You're conflating compatibility and technology upgrades. In general, considering the usability, user interface, and functionality of 7, it is an upgrade from XP. Compatibility with applications written for previous OSs is a totally different item. If you really want to support an application that works with only one end-of-lifed OS until the end of time, then you're going to have issues to deal with. It's either update the application or embalm the OS environment you're bent on sticking with. Run XP in a VM on new machines with a modern host OS.
There are plenty of reasons to criticize Microsoft, but I don't think OS application compatibility is one of them. You can run DOS apps from the 1990s on Windows 7. If your business can't afford to update that XP-dependant app, you probably shouldn't have written such a specialized app to begin with or used the development environment and libraries you chose.
I think to be really secure, you have to mine the silicon yourself and etch all integrated circuit silicon wafers in your own underground lab. Using any code that is on the Internet is foolhardy. You must develop all your operating systems from scratch, in assembly language.
When you see stuff like Texas editing school books or North Carolina allowing cousins to marry, but not gay cousins, the states don't know much better than the federal government what is best for their citizens. We might as well either combine it all into one piece and pool the disfunctionality, or break the country into pieces that better resemble the regional needs of modern America.
I don't think you understand what makes a communications medium. Anything where the physics are different is technically a new medium. Two radio devices for example don't necessarily modulate the same.
But aside from that, you still haven't said what makes it "pathetic". Oh, it's too nerdy? Well you know, back in the 80's doing something like you're doing right now (participating in an internet based message board) was considered too nerdy for the typical person, and quite possibly getting the "pathetic" label.
Turns out that it is so effective that most people can't get around without doing it, so now suddenly it is trendy.
It's pathetic when taken to a certain level. If your whole life centers around Internet forums to the point where you neglect your duties or those around you, then, yes, it's pathetic, while still being trendy. Where that line is crossed is subjective and up for interpretation. We obviously disagree on this point.
We can argue the meaning of "communication medium" all day. The fact is Glass merely combines existing computing functions and interfaces with the same communications mediums available today. It's not a massive sea change, like electricity was, nor does it create some new channel or means of communications. It's an I/O device. Using your criteria, the iPhone should be a new communication medium. Few would say that it was when it was introduced.
What you're doing right now is sticking an "I'm no longer relevant, so I better bring other people down to become relevant again" label on yourself.
No, you're sticking that label on me, just like a few posts ago when you implied I was a Luddite.
It's not a new communication medium. It uses the mobile wireless network and the Internet like everything else. It's an input/output device, just like a Bluetooth earpiece. Same communications medium. Yes, perhaps people could not anticipate a need for it. The same could be said of Segways.
Listen, if you or someone thinks it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, like I said before, HAVE AT IT. Some of us draw the line at a certain point when it comes to devices and our lives. Google Glass is a nerd novelty at this point. If one feels they need this sort of enhancement to their capabilities, by all means do it. The value of it will outweigh whatever negative perceptions us Luddites have, and people equipped with them will have superior communications and navigation capabilities, and make us look like fools. Perhaps they'll have an app on Google Glass that will identify through facial expression recognition when people around them think it's pathetic, and the wearer can choose to not interact with those people when they're not interacting with little computer hanging on their glasses.
Electricity is a flawed analogy. Google Glass isn't a new communication medium, it's merely a new type of input/output device. I can send a text message just like someone using Google Glass can, pull up maps, or take pictures. Google Glass is not a quantum leap in technology or enabling something entirely new. We're not all severely handicapped like Stephen Hawking and need such an intrusive input device to function, nor do we have needs to greatly increase our connectivity with a computer/phone.
I'm not sure where the Luddites comment came from, I just think wearing such a device is pathetic. I'm not calling for everyone to smash their phones and use carrier pigeons to communicate. There are probably examples of technology that have been detrimental or haven't grown the economy. And labeling any particular group as always wrong is a bit foolish.
If you feel you need your ability to communicate and navigate augmented, by all means, have at it. If you truly have that need or it's that useful, those around you won't think it's pathetic.
The guy is paralyzed and can only move his eyes. He uses a device in front of his eyes to communicate because that's the only way he can communicate. It's not like he's surfing Google+ or masturbating to smartphone reviews with his device. If you're not paralyzed and have other ways to interface with the world, yes, it's pathetic.
Because everyone who opposes some technology is having a "knee-jerk" reaction. Perhaps some people think that having a computer screen in front of one eye all day is a bit pathetic?
Ask your progressive friends how much they depend on MSNBC for news, and ask your conservative friends how much they depend on Fox News. Also ask them what they perceive the news to opinion ratio to be on each. That's the real difference.
Windows 8.1 borking your mouse is an improvement over Windows 8, since 8 totally borked the user interface and basically took a reasonably good OS and turned it into a pile of shit so Microsoft could unload more tablets.
But I doubt this really does anything to fix the process or make up for a lack of interviewing and hiring competency. If I look at my G+ circles, about all you could determine is I like to play with radios, I have an interest in science, and I like pictures of cool places on Earth. I'm not sure what anyone could grok from that to determine anything about my IT qualifications or even if I fit culturally in a company. Even worse are my Facebook friends, many of whom are polar opposites of me lifestyle-wise and politically. LinkedIn connections are a different story as that's more a profession-oriented environment, but it still doesn't convey anything about qualifications.
Good point about equal opportunity laws. I can see lawsuits coming a mile away from this hiring method. In the US, or at least the state I'm in, you can't ask things like marital status, what kind of music they like, etc. Not that those kinds of things are relevant to the hiring process, but you just can't even ask them on the side, otherwise you open yourself up to lawsuits. I can see where someone could easily threaten a lawsuit if they weren't hired, claiming they had G+ friends who are minorities, homosexuals, motorcycle gang members, or whatever you can think of, and this information was used to eliminate them from being hired. I'm not saying they'll be successful with such lawsuits, but no company wants to deal with the time and cost that comes with these.
Google considers Google Apps a viable replacement for Microsoft Office, so I can see where they would think Googe+ circles are a replacement for real interviewing and hiring skills.
I hated the ribbon at first, but it's actually quite usable once you get accustomed to it. I still think the classic menu is more efficient from a UI standpoint, but saying the ribbon makes Office unusable is unfair.
Get used to it. Those of us who have been carrying health insurance for years have been required to pay for you dumb fucks who don't carry health insurance because you "never get sick" and now just got cancer or ran your car into a tree.
Microsoft has been sending clear messages they're combining laptops/desktops and phones, not Apple. It's called Windows 8, the most hateful modern OS UI known to man.
but mostly they missed the boat when Apple was developing the smartphone market for people who want the shiny toys
No, Apple developed a smartphone that had an actual usable touchscreen, didn't require a physical keyboard, and had a web browser that was a joy to use compared to anything BB had. I had several BBs, including the Storm, their sorry attempt at an iPhone. BB missed the boat by releasing phones that were still in the 20th century. And then there was also that shit pile known as BES that some of us had to support.
If the Catholics can acquire 10 million dollars in a largely protestant region to build a faith center, how is it that the school that serves a much large demographic can't manage to raise 3 million? The answer is simple: the church asks nicely and the school board keeps trying to take the money.
Actually, the church gets the money because they tell people they have to tithe to be good Christians, or they'll burn in hell. If the school board could convince taxpayers they'll burn in hell if they don't raise taxes, there would be all kinds of funding for the public schools.
A cheap calculator is a better educational deal if all you're concerned with is programming and performing functions in a relatively primitive or basic environment. A tablet (any tablet, not just Apple) is so much more universally usefully than a cheap calculator. Try to read a PDF on a cheap calculator, for example. If an emulator on a tablet can accomplish the same thing as a cheap calculator and do a million other much more complex tasks, the tablet has a better value. The fact that most don't use a tablet for a cheap calculator emulator isn't the fault of the tablet or the vendor, or "Apple fans".
Slashdot Mirror
You're conflating compatibility and technology upgrades. In general, considering the usability, user interface, and functionality of 7, it is an upgrade from XP. Compatibility with applications written for previous OSs is a totally different item. If you really want to support an application that works with only one end-of-lifed OS until the end of time, then you're going to have issues to deal with. It's either update the application or embalm the OS environment you're bent on sticking with. Run XP in a VM on new machines with a modern host OS.
There are plenty of reasons to criticize Microsoft, but I don't think OS application compatibility is one of them. You can run DOS apps from the 1990s on Windows 7. If your business can't afford to update that XP-dependant app, you probably shouldn't have written such a specialized app to begin with or used the development environment and libraries you chose.
I think to be really secure, you have to mine the silicon yourself and etch all integrated circuit silicon wafers in your own underground lab. Using any code that is on the Internet is foolhardy. You must develop all your operating systems from scratch, in assembly language.
When you see stuff like Texas editing school books or North Carolina allowing cousins to marry, but not gay cousins, the states don't know much better than the federal government what is best for their citizens. We might as well either combine it all into one piece and pool the disfunctionality, or break the country into pieces that better resemble the regional needs of modern America.
Someone with $23M just gave their money to some open source circle-jerk that has no chance of making any money.
If China plants flags all the US needs to do is send a robot to the moon that finds flags and shreds them. Problem solved.
I think timothy added the FOSS douchebag statement, not the submitter.
I don't think you understand what makes a communications medium. Anything where the physics are different is technically a new medium. Two radio devices for example don't necessarily modulate the same.
But aside from that, you still haven't said what makes it "pathetic". Oh, it's too nerdy? Well you know, back in the 80's doing something like you're doing right now (participating in an internet based message board) was considered too nerdy for the typical person, and quite possibly getting the "pathetic" label.
Turns out that it is so effective that most people can't get around without doing it, so now suddenly it is trendy.
It's pathetic when taken to a certain level. If your whole life centers around Internet forums to the point where you neglect your duties or those around you, then, yes, it's pathetic, while still being trendy. Where that line is crossed is subjective and up for interpretation. We obviously disagree on this point.
We can argue the meaning of "communication medium" all day. The fact is Glass merely combines existing computing functions and interfaces with the same communications mediums available today. It's not a massive sea change, like electricity was, nor does it create some new channel or means of communications. It's an I/O device. Using your criteria, the iPhone should be a new communication medium. Few would say that it was when it was introduced.
What you're doing right now is sticking an "I'm no longer relevant, so I better bring other people down to become relevant again" label on yourself.
No, you're sticking that label on me, just like a few posts ago when you implied I was a Luddite.
It's not a new communication medium. It uses the mobile wireless network and the Internet like everything else. It's an input/output device, just like a Bluetooth earpiece. Same communications medium. Yes, perhaps people could not anticipate a need for it. The same could be said of Segways.
Listen, if you or someone thinks it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, like I said before, HAVE AT IT. Some of us draw the line at a certain point when it comes to devices and our lives. Google Glass is a nerd novelty at this point. If one feels they need this sort of enhancement to their capabilities, by all means do it. The value of it will outweigh whatever negative perceptions us Luddites have, and people equipped with them will have superior communications and navigation capabilities, and make us look like fools. Perhaps they'll have an app on Google Glass that will identify through facial expression recognition when people around them think it's pathetic, and the wearer can choose to not interact with those people when they're not interacting with little computer hanging on their glasses.
Electricity is a flawed analogy. Google Glass isn't a new communication medium, it's merely a new type of input/output device. I can send a text message just like someone using Google Glass can, pull up maps, or take pictures. Google Glass is not a quantum leap in technology or enabling something entirely new. We're not all severely handicapped like Stephen Hawking and need such an intrusive input device to function, nor do we have needs to greatly increase our connectivity with a computer/phone.
I'm not sure where the Luddites comment came from, I just think wearing such a device is pathetic. I'm not calling for everyone to smash their phones and use carrier pigeons to communicate. There are probably examples of technology that have been detrimental or haven't grown the economy. And labeling any particular group as always wrong is a bit foolish.
If you feel you need your ability to communicate and navigate augmented, by all means, have at it. If you truly have that need or it's that useful, those around you won't think it's pathetic.
The guy is paralyzed and can only move his eyes. He uses a device in front of his eyes to communicate because that's the only way he can communicate. It's not like he's surfing Google+ or masturbating to smartphone reviews with his device. If you're not paralyzed and have other ways to interface with the world, yes, it's pathetic.
Because everyone who opposes some technology is having a "knee-jerk" reaction. Perhaps some people think that having a computer screen in front of one eye all day is a bit pathetic?
Ask your progressive friends how much they depend on MSNBC for news, and ask your conservative friends how much they depend on Fox News. Also ask them what they perceive the news to opinion ratio to be on each. That's the real difference.
Windows 8.1 borking your mouse is an improvement over Windows 8, since 8 totally borked the user interface and basically took a reasonably good OS and turned it into a pile of shit so Microsoft could unload more tablets.
But I doubt this really does anything to fix the process or make up for a lack of interviewing and hiring competency. If I look at my G+ circles, about all you could determine is I like to play with radios, I have an interest in science, and I like pictures of cool places on Earth. I'm not sure what anyone could grok from that to determine anything about my IT qualifications or even if I fit culturally in a company. Even worse are my Facebook friends, many of whom are polar opposites of me lifestyle-wise and politically. LinkedIn connections are a different story as that's more a profession-oriented environment, but it still doesn't convey anything about qualifications.
Good point about equal opportunity laws. I can see lawsuits coming a mile away from this hiring method. In the US, or at least the state I'm in, you can't ask things like marital status, what kind of music they like, etc. Not that those kinds of things are relevant to the hiring process, but you just can't even ask them on the side, otherwise you open yourself up to lawsuits. I can see where someone could easily threaten a lawsuit if they weren't hired, claiming they had G+ friends who are minorities, homosexuals, motorcycle gang members, or whatever you can think of, and this information was used to eliminate them from being hired. I'm not saying they'll be successful with such lawsuits, but no company wants to deal with the time and cost that comes with these.
Google considers Google Apps a viable replacement for Microsoft Office, so I can see where they would think Googe+ circles are a replacement for real interviewing and hiring skills.
I hated the ribbon at first, but it's actually quite usable once you get accustomed to it. I still think the classic menu is more efficient from a UI standpoint, but saying the ribbon makes Office unusable is unfair.
Get used to it. Those of us who have been carrying health insurance for years have been required to pay for you dumb fucks who don't carry health insurance because you "never get sick" and now just got cancer or ran your car into a tree.
Microsoft has been sending clear messages they're combining laptops/desktops and phones, not Apple. It's called Windows 8, the most hateful modern OS UI known to man.
Imagine where Blackberry might be today if they had an asshole screaming at their product management people back in 2007.
but mostly they missed the boat when Apple was developing the smartphone market for people who want the shiny toys
No, Apple developed a smartphone that had an actual usable touchscreen, didn't require a physical keyboard, and had a web browser that was a joy to use compared to anything BB had. I had several BBs, including the Storm, their sorry attempt at an iPhone. BB missed the boat by releasing phones that were still in the 20th century. And then there was also that shit pile known as BES that some of us had to support.
Good thing Adam Lanza was too young to have a concealed carry license. That totally stopped him from shooting up the school in Newtown.
Criminals follow the law! High five, buddy....!!!
Yes, so let's eliminate all laws because criminals don't follow the law anyway. Makes sense.
If the Catholics can acquire 10 million dollars in a largely protestant region to build a faith center, how is it that the school that serves a much large demographic can't manage to raise 3 million? The answer is simple: the church asks nicely and the school board keeps trying to take the money.
Actually, the church gets the money because they tell people they have to tithe to be good Christians, or they'll burn in hell. If the school board could convince taxpayers they'll burn in hell if they don't raise taxes, there would be all kinds of funding for the public schools.
A cheap calculator is a better educational deal if all you're concerned with is programming and performing functions in a relatively primitive or basic environment. A tablet (any tablet, not just Apple) is so much more universally usefully than a cheap calculator. Try to read a PDF on a cheap calculator, for example. If an emulator on a tablet can accomplish the same thing as a cheap calculator and do a million other much more complex tasks, the tablet has a better value. The fact that most don't use a tablet for a cheap calculator emulator isn't the fault of the tablet or the vendor, or "Apple fans".