Hotmail is gold compared to exchange's webmail frontend
Eh? Outlook Web Access (the Exchange webmail front end) was pretty pioneering. It basically kicked off the whole AJAX craze. And most people actually seem to like it.
Informally, however, Microsoft reps have told me that the next version of OWA will probably look very much like Outlook.com.
Didn't they say in the blog post that Outlook was still aimed at the business user, while Outlook.com is for the individual/consumer?
If they didn't say it explicitly, that seems to be the idea, more or less. But what does that really mean? I am an individual, and I use email a certain way. Microsoft's ideas about "how people use email" just don't seem to jibe with mine.
I don't use email to organize picnics with my friends. I don't use email to send around pictures of my dog. I don't use email to find out what bar my friends are going to this weekend. I don't use email to trade around funny videos. I use Facebook for all of that. Why? I guess the short answer is that all of my friends switched to social networking for all of that stuff years ago, and if I tried doing any of it over email I'd get laughed at.
Those short emails that say "Hey how's it going, wanna meet up later?" are long gone from my life, too. That's what text messaging is for.
I think Microsoft realizes all of this deep down, and that's why it's worked so hard to embed Facebook features into its webmail. But think about it: That doesn't make any sense. I don't need Facebook features in my webmail (insert "Yo Dawg" picture of Xzibit here), because I already have a tab open with Facebook in it.
How hard is it to flip over to Facebook to do Facebook Chat with one of your Facebook contacts? How could it possibly be any easier or simpler to do it from Outlook.com, when Microsoft relies on Facebook's own APIs to do the integration?
I don't need a webmail client to do the Facebook stuff I already do in the next tab over. I just need email for doing the "serious" stuff of my life, like bills, notices from my bank, updates from the insurance company, sending spreadsheets to my accountant, etc. Does that make me a "business" user? Should I set up an Exchange server and use Outlook for that?
And maybe you're thinking, "Seriously? You don't have any friends who email you with personal stuff?" And it's true, I do -- like my aging mother, for instance. But again, if I have three friends on email and a hundred on social networks, why does it make sense to make the webmail client into my dominant UI? It seems like what I really need is for Facebook to turn its inbox into a bona fide mail client that can send email to people that aren't on Facebook, and then I'd have all the bases covered.
That's the kind of stuff I'm talking about when I say Microsoft's ideas don't seem to jibe with how I use email. It's adding stuff that I already do elsewhere and telling me that the stuff I do right now with my email client isn't what Outlook.com is for.
If Microsoft really wants Outlook.com to be the service that powers "the next million email accounts," and they say it's a service for individuals, then you'd think they'd want to cater it to how real people use email. Instead, it seems like they've built it around some statistical model of who the most dollar-valuable email "consumer" would be.
Before the Microsoft Account there was Windows Live ID, and before that there was Passport and Wallet.
True. I'm not really sure there's much of a technical difference between Microsoft Account and Windows Live ID. But Microsoft really does seem to be expanding the role of the Microsoft Account considerably, leading up to the launch of Windows 8.
Picture a future in which your mom calls you up in a panic because all her vacation photos have disappeared. You calm her down, have her sit down at the computer, and you say, "OK, first off, make sure you're logged in to Microsoft..."
One thing worth noting about this whole Outlook.com land grab: The accounts you are signing up for are not email accounts, they are "Microsoft accounts." They are keyed to Microsoft's whole package of cloudy services, so when you login to Outlook.com, you're also logging into SkyDrive, Messenger, and whatever else gets provisioned for you. If it worries you how Google seems to follow you all around the web once you're logged in, well, this is the start of Microsoft doing it.
Hotmail's spam filtering is without a doubt the worst on the web. Obvious spam ends up in my Inbox, and legitimate mail ends up in the spam.
I'm not sure this is much better. I've had access to a preview version of Outlook.com for a couple of weeks now, and I've been forwarding it mail from an account that gets lots of press releases. A few of the really obvious spam emails end up in the junk folder automatically, but so do some of the "legitimate" press releases -- and that's assuming you wouldn't normally classify a press release as spam. 90 percent of the mail I sent it seemed to sail right through.
What's more, Outlook.com tries to detect context for each of the mails you receive, to give you different types of information linked to the message. One thing it tries to do is differentiate between mail from individuals that's intended specifically for you and mail from mailing lists. Needless to say, next to nothing I sent it wasn't from a mailing list, but it flagged a few messages as being from individuals anyway.
What it does when it thinks you're seeing a message from one of your friends is it tries to display other information about that person in the box where the ads would go, such as the latest post from their Twitter or Facebook feed. It was pretty amusing to see an email from someone that began, "Dear {{YourName Here}}" and off to the right, Outlook.com was asking me to Friend the sender on Facebook.
Needless to say, my "usage" of the product so far has been pretty atypical, and maybe by running an email account on it where I don't actually talk to any of my friends and 90 percent of the incoming mail is totally unsolicited breaks the expected usage pattern.
But still, their vision of how email works doesn't really jibe with mine. Say one of my business contacts sends me an email about a project we're working on. Is this the time to follow their Twitter feed? Probably not. All of that functionality just seems like feature creep, and I suspect it has something to do with marketing partnerships.
I'm with you Frank. I don't see where Jackson has earned a reputation as diluting something merely to make more money, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
He earned it just now -- by promising to take a 300+ page children's book and make a film adaptation that's as long as his adaptation of a 1,200+ page novel.
I would say that if Peter Jackson had exhibited a history of trying to wring cash out of a franchise with new, but inferior material and unnecessary revisions (*cough*Lucas*cough*), and to my knowledge, that hasn't happened, has it?
Yeah he also made his money when a lot of people didn't have computers let alone net access so piracy was less of a problem and even when something was pirated it wasn't automatically available to the whole world. I suspect that makes a difference.
Strange that you would equate people not having computers with there being less piracy. People who don't have computers don't buy software, either, so it hardly seems relevant.
But I can assure you, back in the 8-bit days we didn't have the Internet and a lot of folks I knew didn't have modems, either, but there was plenty of game piracy.
They are simply interfacing with you to build consensus and team cohesion, working toward common goals and meaningful milestones. This requires sharing broad vision and shared sacrifices. By facilitating your gaining context, they hope guide you to greater synergy.
Is it really necessary to say "Mr.Smith, you have a serious condition called 'pneumothorax'", followed by an explanation when you could simply say "Mr.Smith, your lung has collapsed."? If there already is a simple descriptive term that adequately expresses what you wish to say, stop inventing argot just so you can look smart.
Actually, I'm pretty sure they give diseases specific names so that they can match the cure to the disease. You might not really need to know that you have pneumothorax, but your doctors, nurses, and pharmacists do.
Saying "your lung collapsed" is not sufficient. That's like diagnosing you with "an infection." It might be all you care to know, but that much knowledge isn't enough to get you cured.
P.S. Pneumothorax doesn't mean you have a collapsed lung.
I often see pseudo-erudite writing for popular audiences using "technical" terms gratuitously, though, sometimes in places where a less-jargony term would have actually been superior. Also, failing to explain the jargon terms that are used.
Right. I think some of the confusion here arises from the fact that, for a guy who's complaining about journalists not using the right terms for things, he seems to have chosen his terms poorly.
My dictionary defines jargon as, "The specialized language of a trade, profession, or similar group, especially when viewed as difficult to understand by outsiders." As a secondary definition it has, "Nonsensical or incoherent language."
From those definitions, the real meaning of the term is clear. Words aren't jargon just because they're technical terms. Words become jargon when they start to obscure the meaning of the text, intentionally or otherwise.
Just the other day I had someone email me to explain to me the "logistics" of a conference session I was to attend. By "logistics," however, he really meant directions -- he was literally telling me to take the elevator to the fourth floor, go past the concierge desk, and it would be the third room on the left. That's pure jargon -- it's not even a correct usage of the word -- and in my experience, business communication is rife with it. Business people who are trying to sound important will never use a simple word when a three-syllable one will do.
As a journalist who covers companies, I have to wade through that kind of crap every day, and it's my job to rescue readers from it.
Technical terms, on the other hand, usually have their place, and because I write about technical topics for professionals, I use a lot of them. Knowing when and where their place is, however, also part of the job.
Educating the reader is one thing. Speaking gibberish that leaves the reader confused, or worse (and more common) gives them a false sense of knowledge are entirely different.
...which would be exactly what I would call jargon, and explains succinctly why it is to be avoided.
Technical terms are not necessarily jargon, but they become so when the text starts to look like it was written in some private argot.
I cannot imagine the chaos that skins on top of Office would have created.
Since Office 2010 the ribbon has been fully editable. You can even save your ribbon from one machine and load it on another. One Excel "power user" could really cock it up for anyone else who shares the same computer.
I presume you're talking about central London, Minnesota?
There are places in the USA where you can't even walk from Point A to Point B without running out of sidewalk (I'm looking at you, Houston, TX). There are only a few metropolitan areas in the USA where people have the luxury of biking to work. America remains very much a car culture.
So while we'll probably see an uptick as XP reaches EOL the simple fact is the PC is NOT GOING AWAY but instead has become a mature commodity item, simple as that.
I don't think it's quite as simple as that. It seems to me that the OEMs, by and large, have not been doing a very good job of marketing PCs to people. It's very analogous to the situation with American cars in the 1970s. The whole muscle-car thing had petered out. There was the gas crisis. People might have still coveted the Mustang 5.0 (crazy AlienWare gaming rig), but most of them started realizing (rightly) that a Toyota Corolla (netbook) made a lot more sense. Then along comes Honda, and Datsun, and so on, all of them making compact, fuel-efficient cars for commuting. Meanwhile, the U.S. automakers kept charging on ahead, building these big Buicks and Chrysler LeBarons and all this stuff, as if nobody was even paying attention to the market.
So look at the PC market today. Walk into a Best Buy. All those Compaqs, Dells, and HPs all look like junk. They're decked out in garish sparkly plastics, with giant screens that all have the same (relatively low) resolution. There are stickers all over them telling you about features you don't give a shit about. They all run the same version of Windows, just with more or less degree of crapware installed on them.
Is it any wonder that you see so many MacBooks at developer conferences? People who know computers know all that stuff is junk.
But I'm starting to see some changes, and some of it is coming from the Asian manufacturers, just like with cars. Samsung makes some pretty nice gear. And although this "ultrabook" thing does seem like hype, at least it pushes the PC makers into thinking a little creatively and delivering a higher quality product.
Everybody I know who wants a computer has one. How can the market be shrinking? It's not desire for computers that's diminishing; people just aren't replacing their computers as often. It's as you say -- people see them as a commodity product. People get a new smartphone every two years because every new phone has been visibly, substantially better than their old one. Why go out and buy a new computer when there isn't anything particularly compelling about a new computer, and it can't really do anything your old computer couldn't do?
I blame the manufacturers for that lack of vision, though. Competing with Apple should be a no-brainer. Just the fact that your high-end laptop runs Windows out of the box and Apple's doesn't should give you a head start. But it's like nobody is even trying... yet. If we do start seeing PCs to compete with Apple's product, though, I kinda doubt they will come from Dell or HP.
But if I'm just going to use my tablet as a desktop PC, with a keyboard and a big monitor, then why do they have to put that giant touchscreen on the tablet? Why not take it off and save some money? They could take some of the cost savings and give the customer some added value... maybe an optical drive, or bundle a keyboard and mouse in the box with the CPU, so you don't have to buy your own. Damn, I'm a genius... I'm going to go start a computer company. Dell, watch out!
Despite the 'openness' of Android, we still have to root the device that we own to make use of it, or even to delete the trash that carriers install on these devices
You could buy a Nexus device (current legal troubles notwithstanding). Those come unlocked, with the latest Android OS and a "pure Google" experience that doesn't have any of the carrier trash you're talking about.
You can also buy unlocked/plain-vanilla phones online that don't come with carrier-installed apps. They cost more than buying a subsidized phone from a carrier, but you can't have everything.
That said, however, I've never found a reason to root my phone. It's easy enough to ignore preinstalled apps that you never use.
Slashdot Mirror
Hotmail is gold compared to exchange's webmail frontend
Eh? Outlook Web Access (the Exchange webmail front end) was pretty pioneering. It basically kicked off the whole AJAX craze. And most people actually seem to like it.
Informally, however, Microsoft reps have told me that the next version of OWA will probably look very much like Outlook.com.
Didn't they say in the blog post that Outlook was still aimed at the business user, while Outlook.com is for the individual/consumer?
If they didn't say it explicitly, that seems to be the idea, more or less. But what does that really mean? I am an individual, and I use email a certain way. Microsoft's ideas about "how people use email" just don't seem to jibe with mine.
I don't use email to organize picnics with my friends. I don't use email to send around pictures of my dog. I don't use email to find out what bar my friends are going to this weekend. I don't use email to trade around funny videos. I use Facebook for all of that. Why? I guess the short answer is that all of my friends switched to social networking for all of that stuff years ago, and if I tried doing any of it over email I'd get laughed at.
Those short emails that say "Hey how's it going, wanna meet up later?" are long gone from my life, too. That's what text messaging is for.
I think Microsoft realizes all of this deep down, and that's why it's worked so hard to embed Facebook features into its webmail. But think about it: That doesn't make any sense. I don't need Facebook features in my webmail (insert "Yo Dawg" picture of Xzibit here), because I already have a tab open with Facebook in it.
How hard is it to flip over to Facebook to do Facebook Chat with one of your Facebook contacts? How could it possibly be any easier or simpler to do it from Outlook.com, when Microsoft relies on Facebook's own APIs to do the integration?
I don't need a webmail client to do the Facebook stuff I already do in the next tab over. I just need email for doing the "serious" stuff of my life, like bills, notices from my bank, updates from the insurance company, sending spreadsheets to my accountant, etc. Does that make me a "business" user? Should I set up an Exchange server and use Outlook for that?
And maybe you're thinking, "Seriously? You don't have any friends who email you with personal stuff?" And it's true, I do -- like my aging mother, for instance. But again, if I have three friends on email and a hundred on social networks, why does it make sense to make the webmail client into my dominant UI? It seems like what I really need is for Facebook to turn its inbox into a bona fide mail client that can send email to people that aren't on Facebook, and then I'd have all the bases covered.
That's the kind of stuff I'm talking about when I say Microsoft's ideas don't seem to jibe with how I use email. It's adding stuff that I already do elsewhere and telling me that the stuff I do right now with my email client isn't what Outlook.com is for.
If Microsoft really wants Outlook.com to be the service that powers "the next million email accounts," and they say it's a service for individuals, then you'd think they'd want to cater it to how real people use email. Instead, it seems like they've built it around some statistical model of who the most dollar-valuable email "consumer" would be.
Before the Microsoft Account there was Windows Live ID, and before that there was Passport and Wallet.
True. I'm not really sure there's much of a technical difference between Microsoft Account and Windows Live ID. But Microsoft really does seem to be expanding the role of the Microsoft Account considerably, leading up to the launch of Windows 8.
Picture a future in which your mom calls you up in a panic because all her vacation photos have disappeared. You calm her down, have her sit down at the computer, and you say, "OK, first off, make sure you're logged in to Microsoft..."
One thing worth noting about this whole Outlook.com land grab: The accounts you are signing up for are not email accounts, they are "Microsoft accounts." They are keyed to Microsoft's whole package of cloudy services, so when you login to Outlook.com, you're also logging into SkyDrive, Messenger, and whatever else gets provisioned for you. If it worries you how Google seems to follow you all around the web once you're logged in, well, this is the start of Microsoft doing it.
Hotmail's spam filtering is without a doubt the worst on the web. Obvious spam ends up in my Inbox, and legitimate mail ends up in the spam.
I'm not sure this is much better. I've had access to a preview version of Outlook.com for a couple of weeks now, and I've been forwarding it mail from an account that gets lots of press releases. A few of the really obvious spam emails end up in the junk folder automatically, but so do some of the "legitimate" press releases -- and that's assuming you wouldn't normally classify a press release as spam. 90 percent of the mail I sent it seemed to sail right through.
What's more, Outlook.com tries to detect context for each of the mails you receive, to give you different types of information linked to the message. One thing it tries to do is differentiate between mail from individuals that's intended specifically for you and mail from mailing lists. Needless to say, next to nothing I sent it wasn't from a mailing list, but it flagged a few messages as being from individuals anyway.
What it does when it thinks you're seeing a message from one of your friends is it tries to display other information about that person in the box where the ads would go, such as the latest post from their Twitter or Facebook feed. It was pretty amusing to see an email from someone that began, "Dear {{YourName Here}}" and off to the right, Outlook.com was asking me to Friend the sender on Facebook.
Needless to say, my "usage" of the product so far has been pretty atypical, and maybe by running an email account on it where I don't actually talk to any of my friends and 90 percent of the incoming mail is totally unsolicited breaks the expected usage pattern.
But still, their vision of how email works doesn't really jibe with mine. Say one of my business contacts sends me an email about a project we're working on. Is this the time to follow their Twitter feed? Probably not. All of that functionality just seems like feature creep, and I suspect it has something to do with marketing partnerships.
I'm with you Frank. I don't see where Jackson has earned a reputation as diluting something merely to make more money, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
He earned it just now -- by promising to take a 300+ page children's book and make a film adaptation that's as long as his adaptation of a 1,200+ page novel.
I would say that if Peter Jackson had exhibited a history of trying to wring cash out of a franchise with new, but inferior material and unnecessary revisions (*cough*Lucas*cough*), and to my knowledge, that hasn't happened, has it?
King Kong, anyone?
But Jackson doesn't have the rights to any of the material in The Book of Lost Tales, nor The Silmarillion.
. . .for the 9 feature-length part film adaptation of the epic tale of Peter Jackson's Tolkien film projects.
They released that already. The Extended DVDs came with two discs each worth of movie plus two discs each worth of extras.
Well, perhaps. I see it as different parts of the same struggle.
Or it's like poetry, you know, so they rhyme. Every stanza kinda rhymes with the last one.
Yeah he also made his money when a lot of people didn't have computers let alone net access so piracy was less of a problem and even when something was pirated it wasn't automatically available to the whole world. I suspect that makes a difference.
Strange that you would equate people not having computers with there being less piracy. People who don't have computers don't buy software, either, so it hardly seems relevant.
But I can assure you, back in the 8-bit days we didn't have the Internet and a lot of folks I knew didn't have modems, either, but there was plenty of game piracy.
They are simply interfacing with you to build consensus and team cohesion, working toward common goals and meaningful milestones. This requires sharing broad vision and shared sacrifices. By facilitating your gaining context, they hope guide you to greater synergy.
Haha! You are joking with the wrong guy!
Is it really necessary to say "Mr.Smith, you have a serious condition called 'pneumothorax'", followed by an explanation when you could simply say "Mr.Smith, your lung has collapsed."? If there already is a simple descriptive term that adequately expresses what you wish to say, stop inventing argot just so you can look smart.
Actually, I'm pretty sure they give diseases specific names so that they can match the cure to the disease. You might not really need to know that you have pneumothorax, but your doctors, nurses, and pharmacists do.
Saying "your lung collapsed" is not sufficient. That's like diagnosing you with "an infection." It might be all you care to know, but that much knowledge isn't enough to get you cured.
P.S. Pneumothorax doesn't mean you have a collapsed lung.
I often see pseudo-erudite writing for popular audiences using "technical" terms gratuitously, though, sometimes in places where a less-jargony term would have actually been superior. Also, failing to explain the jargon terms that are used.
Right. I think some of the confusion here arises from the fact that, for a guy who's complaining about journalists not using the right terms for things, he seems to have chosen his terms poorly.
My dictionary defines jargon as, "The specialized language of a trade, profession, or similar group, especially when viewed as difficult to understand by outsiders." As a secondary definition it has, "Nonsensical or incoherent language."
From those definitions, the real meaning of the term is clear. Words aren't jargon just because they're technical terms. Words become jargon when they start to obscure the meaning of the text, intentionally or otherwise.
Just the other day I had someone email me to explain to me the "logistics" of a conference session I was to attend. By "logistics," however, he really meant directions -- he was literally telling me to take the elevator to the fourth floor, go past the concierge desk, and it would be the third room on the left. That's pure jargon -- it's not even a correct usage of the word -- and in my experience, business communication is rife with it. Business people who are trying to sound important will never use a simple word when a three-syllable one will do.
As a journalist who covers companies, I have to wade through that kind of crap every day, and it's my job to rescue readers from it.
Technical terms, on the other hand, usually have their place, and because I write about technical topics for professionals, I use a lot of them. Knowing when and where their place is, however, also part of the job.
Educating the reader is one thing. Speaking gibberish that leaves the reader confused, or worse (and more common) gives them a false sense of knowledge are entirely different.
...which would be exactly what I would call jargon, and explains succinctly why it is to be avoided.
Technical terms are not necessarily jargon, but they become so when the text starts to look like it was written in some private argot.
Even more specifically, the free advertising he's getting from this bullshit non-news story is worth ten times his entire marketing budget this year.
I cannot imagine the chaos that skins on top of Office would have created.
Since Office 2010 the ribbon has been fully editable. You can even save your ribbon from one machine and load it on another. One Excel "power user" could really cock it up for anyone else who shares the same computer.
A lot of papers offer Sunday-only subscriptions. Sunday is a big moneymaker, what with all the coupons, night life ads, etc.
Why would they ever do that? This is more profitable.
I kind of agree with you, but it's worth mentioning that Comic-Con is run by a nonprofit organization.
Yeah, well. Try a pony instead. ;-)
For another, what unlocked Android pocket tablet with Google Play Store is priced anywhere near an iPod touch?
The Nexus 7 is $200.
doesn't look that way in Central London
I presume you're talking about central London, Minnesota?
There are places in the USA where you can't even walk from Point A to Point B without running out of sidewalk (I'm looking at you, Houston, TX). There are only a few metropolitan areas in the USA where people have the luxury of biking to work. America remains very much a car culture.
So while we'll probably see an uptick as XP reaches EOL the simple fact is the PC is NOT GOING AWAY but instead has become a mature commodity item, simple as that.
I don't think it's quite as simple as that. It seems to me that the OEMs, by and large, have not been doing a very good job of marketing PCs to people. It's very analogous to the situation with American cars in the 1970s. The whole muscle-car thing had petered out. There was the gas crisis. People might have still coveted the Mustang 5.0 (crazy AlienWare gaming rig), but most of them started realizing (rightly) that a Toyota Corolla (netbook) made a lot more sense. Then along comes Honda, and Datsun, and so on, all of them making compact, fuel-efficient cars for commuting. Meanwhile, the U.S. automakers kept charging on ahead, building these big Buicks and Chrysler LeBarons and all this stuff, as if nobody was even paying attention to the market.
So look at the PC market today. Walk into a Best Buy. All those Compaqs, Dells, and HPs all look like junk. They're decked out in garish sparkly plastics, with giant screens that all have the same (relatively low) resolution. There are stickers all over them telling you about features you don't give a shit about. They all run the same version of Windows, just with more or less degree of crapware installed on them.
Is it any wonder that you see so many MacBooks at developer conferences? People who know computers know all that stuff is junk.
But I'm starting to see some changes, and some of it is coming from the Asian manufacturers, just like with cars. Samsung makes some pretty nice gear. And although this "ultrabook" thing does seem like hype, at least it pushes the PC makers into thinking a little creatively and delivering a higher quality product.
Everybody I know who wants a computer has one. How can the market be shrinking? It's not desire for computers that's diminishing; people just aren't replacing their computers as often. It's as you say -- people see them as a commodity product. People get a new smartphone every two years because every new phone has been visibly, substantially better than their old one. Why go out and buy a new computer when there isn't anything particularly compelling about a new computer, and it can't really do anything your old computer couldn't do?
I blame the manufacturers for that lack of vision, though. Competing with Apple should be a no-brainer. Just the fact that your high-end laptop runs Windows out of the box and Apple's doesn't should give you a head start. But it's like nobody is even trying... yet. If we do start seeing PCs to compete with Apple's product, though, I kinda doubt they will come from Dell or HP.
But if I'm just going to use my tablet as a desktop PC, with a keyboard and a big monitor, then why do they have to put that giant touchscreen on the tablet? Why not take it off and save some money? They could take some of the cost savings and give the customer some added value... maybe an optical drive, or bundle a keyboard and mouse in the box with the CPU, so you don't have to buy your own. Damn, I'm a genius ... I'm going to go start a computer company. Dell, watch out!
Despite the 'openness' of Android, we still have to root the device that we own to make use of it, or even to delete the trash that carriers install on these devices
You could buy a Nexus device (current legal troubles notwithstanding). Those come unlocked, with the latest Android OS and a "pure Google" experience that doesn't have any of the carrier trash you're talking about.
You can also buy unlocked/plain-vanilla phones online that don't come with carrier-installed apps. They cost more than buying a subsidized phone from a carrier, but you can't have everything.
That said, however, I've never found a reason to root my phone. It's easy enough to ignore preinstalled apps that you never use.