It was. But it was still the best option back then. It was the most powerful platform, with the most apps. You could have 640x480 resolution which back then was high (and wasn't surpassed by Apple until the iPhone 4).
If you have weeks long running jobs on your desktop you're doing it wrong. There's a reason servers exist in datacenters. I work in scientific computing and people running jobs on their desktop is a huge problem, they spend ridiculous amounts of money for something like a Mac Prol to run this stuff on when they should be buying actual servers instead.
I agree the Mac Pro is a bad choice (overpriced), but most servers are more expensive than a fast desktop with similar performance. Given that you need a desktop PC anyway, it often make sense to invest an extra $500 or even $1000 in it to save the costs of a server.
It was checked by default within the "Apple software updater" a software which was meant to update iTunes on PCs where it is installed. That's pushing bloatware. Even if you don't like it, it's bloatware. Just because you can remove it doesn't making any less bloatware.
They had bloatware practices at least once. Therefore it's enough for me to put them in the bloatware category of companies, along with Lenovo and Adobe.
We are starting immediately, and by the time we launch our Windows 10 products, our standard image will only include the operating system and related software, software required to make hardware work well (for example, when we include unique hardware in our devices, like a 3D camera), security software and Lenovo applications
So they are not removing McAfee's bloatware as well as their own bloatware. Tell me why do I need that "Lenovo Power control" application again? Or that "Lenovo App Shop"?
Additionally, we will offer Lenovo PC users affected by this issue a free 6-month subscription to McAfee LiveSafe service
Sounds like more bloatware to me. Who needs crapware working for only 6 months and then nagging you to purchase the full version or your computer will be at risk?
I don't get your point all all. If you buy a brand new $1000 PC every 5-6 year, you can afford a few app too, isn't it?
And why are people expected to pay more for their phone then for their PC?
Everyone from banks to supermarkets to coffee shops want an application that they give to customers for free as it brings in business.
No, you don't understand. If you don't want to pay for a Coffee shop app it's because you are a cheap bastard.
And if there is a free alternative and you use it, you are still a cheap bastard. It proves that no one should be developing for your platform (even if they didn't even intent to sell their app).
I have a different explanation. Smartphone software is not mature enough. Free alternatives didn't completely wiped out the market yet. But it will happen. It's only a matter of time. Just like no-one buys WinZIP anymore on their PC (and we do not even tolerate the infamous "I agree"), no one is going to pay for that shitty app once there will be a better free alternative.
And there is an "app store" on Windows 8. It didn't take off. The reason is that people are doing just fine with their current software.
It's hard to know what the optimal number is. Maybe it's one, maybe it's 4 as in the wireless, maybe it's two as in the current case. It's a case of more isn't always better. An alternative model could be that another company (or even the home owner) owns the last mile and that ISPs compete to sell Internet service using that last mile.
We call that a natural monopoly. It doesn't make any sense to have hundreds of competing last mile providers just like it doesn't make sense to have hundreds of different sewage systems or electricity grids.
One of the reason people developed for iOS first was the platform had users who on average had higher incomes and spent more money on apps. So if you were trying to develop an application to sell it was more likely to show a return. Also there is more piracy of apps on Android.
It depends how you get your return. This of course does not apply to free applications. And most are free.
Most non-gamers do not pay for software on their PC either. Except Windows and Office, most used software is free. Web Browser, media player, text editor, file archiver, chat/video client, PDF reader, even most developer tools (IDE, compilers, version control). I don't understand why people are expected to buy more software on their phone then on their PC.
The real fragmentation is not within Android. It's across different operating systems. Therefore if Apple wanted to reduce fragmentation they would switch to Android.
Do I want Apple to switch to Android? No. But this just show how silly the whole "fragmentation" argument is. Fragmentation is choice.
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong, it says its market share went from 3.3% in 2013 to 2.7% in 2014.
WM 5/6 was a piece of shit of a great magnitude.
It was. But it was still the best option back then. It was the most powerful platform, with the most apps. You could have 640x480 resolution which back then was high (and wasn't surpassed by Apple until the iPhone 4).
Blackberry is still hoping yesterday will get better.
I don't know, have you seen the latest blackberry offerings?
These are yesterday's phones. Old SoC, no innovation. High prices.
If you have weeks long running jobs on your desktop you're doing it wrong. There's a reason servers exist in datacenters. I work in scientific computing and people running jobs on their desktop is a huge problem, they spend ridiculous amounts of money for something like a Mac Prol to run this stuff on when they should be buying actual servers instead.
I agree the Mac Pro is a bad choice (overpriced), but most servers are more expensive than a fast desktop with similar performance. Given that you need a desktop PC anyway, it often make sense to invest an extra $500 or even $1000 in it to save the costs of a server.
It was checked by default within the "Apple software updater" a software which was meant to update iTunes on PCs where it is installed. That's pushing bloatware. Even if you don't like it, it's bloatware. Just because you can remove it doesn't making any less bloatware.
just flagpole-sitting at this point?
Yes. Also, 1080p is more pratical as it allows 1:1 clone to TV.
They had bloatware practices at least once. Therefore it's enough for me to put them in the bloatware category of companies, along with Lenovo and Adobe.
poor clients
http://appleinsider.com/articl...
Bloatware isn't only about trialware and adware. I consider Lenovo Power Controls to be bloatware. It has no ads and doesn't expire.
No, and I don't really care. I don't use their products that much. This is only an example of bloatware that I remembered. I am sure there are others.
http://appleinsider.com/articl...
I remember they included Safari by default when you tried to install iTunes on Windows.
.
There should be an option for a "bloat" free computer, with the user paying the full cost for software.
We could come up with a clever name for a product like that. Maybe something to do with fruit.
Too bad that fruit company has among its practice of bundling bloatware along its software users want to install.
We are starting immediately, and by the time we launch our Windows 10 products, our standard image will only include the operating system and related software, software required to make hardware work well (for example, when we include unique hardware in our devices, like a 3D camera), security software and Lenovo applications
So they are not removing McAfee's bloatware as well as their own bloatware. Tell me why do I need that "Lenovo Power control" application again? Or that "Lenovo App Shop"?
Additionally, we will offer Lenovo PC users affected by this issue a free 6-month subscription to McAfee LiveSafe service
Sounds like more bloatware to me. Who needs crapware working for only 6 months and then nagging you to purchase the full version or your computer will be at risk?
I don't get your point all all. If you buy a brand new $1000 PC every 5-6 year, you can afford a few app too, isn't it? And why are people expected to pay more for their phone then for their PC?
Sorry if my sarcasm wasn't obvious enough.
Is there really strong competition (as in dozen of choices) in the last mile market? Or competition in the ISP market? These are two different things.
Everyone from banks to supermarkets to coffee shops want an application that they give to customers for free as it brings in business.
No, you don't understand. If you don't want to pay for a Coffee shop app it's because you are a cheap bastard. And if there is a free alternative and you use it, you are still a cheap bastard. It proves that no one should be developing for your platform (even if they didn't even intent to sell their app).
I have a different explanation. Smartphone software is not mature enough. Free alternatives didn't completely wiped out the market yet. But it will happen. It's only a matter of time. Just like no-one buys WinZIP anymore on their PC (and we do not even tolerate the infamous "I agree"), no one is going to pay for that shitty app once there will be a better free alternative.
And there is an "app store" on Windows 8. It didn't take off. The reason is that people are doing just fine with their current software.
It's hard to know what the optimal number is. Maybe it's one, maybe it's 4 as in the wireless, maybe it's two as in the current case. It's a case of more isn't always better.
An alternative model could be that another company (or even the home owner) owns the last mile and that ISPs compete to sell Internet service using that last mile.
We call that a natural monopoly. It doesn't make any sense to have hundreds of competing last mile providers just like it doesn't make sense to have hundreds of different sewage systems or electricity grids.
One of the reason people developed for iOS first was the platform had users who on average had higher incomes and spent more money on apps. So if you were trying to develop an application to sell it was more likely to show a return. Also there is more piracy of apps on Android.
It depends how you get your return. This of course does not apply to free applications. And most are free.
Most non-gamers do not pay for software on their PC either. Except Windows and Office, most used software is free. Web Browser, media player, text editor, file archiver, chat/video client, PDF reader, even most developer tools (IDE, compilers, version control).
I don't understand why people are expected to buy more software on their phone then on their PC.
The real fragmentation is not within Android. It's across different operating systems. Therefore if Apple wanted to reduce fragmentation they would switch to Android. Do I want Apple to switch to Android? No. But this just show how silly the whole "fragmentation" argument is. Fragmentation is choice.