Not being able to delete the bloatware should be illegal. Once I buy the phone, it's MY phone. I should be able to remove or uninstall whatever I want to. Bloatware wastes memory, storage space, and battery life.
The worst phone I ever had when it came to bloatware killing the available storage was the HTV EVO 4G. I had to move EVERY POSSIBLE app to the SD card just to be able to use the damn phone. Compare that to my Galaxy S3, which has just as many apps installed, and I don't even need an SD card. It would be nice to be able to kill the bloatware on the S3, but it's not as critical an issue as it was on the EVO because of the MUCH better memory management of the S3.
I have a call blocker, and I love it. Mine stores 1,000 numbers. When a sales, political, or otherwise annoying call comes in, I just press a button on the device to block the caller's number. No more calls from that number.
Some devices also allow you to block entire area codes. That should block them for sure, even if they use 50 different numbers to call from.
They have to find a way to overcome all of the negative press somehow. By giving the product away, they hope users will fall in love with the product when they use the free version.
Microsoft needs to learn how to listen to their users. They can't hear the cries of "We love Windows 7" because they (meaning Microsoft) are too busy shouting "Here's Windows 8! You're gonna love it!" Even after people failed to love it, Microsoft is resorting to giving it away, hoping to win over the user community with bribery.
The Golden Rule is wrong. Although the concept is valid, the implementation is wrong. People are different, and not everyone wants to be treated the same way that YOU do. The Platinum Rule is better - treat each person the way THAT PERSON wants to be treated.
If I don't like something in Linux, it can usually be changed, which includes the entire desktop. I don't like Gnome, so I use XFCE. I don't like Thunar, so I use Dolphin. I don't like NetworkManager, so I use Wicd. I don't like Geany, so I use Kate. Etc., etc., etc.
That you had to list 6 GUIs for Linux tells us that none of them are very good (despite the thickly caked-on makeup)
No, those 6 GUIs are called "choices." One of the greatest things about Linux is that if you don't some something about Linux, you can change it. If you don't like an application, or even the look and feel of an entire desktop, just install a different one.
and the Linux fans who normally promote and critique them scarcely know what they even are.
Really? How the hell do you know what somebody else does or doesn't know? I know lots of Linux fans who have tried multiple desktops, and what Linux calls "Window Managers," myself included.
Every computer expert wants good interfaces--whether they be in software or hardware--and its a constant concern for us.
If that's such a concern, then Windows 8 just screwed you.
But by definition, a computer interface (in an API, machined metal, etc.) must remain consistent...
Really? Windows 3.1, Windows 95, Windows 7, and Windows 8 are consistent? Dude, you need to get a better dictionary.
Linux fans insist on good contract-like interfaces for the technically adept, even though this is the demographic that can most comfortably deal with system changes. But when it comes to user interfaces, all bets are off.
Bullshit. Put a Windows user with an open mind in front of KDE or Gnome, and they'll feel right at home. They'll have a "Start button", a system tray, toolbars, familiar window controls, and more.
Furthermore, who can say if there is any Desktop Linux that rates as a real OS?
Anybody with an open mind that actually tries it, that's who.
I am sometimes reminded by the fans that the textbook description of an operating system doesn't even include a user interface.
So what's your point? Windows servers, Linux, UNIX (and probably more) can run without a GUI. But that has nothing to do with your "argument."
Another should be that if a novice user decides to try programming lots of high-level features using tools that came with the OS, they should be able to create a single executable file or appfolder that can be easily run without gotchas... ie a predictable runtime environment.
What are the chances of this happening successfully?
Do you even know how to make a point that has merit? In what world would a "novice user" ever try "programming high-level features?"
Now, tell me why people aren't lining up to write great apps for "Desktop Linux".
They are. The "application manager" or "package manager" in most flavors of Linux contains tens of thousands of software packages. Granted, many of them of "utility libraries" that are used by multiple applications, but there are still many, many free applications to choose from. Just check out how many apps are listed at http://linuxappfinder.com./
Tell me why we (former advocate here) can't even give this sh#t away.
What rock have you been living under? I guess you've never heard of Ubuntu.
As for having "lowered" the usability bar... *chuckle* One raises the bar when something is made better.
And you think Windows is "better?" Was Windows ME better? What about Windows Vista? And is forcing a touch-screen interface onto desktops (a.k.a., Windows 8) better than Windows 7?
Perhaps you should buy a new dictionary.
Nothing will *ever* happen as long as those who disagree with the system do *nothing* about it. Sure, it is difficult for one person to change the system. But when has one person ever changed a governmental system without becoming a martyr? It takes teamwork and involvement to change governments.
Personally, I have never voted for a Democrat or Republican president in my 30 years of voting. I probably never will.
I agree. I have had ISPs that provided both McAfee's suite and Norton's suite at no additional charge. Both suites were resource hogs. After trying them for a short time, I uninstalled them and replaced them with MSE. Even on a netbook with a performance-deprived Atom processor, MSE ran smoothly and was barely noticeable by the user.
MSE protects my wife's computer, who is a similar user to what the OP describes. She doesn't visit "dirty sites" either, but she will click on ANY link. She also loves contests and sweepstakes, which generates a lot of spam. In the 2-3 years that her laptop has had MSE installed, she has never had a malware incident.
Slashdot Mirror
Since 98% of the content is CGI, why bother with a physical location?
I've never flown in shoes before. I usually do that in an airplane.
Wait, so you're trying to tell me that a study funded by Microsoft exaggerates a "flaw" in its competition? No way!
It's about damn time somebody did this.
Not being able to delete the bloatware should be illegal. Once I buy the phone, it's MY phone. I should be able to remove or uninstall whatever I want to. Bloatware wastes memory, storage space, and battery life.
The worst phone I ever had when it came to bloatware killing the available storage was the HTV EVO 4G. I had to move EVERY POSSIBLE app to the SD card just to be able to use the damn phone. Compare that to my Galaxy S3, which has just as many apps installed, and I don't even need an SD card. It would be nice to be able to kill the bloatware on the S3, but it's not as critical an issue as it was on the EVO because of the MUCH better memory management of the S3.
I have a call blocker, and I love it. Mine stores 1,000 numbers. When a sales, political, or otherwise annoying call comes in, I just press a button on the device to block the caller's number. No more calls from that number.
Some devices also allow you to block entire area codes. That should block them for sure, even if they use 50 different numbers to call from.
They have to find a way to overcome all of the negative press somehow. By giving the product away, they hope users will fall in love with the product when they use the free version. Microsoft needs to learn how to listen to their users. They can't hear the cries of "We love Windows 7" because they (meaning Microsoft) are too busy shouting "Here's Windows 8! You're gonna love it!" Even after people failed to love it, Microsoft is resorting to giving it away, hoping to win over the user community with bribery.
Windows 8.1 - if it doesn't bork your mouse, it might bork Windows 8: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2058683/new-windows-8-1-requirements-strand-some-users-on-windows-8.html
The Golden Rule is wrong. Although the concept is valid, the implementation is wrong. People are different, and not everyone wants to be treated the same way that YOU do. The Platinum Rule is better - treat each person the way THAT PERSON wants to be treated.
If the Constitution and the legal system will protect you, then why bother locking your car or your house?
She was not "doing her job" if she failed to protect her anonymous sources.
I agree that she was a victim, but she is far from blameless.
If I don't like something in Linux, it can usually be changed, which includes the entire desktop. I don't like Gnome, so I use XFCE. I don't like Thunar, so I use Dolphin. I don't like NetworkManager, so I use Wicd. I don't like Geany, so I use Kate. Etc., etc., etc.
Your slip is showing.
And so is yours.
That you had to list 6 GUIs for Linux tells us that none of them are very good (despite the thickly caked-on makeup)
No, those 6 GUIs are called "choices." One of the greatest things about Linux is that if you don't some something about Linux, you can change it. If you don't like an application, or even the look and feel of an entire desktop, just install a different one.
and the Linux fans who normally promote and critique them scarcely know what they even are.
Really? How the hell do you know what somebody else does or doesn't know? I know lots of Linux fans who have tried multiple desktops, and what Linux calls "Window Managers," myself included.
Every computer expert wants good interfaces--whether they be in software or hardware--and its a constant concern for us.
If that's such a concern, then Windows 8 just screwed you.
But by definition, a computer interface (in an API, machined metal, etc.) must remain consistent...
Really? Windows 3.1, Windows 95, Windows 7, and Windows 8 are consistent? Dude, you need to get a better dictionary.
Linux fans insist on good contract-like interfaces for the technically adept, even though this is the demographic that can most comfortably deal with system changes. But when it comes to user interfaces, all bets are off.
Bullshit. Put a Windows user with an open mind in front of KDE or Gnome, and they'll feel right at home. They'll have a "Start button", a system tray, toolbars, familiar window controls, and more.
Furthermore, who can say if there is any Desktop Linux that rates as a real OS?
Anybody with an open mind that actually tries it, that's who.
I am sometimes reminded by the fans that the textbook description of an operating system doesn't even include a user interface.
So what's your point? Windows servers, Linux, UNIX (and probably more) can run without a GUI. But that has nothing to do with your "argument."
Another should be that if a novice user decides to try programming lots of high-level features using tools that came with the OS, they should be able to create a single executable file or appfolder that can be easily run without gotchas... ie a predictable runtime environment.
What are the chances of this happening successfully?
Do you even know how to make a point that has merit? In what world would a "novice user" ever try "programming high-level features?"
Now, tell me why people aren't lining up to write great apps for "Desktop Linux".
They are. The "application manager" or "package manager" in most flavors of Linux contains tens of thousands of software packages. Granted, many of them of "utility libraries" that are used by multiple applications, but there are still many, many free applications to choose from. Just check out how many apps are listed at http://linuxappfinder.com./
Tell me why we (former advocate here) can't even give this sh#t away.
What rock have you been living under? I guess you've never heard of Ubuntu.
As for having "lowered" the usability bar... *chuckle* One raises the bar when something is made better.
And you think Windows is "better?" Was Windows ME better? What about Windows Vista? And is forcing a touch-screen interface onto desktops (a.k.a., Windows 8) better than Windows 7? Perhaps you should buy a new dictionary.
The "report" was probably funded by the manufacturers of self-driving cars, and is as worthless as most statistics.
One of my favorite quotes was popularized by Mark Twain: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
If you put that much effort into doing your job instead of avoiding it, you might actually become a decent QA analyst.
Nothing will *ever* happen as long as those who disagree with the system do *nothing* about it. Sure, it is difficult for one person to change the system. But when has one person ever changed a governmental system without becoming a martyr? It takes teamwork and involvement to change governments. Personally, I have never voted for a Democrat or Republican president in my 30 years of voting. I probably never will.
I agree. I have had ISPs that provided both McAfee's suite and Norton's suite at no additional charge. Both suites were resource hogs. After trying them for a short time, I uninstalled them and replaced them with MSE. Even on a netbook with a performance-deprived Atom processor, MSE ran smoothly and was barely noticeable by the user.
MSE protects my wife's computer, who is a similar user to what the OP describes. She doesn't visit "dirty sites" either, but she will click on ANY link. She also loves contests and sweepstakes, which generates a lot of spam. In the 2-3 years that her laptop has had MSE installed, she has never had a malware incident.