Come on. Does anyone actually think the Gigabeat is only going to be $8-$50 (depending on whom you believe) cheaper for less hardware? lets get real. That would be the most assnine marketing mistake in the world and most companies don't get to Toshiba's size with those kind of mistakes. Granted, there's always a first... But until somebody can quote me a real "I have it in stock right now" price, PLEASE give it a rest. I know everybody here has name brand loyalties, but jeez...
LOL! Bill hasn't changed. Really. Fortune may think this is something new, but it's the same dang thing he's been doing since Windows first saw the light of day; Absorbing everybody's 3rd party utilities as native OS support. Winzip? Winamp? Defrag? the list goes on. The comment "it will handle so many functions of computing that Oracle, Sun, AOL Time Warner, and Sony may find themselves with less to do." alone will tell you that. He's looking to make Windows the TV that cooks, cleans and serves breakfast in bed. Sure, they may need to redesign it from the ground up similar to what Jobs did with OS X and Apple, but the news itself isn't too big a surprise, expecially given his history. A word to Linux developers: I see their door of opportunity closing once more. It's still open, but if this hits and history is any indication, open source might have to wait a bit longer before it's next chance to gain a serious foothold on the consumer market. In reality (and I mean this with the best possible intentions), Linux should already be heading where gates is going.
The entire scope of this thread discusses how to make computers and their interfaces easier to use. How is this off-topic?
And the man has a point... I'm imagining Tom Cruise in Minority Report shoving around pages of data and punching at icons floating in ether... Is that really where all this human computing is taking us? Is that where we want to go? The whole visual interface idea is nice, but the physical interaction part can definitely use a little tuning. Tablet PCs, anyone? I like holographic projection as much as the next guy, but to manipulate a widescreen's worth of data with that much movement? Sheesh...
And to the moderator who moderated this offtopic, your ignorance is only exceeded by your stupidity, which is why I meta-moderate ALL trolls and flamebaits as unfair. You want Karma? Take some of mine. After all, I have a life.
I can't help but to skim over the post that say GUI is nothing but filler, command lines are where it's at, human centered will be less powerful, etc, etc... But they all miss a minor point-- Human centered computers are supposed to be easier to use, thereby making them more accessible to a wider range of people. You can argue from the elitist techno nerd side of the line all you want, but the majority of the world is still made up of people who don't want to take the time to reprogram their VCR's time, let alone screw with an unpolished interface. And unlike catering to the techno geek, building easier to use computers makes more money. You doubt it? Flip on the TV and see who Gateway, Compaq and Dell's commercials are catering to. "Dude, you're getting a Dell!" sure as hell isn't aimed at you or I. A talking cow? Really. Joe AOL doesn't care about open source. He doesn't really even give a damn about microsoft's monopoly (other than the "MS is evil" opinion everybody has). Mozilla? Star Office? Who gives a crap!? Joe doesn't. He'll use what is easy to reach and use, unless there is something overwelmingly excellent in the product. MS makes their stuff at very least easy to reach by integrating everything into their OS. Ease of use is an opinion, so I won't go into that, other than to say there isn't a mass defection from MS yet.
In the grand scheme of things, Joe makes company 'X' money. You DON'T. Thus the push to make computers easier for him to use.
#1 Busted component on a Palm busted by a Student? Probably the LCD, not covered by most PDA manufacturers... Even if there was some viable warrenty, the school would be up shit creek for that reason alone.
I have to disagree. I can't speak to the total number of lives lost, but no shit the Brits lost a higher percentage-- Their country is small and Hitler was quite literally on their doorstep. The same with Russia. Since they didn't have the technology to stand toe to toe with the German advance, they bought time the only way they could-- With lives. Lots of them. The Russians didn't nessisarily kick the German's ass, it was the winter and Germany's commitment on so many fronts that did them in.
Back to the point-- Playing the percentage game doesn't mean jack here. US intervention was pivitol in the survival of Europe. Britain could have only held out for so long. Yes, the RAF kicked ass, but eventially Hitler would have OK'd the ground invasion and that would have been all she wrote. No other country could apply the pressure the US did on nearly every front. Hitler didn't get a chance to begin that invasion because we were pressing him hard everywhere and once we took up the slack in the murderously suicidal daylight bombing raids (there was a reason why the Brits were limiting theirs to the night, which did nothing for their effectiveness), Germany was finally getting stomped into a corner.
To last as long as they did against the German onslaught was feat unto itself as everybody else fell around them. Churchill's Brit's deserve every ounce of respect you can throw at them. The same with the people of Russia. The only real advantage they had on the Germans was quite literally the number of bodies they could throw into the grinder. But.... The US was the factor that saved Europe. Yeah, they may have all taken higher casualty percentages, but that's just a numbers game since larger countries generally have more people per percentage than smaller ones (Russia, the exception). Everybody took a hellish amount of casulties, but make no mistake, the US saved Europe, like it or not.
They may try to simply do the same thing Trellian does to AOL IM-- Patch it everytime MS does soemthing to screw with access. A patch for everything and everything in a patch.
Yeah, can't deny their user base. Kinda like playing with a black hole, I think... "Let's see how close we can get to that sucking money pit before-- WhooPs!" *ShluurP!*
"Why would cutting a deal with AOL cause Sun to lose money?"
Actually, I was suggesting that Sun might want to do business with somebody more finacially stable than AOL. $45b is a damn big hole that a company can't simply overlook when looking for business partners.
You might want to reconsider that proposed alliance of yours since AOL has been hemorrhaging cash lately-- To the tune of $45,000,000,000 dollars. Just a thought.
It's probably the most evil, legal thing Microsoft can do is turn 3rd party products into native support. It's their ace in the hole, making their clone product easier to get to than the competitions. Winamp is probably the most noteworthy exception I can think of at the moment cuz it beats the pants off WMP time and time again...
But the same could be said about Gateway or Compaq, though their plans aren't quite as generous. I've never had a problem replacing an in warrenty part or machine. Keep that extended warrenty action going and everybody is a happy camper, regardless of platform. Again, Apple does look at their products in the longer term though.
Of course, you're right about Mac licensing vs. Microsoft licensing, but then, Mac OS is your only choice.
Heh... There's nobody to alarm because nobody cares. Apple doesn't care. Their fans don't care because they're fanatically loyal and nobody on the other side of the fence cares because they're happy with the flexibilty a PC offers. The only person I appear to be alarming is you.
Honestly though, I really have mixed feelings about the Mac. On one hand they represent a tremendous creative force. On the other hand it's a proprietary dictatorship, which in my shrilly, alarmist opinion is The Bad Thing (TM). There IS a reason why the PC market has a huge share of the pie, regardless of how loyal or fanatical Apple users may be. Why ya suppose that is? Whatever the reason, maybe Apple could use a healthy dose of it. You tell me. Actually, don't. I'll probably just get more of the irrational fanboy crap.
But I have to agree with this guy. I work on PC's and Apples for a living and Apple uses quite a bit of hardware that is industry standard. Hard drives? RAM? USB? If you look at a G3 for example, about the only things that aren't compatible is the motherboard itself (imbedded chip). I won't go into the analog board or CRT here. I could actually stand a G4 because they are SO much easier to work on.
What I can't stand is the disparity in software and support or price for parts. I know from experience manufactures gouge you when buying from them, but Apple positively rapes you. Need an Apple fixed? Good luck. The place I work at is one of the few in the area. Software? Games? You must be joking. Yes, they got a decent amount of the popular stuff and it's slowly getting better, but the parent is also right-- Their "we could give a shit" attitude is gonna kill em eventially and it'll continue as long as Jobs is at the helm (or is "Chief Politcal Officer")
You heathen! Slimeball! Unwashed blasphemer!! how dare you suggest Apple products are somehow lower than it's true place above and beyond all other hardware!? I'm not a fan boy... But a priest! Yes! The iPod is a creation unto itseld with NO puny ancestrial... Um... Ah...
Well, it was fun while I could keep a strait face.
I'll wait until I see an actual store price... Have one handy? I seriously doubt that's the street price, but if you're right, then they screwed up bad. And yes, I know the iPod is just now getting competent Windows support. Indeed, the price difference is going to be a hella lot more than $3 before I buy one.
You can sure get it pretty, but it will undoubtably cost you an arm leg compared to a similar performing product... And Windows support strait outta the box ta boot. I might just buy one now...
Annyonce free is nice, but you need serious visibility to even put begin to think of assaulting IE domance of the Galaxy's browser of choice. The common person, not just your resident open sourcer or/.er actually needs to know it exists. You know, Joe AOL? Speaking of AOL, it's how they became one ot the leading ISP's around-- A massive CD push creating tons of visibility... "What? Another disk!? well, it does have 1,000,000,000 hours on it... Aw, sure. What the hell." AOL wasn't nessisarily better, they were just more visible.
The second thing you'll need is an interface a two year old can use. Perhapse that's a bit over the top, but it needs to be A) Pretty Looking B) Easily navigated; all the core features within easy reach C) all while retaining the features that will kick IE's ass.
I know, all the elitists will argue that Mo' is as neat and as shiney as it needs to be and if Joe AOL doesn't like it, screw em'; And with that attitude, mo' will foever be a bench warmer. Hell, I think Netscape has more acceptance than Mo' cuz why (yes I know what Mo+NS=)? It's bright and shiney and pretty. Shitty, yes. But you have to start somewhere.
Another very useful think they could do is pack it in with downloads... hell, you get your computer infested with Gator everytime you download, so why couldn't you have one for Mozilla? Or a link to it at least... "New Mozilla 1.0!! Faster than Internet Explorer! Rock solid stability! 1,000,000,000 free hou--" er, you get the idea.
All I know the primary thing that's keeping EVERY browser in second is visibility first, usability second.
Slashdot Mirror
Come on. Does anyone actually think the Gigabeat is only going to be $8-$50 (depending on whom you believe) cheaper for less hardware? lets get real. That would be the most assnine marketing mistake in the world and most companies don't get to Toshiba's size with those kind of mistakes. Granted, there's always a first... But until somebody can quote me a real "I have it in stock right now" price, PLEASE give it a rest. I know everybody here has name brand loyalties, but jeez...
Beautiful design, HORRIBLY engineered.
LOL! Bill hasn't changed. Really. Fortune may think this is something new, but it's the same dang thing he's been doing since Windows first saw the light of day; Absorbing everybody's 3rd party utilities as native OS support. Winzip? Winamp? Defrag? the list goes on. The comment "it will handle so many functions of computing that Oracle, Sun, AOL Time Warner, and Sony may find themselves with less to do." alone will tell you that. He's looking to make Windows the TV that cooks, cleans and serves breakfast in bed. Sure, they may need to redesign it from the ground up similar to what Jobs did with OS X and Apple, but the news itself isn't too big a surprise, expecially given his history. A word to Linux developers: I see their door of opportunity closing once more. It's still open, but if this hits and history is any indication, open source might have to wait a bit longer before it's next chance to gain a serious foothold on the consumer market. In reality (and I mean this with the best possible intentions), Linux should already be heading where gates is going.
You gonna mark this down as a flame? You sure as hell better mode the parent down as one too, you hypocritical moderator hack.
Karma? Nah, I got a life, thanks.
Gotta place the blame somewhere, right? Damn techies.
The entire scope of this thread discusses how to make computers and their interfaces easier to use. How is this off-topic?
And the man has a point... I'm imagining Tom Cruise in Minority Report shoving around pages of data and punching at icons floating in ether... Is that really where all this human computing is taking us? Is that where we want to go? The whole visual interface idea is nice, but the physical interaction part can definitely use a little tuning. Tablet PCs, anyone? I like holographic projection as much as the next guy, but to manipulate a widescreen's worth of data with that much movement? Sheesh...
And to the moderator who moderated this offtopic, your ignorance is only exceeded by your stupidity, which is why I meta-moderate ALL trolls and flamebaits as unfair. You want Karma? Take some of mine. After all, I have a life.
I can't help but to skim over the post that say GUI is nothing but filler, command lines are where it's at, human centered will be less powerful, etc, etc... But they all miss a minor point-- Human centered computers are supposed to be easier to use, thereby making them more accessible to a wider range of people. You can argue from the elitist techno nerd side of the line all you want, but the majority of the world is still made up of people who don't want to take the time to reprogram their VCR's time, let alone screw with an unpolished interface. And unlike catering to the techno geek, building easier to use computers makes more money. You doubt it? Flip on the TV and see who Gateway, Compaq and Dell's commercials are catering to. "Dude, you're getting a Dell!" sure as hell isn't aimed at you or I. A talking cow? Really. Joe AOL doesn't care about open source. He doesn't really even give a damn about microsoft's monopoly (other than the "MS is evil" opinion everybody has). Mozilla? Star Office? Who gives a crap!? Joe doesn't. He'll use what is easy to reach and use, unless there is something overwelmingly excellent in the product. MS makes their stuff at very least easy to reach by integrating everything into their OS. Ease of use is an opinion, so I won't go into that, other than to say there isn't a mass defection from MS yet.
In the grand scheme of things, Joe makes company 'X' money. You DON'T. Thus the push to make computers easier for him to use.
#1 Busted component on a Palm busted by a Student? Probably the LCD, not covered by most PDA manufacturers... Even if there was some viable warrenty, the school would be up shit creek for that reason alone.
A beowulf cluster powered by nuclear weapons? I don't think....
Environmentalist would love you while the rest of the goes Mad Max style...
That's what you do to em...
American Daylight Bombing Campaigns.
I have to disagree. I can't speak to the total number of lives lost, but no shit the Brits lost a higher percentage-- Their country is small and Hitler was quite literally on their doorstep. The same with Russia. Since they didn't have the technology to stand toe to toe with the German advance, they bought time the only way they could-- With lives. Lots of them. The Russians didn't nessisarily kick the German's ass, it was the winter and Germany's commitment on so many fronts that did them in.
Back to the point-- Playing the percentage game doesn't mean jack here. US intervention was pivitol in the survival of Europe. Britain could have only held out for so long. Yes, the RAF kicked ass, but eventially Hitler would have OK'd the ground invasion and that would have been all she wrote. No other country could apply the pressure the US did on nearly every front. Hitler didn't get a chance to begin that invasion because we were pressing him hard everywhere and once we took up the slack in the murderously suicidal daylight bombing raids (there was a reason why the Brits were limiting theirs to the night, which did nothing for their effectiveness), Germany was finally getting stomped into a corner.
To last as long as they did against the German onslaught was feat unto itself as everybody else fell around them. Churchill's Brit's deserve every ounce of respect you can throw at them. The same with the people of Russia. The only real advantage they had on the Germans was quite literally the number of bodies they could throw into the grinder. But.... The US was the factor that saved Europe. Yeah, they may have all taken higher casualty percentages, but that's just a numbers game since larger countries generally have more people per percentage than smaller ones (Russia, the exception). Everybody took a hellish amount of casulties, but make no mistake, the US saved Europe, like it or not.
First, these are the largest unclassified figures released. If I remeber right, the Russians also have a Gigiton range nuclear weapon (untested?).
They may try to simply do the same thing Trellian does to AOL IM-- Patch it everytime MS does soemthing to screw with access. A patch for everything and everything in a patch.
Hmmm... Wonder if a "Rebel against Linux Day" story would make front page? Microsoft's struggle to battle the communist open sourcers.
Sure my comment's troll flame-bait, but no more than that story is.
Yeah, can't deny their user base. Kinda like playing with a black hole, I think... "Let's see how close we can get to that sucking money pit before-- WhooPs!" *ShluurP!*
"Why would cutting a deal with AOL cause Sun to lose money?"
Actually, I was suggesting that Sun might want to do business with somebody more finacially stable than AOL. $45b is a damn big hole that a company can't simply overlook when looking for business partners.
You might want to reconsider that proposed alliance of yours since AOL has been hemorrhaging cash lately-- To the tune of $45,000,000,000 dollars. Just a thought.
It's probably the most evil, legal thing Microsoft can do is turn 3rd party products into native support. It's their ace in the hole, making their clone product easier to get to than the competitions. Winamp is probably the most noteworthy exception I can think of at the moment cuz it beats the pants off WMP time and time again...
But the same could be said about Gateway or Compaq, though their plans aren't quite as generous. I've never had a problem replacing an in warrenty part or machine. Keep that extended warrenty action going and everybody is a happy camper, regardless of platform. Again, Apple does look at their products in the longer term though.
Of course, you're right about Mac licensing vs. Microsoft licensing, but then, Mac OS is your only choice.
Heh... There's nobody to alarm because nobody cares. Apple doesn't care. Their fans don't care because they're fanatically loyal and nobody on the other side of the fence cares because they're happy with the flexibilty a PC offers. The only person I appear to be alarming is you.
Honestly though, I really have mixed feelings about the Mac. On one hand they represent a tremendous creative force. On the other hand it's a proprietary dictatorship, which in my shrilly, alarmist opinion is The Bad Thing (TM). There IS a reason why the PC market has a huge share of the pie, regardless of how loyal or fanatical Apple users may be. Why ya suppose that is? Whatever the reason, maybe Apple could use a healthy dose of it. You tell me. Actually, don't. I'll probably just get more of the irrational fanboy crap.
But I have to agree with this guy. I work on PC's and Apples for a living and Apple uses quite a bit of hardware that is industry standard. Hard drives? RAM? USB? If you look at a G3 for example, about the only things that aren't compatible is the motherboard itself (imbedded chip). I won't go into the analog board or CRT here. I could actually stand a G4 because they are SO much easier to work on.
What I can't stand is the disparity in software and support or price for parts. I know from experience manufactures gouge you when buying from them, but Apple positively rapes you. Need an Apple fixed? Good luck. The place I work at is one of the few in the area. Software? Games? You must be joking. Yes, they got a decent amount of the popular stuff and it's slowly getting better, but the parent is also right-- Their "we could give a shit" attitude is gonna kill em eventially and it'll continue as long as Jobs is at the helm (or is "Chief Politcal Officer")
You heathen! Slimeball! Unwashed blasphemer!! how dare you suggest Apple products are somehow lower than it's true place above and beyond all other hardware!? I'm not a fan boy... But a priest! Yes! The iPod is a creation unto itseld with NO puny ancestrial... Um... Ah...
Well, it was fun while I could keep a strait face.
I'll wait until I see an actual store price... Have one handy? I seriously doubt that's the street price, but if you're right, then they screwed up bad. And yes, I know the iPod is just now getting competent Windows support. Indeed, the price difference is going to be a hella lot more than $3 before I buy one.
You can sure get it pretty, but it will undoubtably cost you an arm leg compared to a similar performing product... And Windows support strait outta the box ta boot. I might just buy one now...
Annyonce free is nice, but you need serious visibility to even put begin to think of assaulting IE domance of the Galaxy's browser of choice. The common person, not just your resident open sourcer or /.er actually needs to know it exists. You know, Joe AOL? Speaking of AOL, it's how they became one ot the leading ISP's around-- A massive CD push creating tons of visibility... "What? Another disk!? well, it does have 1,000,000,000 hours on it... Aw, sure. What the hell." AOL wasn't nessisarily better, they were just more visible.
The second thing you'll need is an interface a two year old can use. Perhapse that's a bit over the top, but it needs to be A) Pretty Looking B) Easily navigated; all the core features within easy reach C) all while retaining the features that will kick IE's ass.
I know, all the elitists will argue that Mo' is as neat and as shiney as it needs to be and if Joe AOL doesn't like it, screw em'; And with that attitude, mo' will foever be a bench warmer. Hell, I think Netscape has more acceptance than Mo' cuz why (yes I know what Mo+NS=)? It's bright and shiney and pretty. Shitty, yes. But you have to start somewhere.
Another very useful think they could do is pack it in with downloads... hell, you get your computer infested with Gator everytime you download, so why couldn't you have one for Mozilla? Or a link to it at least... "New Mozilla 1.0!! Faster than Internet Explorer! Rock solid stability! 1,000,000,000 free hou--" er, you get the idea.
All I know the primary thing that's keeping EVERY browser in second is visibility first, usability second.