.
Seriously you're an idiot, you cannot buy iOS, Windows Store or Android apps from BestBuy and if you have an enterprise account to deploy to iPads that you manage then yes it's going to be pretty clear if you're buying dozens of Home and Student versions.
So it is the same?
No, the licensing is the same, clearly the product is not the same.
Oh, so then its NOT the same
Clearly not, your failed inference above shows that and for some reason you still asked the question, why is that?
If you need desktop versions of word and excel, then yes, having an ipad for your email sitting next to it won't cut it.
You don't necessarily need Outlook either. This weird obsession you have with evangelising Microsoft products where somehow just because you need desktop versions of Word and Excel means you need Outlook really does have the mark of a paid shill. Not to mention your wilful ignorance around the suggestion that businesses would buy iPad apps from BestBuy.
You misunderstand, I'm not saying the patent is invalid by the current rules of the patent system, I'm sure you are correct on that. I'm saying the differences are so trivial that only an idiot would look at the Microsoft one, then at the Apple one and conclude that the Apple one is innovative and with that in mind the US patent system's bar for innovation is unbelievably low.
This piece of prior art wouldn't do that, since it doesn't show a hand-held electronic device, doesn't really show "continuous" movement as opposed to switching between several icons, and it doesn't show unlocking a device.
If you actually watch the video it does show continuous movement of a slider (2:55-2:59) and while it doesn't show "unlocking a device" that is just the succeeding action and I doubt that Android's version of "unlock" is the same as iOS's so that part would be different anyway between iOS and Android, all they would have to do is called it something other than "unlock". The only other element is "a hand-held electronic device" and if in the US that qualifies as "innovative" then there are a shitload of things that you can do on desktops that I would like to patent!
Honestly if you watch the video from 2:55 to 2:59 then look at a video of unlocking an iPhone3G are you actually going to tell me you think the iPhone version is innovation? Really?
In the case of that video, the sliding was really because you were "dragging" a representation of a physical object on-screen - and it wasn't unlocking anything, it was just toggling a state in a switch.
It is dragging a slider from one point to another to invoke an action. Making that action "unlock" and having the representation be a generic block onscreen as opposed to something that looks like a switch is not innovative.
It's funny how everytime your argument gets backed into a corner you come out with another argument that disproves your earlier one:
Businesses use Home editions all over the place if they can get away with it.
If that is indeed the case then having a Home and Student version of the iPad version of Office is no different to having an Home and Student version of the desktop version, yes the desktop version comes with Outlook but if you need that then you won't have any use for the iPad version of Office anyway since an iPad won't cut it.
If businesses that don't want Office 365 are buying multiple Home and Student licenses then it's going to be pretty obvious that it isn't being used for Home and Student purposes with records being made of it at both purchase time (where it already would be denied) and at tax time, so no, businesses would not use it.
I don't know of a car flaw that can tank an economy, cause a nuclear disaster or cause oil to spill out into the sea. But a software flaw can do all these things.
So you either use software designed and warranted for this kind of situation (Windows XP is not) which explicitly puts the responsibility on the vendor or you use open source software and take on the responsibility yourself. Either way it's your choice and if you are the party tasked with making that decision and you chose Windows XP for it then you are in the wrong.
Do you realize what you're saying? Your argument is essentially "it's not my fault I can't comply with requirement A because I fucked up requirement B" which should never be a valid excuse.
Do you realize what you're saying? Requirement A did not exist back then, in fact it doesn't even exist now. How can they be expected to plan to comply with a requirement that doesn't exist?
In a sane world, if Microsoft failed to license the code properly then that would be Microsoft's problem, not anybody else's!
They did license it properly, they just didn't license it in a way that was sufficient for this non-existent requirement.
Hey you're the one with the failure, fix your problem.
No it wouldn't work. Because business users would pay that instead of subscribing to office 365.
They wouldn't need to because they can use their 365 subscription with it, which you claim they need because they need Outlook and that this cannot just be replaced with a mobile client because an ipad isn't going to cut it.
Yeah that's a nice theory, people have been trying to do that for decades with nothing even close to success and not much on the horizon either. I was thinking you were suggesting something in the realm of possibility. Even if it looks like Windows without being blocked it still wouldn't be widely compatible with Windows and even then after that you have to improve upon it in an unspecified way and make those improvements significantly compelling and prevent them from being implemented in Windows.
The code was always public knowledge.. the bug itself was still unknown until its discovery last month.
Unknown to who? Everybody? You really think responsible disclosure is unique to closed source software? It isn't.
Also, with open source, a programmer or programming team can effect the necessary fixes themselves if they are unsatisfied with the speed of the software development team, while with closed source, absolutely everyone must wait for the software's dev team to address the issue.
We can take it as a given that there ARE plenty of business use cases for Office on an iPad.
And if so they will use their Office 365 subscriptions with it, not purchase thousands of standalone Home and Student licenses in addition to that.
Businesses are going to be tied into the business priced subscriptions of office 365 because of the limitations on the home version of office 365 -- such as the very low limit on the number of users within a domain.
Hence a standalone Home and Student license for the iPad version would only be an additional unnecessary cost to a business who already has a 365 subscription and can use it for free with that, you obviously don't even know what you're trying to argue anymore.
If an iPad isn't going to cut it then businesses will have paid for full versions of Office anyway negating the need to purchase further Home and Student licenses of iPad versions of the software and for those people who do not need the full versions of Office (those who aren't businesses for which an iPad will cut it) they can purchase that version.
If it hasn't, and YouTube just took it down willy-nilly, then they are liable for a plethora of legal challenges, including breach of contract and tortious interference with contractual relations.
Really? What contract? I'm not saying you're wrong I'm wondering whether Youtube would actually leave themselves open legally to such to things.
No, because all that has happened is Youtube has blocked it. Is there even a crime here? If Sony (or anybody) asks Youtube to remove a video for whatever reason is that a crime?
I'm not saying this particular situation is any good but suggesting this should qualify as "perjury" is a bit ridiculous. Maybe if they filed a DMCA takedown notice to Blender and followed that through the courts to stop Blender from distributing Sintel then perhaps things are different but right now the movie is still available from their site, it's just not available on Youtube and the exact reason is unspecified as yet.
Slashdot Mirror
Best listen to your CUSTOMERS when they all tell you it's stupid and crap.
Thing is that during the development phase of Windows 8 that is exactly what they claimed to do, based on customer feedback data (through the customer improvement program) they determined that people didn't use the start menu and instead pinned applications to the taskbar or used the desktop (much like people do in OSX which has no start menu). Now I'm sure many people didnt participate in that program probably for privacy fears, though I'm sure the same people are also confident that MS has built backdoors into Windows anyway so I dont see the issue.
The really amazing thing I see with this is the amount of very passionate Windows users on /., I always thought most people here only used Windows infrequently when they had to.
people are complaining about the fact that it's a tablet interface that's been shoehorned into a desktop, and everything about it is designed to push you back to the tablet interface (which, conveniently for Microsoft, is a walled garden that they control).
What exactly is it you do with your computer? Everything I do with mine on a daily basis works the same in Windows 7 as it does in Windows 8. Now configuring some PC settings is a little different, and search is now dedicated (win+s) rather than in the start menu (which is of course gone). Now if I were futzing around in the OS and not actually doing anything or if I had developed an inexplicable dependence on Metro apps then maybe I could understand it but none of my applications - and hence tasks that I use my computer for - operate any differently. I don't particularly like the new interface on my desktop (though it's good on touch devices) so I just use the boot-to-desktop switch and things work just as they always have.
The ribbon shot that in the foot at the expense of precious screen space.
Oh come on, with dirt cheap high resolution monitors you should have gotten to a point where screen realestate is hardly an issue for doing office work.
Seriously, a very important feature of Microsoft products was the ability to customize them to a particular job or work environment.
You can customize the ribbon. You can create ribbons and within those you can create groups and put buttons in those groups, which is certainly more intuitive than toolbars and menus however if you already are indoctrinated in the use of toolbars and menus then changing is obviously of dubious value. Personally I'm not an office worker (as in I don't spend time producing and editing office documents).
It's time to turn off the computer and find a nice place with neighbors at least a mile away.
You're only just now realizing that any communication can be intercepted?
In my experience Linux is far more unreliable than Windows these days. Sure, show-stopping kernel panics are rare, but little glitches here and there are very common.
It all depends on your distro and what drivers and other software you have installed. From a reliability and stability perspective the stock Windows 8.1 install and an up-to-date RHEL are both really as stable as eachother, but in both cases graphics drivers are often a quick way to compromise stability. Using "Linux" in this context is always a misnomer because nobody just runs Linux and certainly there is wide variance in the stability of Linux distros.
we make the patent office show that every element of a patent claim existed in the prior art before we throw it out as not new or obvious.
Which is why the patent system if obviously completely screwed up, all you need to do is take an existing idea and add "on a handheld device" and they call that innovation and you can patent it. You really think that's a good system? Obviously a bunch of European countries don't as many have invalidated some of these patents.
Like BestBuy cares when you walk out with 20 boxes of MS Office Home and Student.
Seriously you're an idiot, you cannot buy iOS, Windows Store or Android apps from BestBuy and if you have an enterprise account to deploy to iPads that you manage then yes it's going to be pretty clear if you're buying dozens of Home and Student versions.
So it is the same?
No, the licensing is the same, clearly the product is not the same.
Oh, so then its NOT the same
Clearly not, your failed inference above shows that and for some reason you still asked the question, why is that?
If you need desktop versions of word and excel, then yes, having an ipad for your email sitting next to it won't cut it.
You don't necessarily need Outlook either. This weird obsession you have with evangelising Microsoft products where somehow just because you need desktop versions of Word and Excel means you need Outlook really does have the mark of a paid shill. Not to mention your wilful ignorance around the suggestion that businesses would buy iPad apps from BestBuy.
You misunderstand, I'm not saying the patent is invalid by the current rules of the patent system, I'm sure you are correct on that. I'm saying the differences are so trivial that only an idiot would look at the Microsoft one, then at the Apple one and conclude that the Apple one is innovative and with that in mind the US patent system's bar for innovation is unbelievably low.
This piece of prior art wouldn't do that, since it doesn't show a hand-held electronic device, doesn't really show "continuous" movement as opposed to switching between several icons, and it doesn't show unlocking a device.
If you actually watch the video it does show continuous movement of a slider (2:55-2:59) and while it doesn't show "unlocking a device" that is just the succeeding action and I doubt that Android's version of "unlock" is the same as iOS's so that part would be different anyway between iOS and Android, all they would have to do is called it something other than "unlock". The only other element is "a hand-held electronic device" and if in the US that qualifies as "innovative" then there are a shitload of things that you can do on desktops that I would like to patent!
Honestly if you watch the video from 2:55 to 2:59 then look at a video of unlocking an iPhone3G are you actually going to tell me you think the iPhone version is innovation? Really?
Notably, as shown in the screen capture or TFA, two different images represent ON vs. OFF.
If you actually watched the video or looked at TFA you would see it's a slider
In the case of that video, the sliding was really because you were "dragging" a representation of a physical object on-screen - and it wasn't unlocking anything, it was just toggling a state in a switch.
It is dragging a slider from one point to another to invoke an action. Making that action "unlock" and having the representation be a generic block onscreen as opposed to something that looks like a switch is not innovative.
Businesses use Home editions all over the place if they can get away with it.
If that is indeed the case then having a Home and Student version of the iPad version of Office is no different to having an Home and Student version of the desktop version, yes the desktop version comes with Outlook but if you need that then you won't have any use for the iPad version of Office anyway since an iPad won't cut it.
If businesses that don't want Office 365 are buying multiple Home and Student licenses then it's going to be pretty obvious that it isn't being used for Home and Student purposes with records being made of it at both purchase time (where it already would be denied) and at tax time, so no, businesses would not use it.
I don't know of a car flaw that can tank an economy, cause a nuclear disaster or cause oil to spill out into the sea. But a software flaw can do all these things.
So you either use software designed and warranted for this kind of situation (Windows XP is not) which explicitly puts the responsibility on the vendor or you use open source software and take on the responsibility yourself. Either way it's your choice and if you are the party tasked with making that decision and you chose Windows XP for it then you are in the wrong.
Do you realize what you're saying? Your argument is essentially "it's not my fault I can't comply with requirement A because I fucked up requirement B" which should never be a valid excuse.
Do you realize what you're saying? Requirement A did not exist back then, in fact it doesn't even exist now. How can they be expected to plan to comply with a requirement that doesn't exist?
In a sane world, if Microsoft failed to license the code properly then that would be Microsoft's problem, not anybody else's!
They did license it properly, they just didn't license it in a way that was sufficient for this non-existent requirement.
It's because they are "playing it wrong" in the tests
No it's because they weren't using Monster Cables!
No it wouldn't work. Because business users would pay that instead of subscribing to office 365.
They wouldn't need to because they can use their 365 subscription with it, which you claim they need because they need Outlook and that this cannot just be replaced with a mobile client because an ipad isn't going to cut it.
Actually no. Because there is NO such thing as a "standalone home and student license for the ipad".
No shit, but since you're so pathetic at reading comprehension you of course missed that that is the whole point, that is exactly what I was suggesting would work well and is exactly the thing you responded to.
even a flat fee for a perpetual non-commercial Home & Student license would probably work.
There is no home and student ipad version, per se, as it is tied to your office 365 subscription.
Which is exactly why I was suggesting it, it's all in the top of this thread which you obviously didn't read.
You don't even seem to know what you're trying to argue anymore or what point you're trying to make.
Yeah that's a nice theory, people have been trying to do that for decades with nothing even close to success and not much on the horizon either. I was thinking you were suggesting something in the realm of possibility. Even if it looks like Windows without being blocked it still wouldn't be widely compatible with Windows and even then after that you have to improve upon it in an unspecified way and make those improvements significantly compelling and prevent them from being implemented in Windows.
secondly it is your drone, you are responsible for it, if you can't secure it then you should not be using it around people.
thirdly, it should not have been flown within 30 meters of another person.
fourth (ly?), as it was used in a commercial capacity it should have been certified but neither Mr Abrams nor his business appear on the list of the 92 operators certified nationally.
The code was always public knowledge.. the bug itself was still unknown until its discovery last month.
Unknown to who? Everybody? You really think responsible disclosure is unique to closed source software? It isn't.
Also, with open source, a programmer or programming team can effect the necessary fixes themselves if they are unsatisfied with the speed of the software development team, while with closed source, absolutely everyone must wait for the software's dev team to address the issue.
Yeah nobody disputed that, you're getting confused.
We can take it as a given that there ARE plenty of business use cases for Office on an iPad.
And if so they will use their Office 365 subscriptions with it, not purchase thousands of standalone Home and Student licenses in addition to that.
Businesses are going to be tied into the business priced subscriptions of office 365 because of the limitations on the home version of office 365 -- such as the very low limit on the number of users within a domain.
Hence a standalone Home and Student license for the iPad version would only be an additional unnecessary cost to a business who already has a 365 subscription and can use it for free with that, you obviously don't even know what you're trying to argue anymore.
But we both know I never said anything like that.
You can pretend all you like, but you did say exactly that, given you have a serious problem with memory and reading comprehension I will point you at where you said exactly that thing:
Beleive it or not some of us do real work, on computers, at desks. And, no, an ipad isn't going to cut it.
If an iPad isn't going to cut it then businesses will have paid for full versions of Office anyway negating the need to purchase further Home and Student licenses of iPad versions of the software and for those people who do not need the full versions of Office (those who aren't businesses for which an iPad will cut it) they can purchase that version.
Actually nevermind, it seems they don't leave themselves open to such things:
The Terms of Service also state that "YouTube reserves the right to remove Content and User Submissions without prior notice," so YouTube takes the view that it can remove a video for any reason it likes.
And given that it is their service I'm not sure where you are getting your information from.
If it hasn't, and YouTube just took it down willy-nilly, then they are liable for a plethora of legal challenges, including breach of contract and tortious interference with contractual relations.
Really? What contract? I'm not saying you're wrong I'm wondering whether Youtube would actually leave themselves open legally to such to things.
IANAL, but shouldn't this qualify as perjury?
No, because all that has happened is Youtube has blocked it. Is there even a crime here? If Sony (or anybody) asks Youtube to remove a video for whatever reason is that a crime?
I'm not saying this particular situation is any good but suggesting this should qualify as "perjury" is a bit ridiculous. Maybe if they filed a DMCA takedown notice to Blender and followed that through the courts to stop Blender from distributing Sintel then perhaps things are different but right now the movie is still available from their site, it's just not available on Youtube and the exact reason is unspecified as yet.