1.) Humans rely on hearing a lot more than people realize. This causes people to do stupid stuff like walk out into the street without looking. "Well, I dont hear anything, must be clear." In other words, we take hearing for granted. If you're listening to somebody on the phone, then you're not listening to stuff you typically hear.
2.) Holding a cell phone can lead to restricted head movement. You're not looking around as much. Couple that with point 1 and you start taking silly risks without even realizing it.
I'm sure people are drawing the conclusion that people burn up too much runtime while on the phone, but common sense should tell you that's not the case. Ppl talk and do stuff all the time and behave quite normally without cell phones. It's simply a matter of senses being disrupted. Use a hands-free kit and some of the problem goes away. I don't have an easy answer with the first point I made, though.
"The DivX Cube (Aluminum Mini Computer) is one of the first good looking all-in-one PC solutions to create your own audio and video station which can perfectly be integrated into your existing home theatre system. "
Brilliant marketing move: Name a digital video product 'DivX'. Heh. There's a reason that raspberry jelly makers don't call their product 'Monkeybrains'.
"Instead, this is an attempt to gain lobby support from MPAA/RIAA... so that congress can bless the "proven Microsoft Way" and force the Microsoft "technology" onto the rest of us"
Well, look at the bright side: Since it's MS, you can bet it'll be exploitable.:)
It'd sure beat the hell out of anything Sony'd dish out. Anybody remember that Spiderman soundtrack that had PC stuff on it, but the anti-PC protection prevented it from working? Heh.
") It isn't theft to listen to music before buying it. It's breaking copyright law to make unauthorised copies of said music."
Sorry, but the RIAA already gets an economy where customer satisfaction is not guaranteed. They created a situation where people'd want to try shit out.
And why is my second point just dumb? Is that all you have to say? Saying somebody's point is dumb without having a reason to back that up is just dumb. Heh.
And no, I'm not going to change my sig, why dontcha grow up instead? I make a pretty good point actually. Too bad you're assuming things that aren't true. I guess it's hard to see when your point of view is obustructed by your anus.
"However: we would have gotten there faster had MS not gotten in the way, and we had no chance of getting there before MS --- regardless of smarts or technical merit.) "
Yah? And how'd they cheat? By giving consumers what they want? Damn them!
"Computers were fscking _destined_ to be in the home. I think the Commodore and Atari machines pretty much proved that to begin with."
Ouch, bad call. Atari and Commodore *died* long before Windows 3 was out. I know, I used to have an Atari. The ST and the Amiga hung on for a little while, but it didn't last. Nobody was interested. All Atari and Commodore proved was that the market was fragile.
I'll say it again, the people arguing with me are the ppl who hate Microsoft. People sure say strange things in a state like that.
"However: we would have gotten there faster had MS not gotten in the way, and we had no chance of getting there before MS --- regardless of smarts or technical merit.) "
How do you come to that conclusion? How could MS have possibily gotten in the way?
a.) They still have no idea how to be user friendly. That point's been made before here on/.
b.) MS made computers lots more popular, and at the same time implanted the idea that they were unstable. If anything, GNU could have swept in and closed that gap. It wasn't ready for that, it still isn't ready for that. MS isn't hindering them, instead they gave them an opportunity.
Sorry, not sold. Frankly, I can't shake the feeling that people can't accept that MS did anything right. I think that's the basis for the arguments with me on this topic.
"You really don't think any other system (GNU/Linux, Apple without M$, OS/2, etc.) + Internet wouldn't have produced the same result? "
No.
GNU/Linux - Never really targeted to mass audience
Apple- They had ample opportunity, but for some reason it didn't work. This probably has to do with typically higher prices of Macs (back then) and the fact that few places carried them.
MS wasn't lucky, they were smart. If Apple had been smart, they'd not have been so restrictive on their hardware. As for GNU/Linux, they'd need somebody like Apple or MS to come around and show them how to make an interface. As it is today, nearly all Linux commands wouldn't survive a spell checker. Heh.
"Were Gates to not have come around, we'd all be using Ataris, or Amigas, or Macs, or maybe something totally different instead."
The geeks would, the average person wouldn't. Apple didn't even have a hot product on their hands until the iMac came out. Too little, way too late. Bill Gates wasn't lucky, he was opportunistic. Windows 95 was successful because people felt like they could use it without needing fear it. It had stability issues, nobody's arguing that, but it did do a lot of fundamental things correctly.
I know, I know, everybody hates MS and all. But they poured tons and tons of research into making sure the user experience was a good one. That's why Windows survives today even though there are technically more sophisticated OS's out there.
If Windows 95 hadn't have happened it is almost certain that the population of PC's would be drastically lower today. Argue with me all you want, it doesn't change the fact that MS's release of 95 was extremely profitable to them. That didn't happen because MS went door to door putting a gun to people's heads to make them buy. No other OS company had a similar boom. If your theory had played out, then MS would have competition like Sony has with Nintendo.
a.) XBOX, being PC based, is easy to develop for. Therefore you can get started cheaper than with Nintendo or Sony.
b.) More choices = more competition. That's always good.
c.) Sony's arrogant as all get out. Trust me when I say: You'd rather have MS in the ring than Sony. Sony doesn't give a rat's ass about developers.
d.) MS added a new twist to the console arena with the built in hard drive and ethernet port. What did Sony add to the PS2? Nothing of interest. The PS2 is a harder-to-program-for minor update to the PS1. They don't care to do anything but milk money where they can.
e.) I don't think you're going to pay any attention to what I'm saying so I'm gonna stop here.
So the surge in PC sales circa 1995 had nothing to do with MS? Heh. Whatever. Win95 + Internet = Huge PC explosion. Computer ownership not only skyrockted into the millions, but females were using them as well!
"And unix and linux probably would of still evolved to be as good if not better then it is today."
Doubtful. They're playing catch-up as it is. They're not exactly breaking new barriers today. I honestly hope that changes.
"Alls microsoft did was make a standard. "
All Microsoft did was single-handedly turn the PC into an easy to use household product. Before Windows 95 came along, a PC owner was either a geek or somebody doing graphic work on a Mac.
Without MS, *Nix probably would never have even attempted to be an OS for the everyday Joe. Right now, they're evolving to dethrone MS.
"One can imagine how the world would be if one single little stupid decision wasn't taken... "
Yeah, computers would only be owned by geeks as opposed to ordinary everyday people. MS did some shitty stuff, but they also made PC's the popular item they are today.
"I'll come up with a rhyme for "plane", if you can find a way to change "Fantasy Island" to "Islets of Langerhans" without harming the Neilson ratings for it..."
I'm not going to get a +1 Funny with this thread, am I?
"Microsoft's stock price declines, the dominant market share is weakened, and they have to behave like a good corporate citizen"
Stock price and market share are not the same thing. Market share is how many people have XBOXes and how many people have GameCubes. Stock price is a measure of investor confidence. Since MS is so big, XBOX could be a flop and hardly rock their boat, stock-wise.
"kinda dig that scenario. Not like Xbox is going to precipitate this, but.... "
The only harm you'd do is to the game companies trying to sell games. Not cool. Not cool at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm. Maybe I used the wrong terminology?
I was thinking of an earpeace you stick in your ear and look like Sam Beckett while you're walking down the street.
Sorry, now that I think about it, I DID use the wrong terminology. Sorry to be confusing!
There are two reasons for this:
1.) Humans rely on hearing a lot more than people realize. This causes people to do stupid stuff like walk out into the street without looking. "Well, I dont hear anything, must be clear." In other words, we take hearing for granted. If you're listening to somebody on the phone, then you're not listening to stuff you typically hear.
2.) Holding a cell phone can lead to restricted head movement. You're not looking around as much. Couple that with point 1 and you start taking silly risks without even realizing it.
I'm sure people are drawing the conclusion that people burn up too much runtime while on the phone, but common sense should tell you that's not the case. Ppl talk and do stuff all the time and behave quite normally without cell phones. It's simply a matter of senses being disrupted. Use a hands-free kit and some of the problem goes away. I don't have an easy answer with the first point I made, though.
"The DivX Cube (Aluminum Mini Computer) is one of the first good looking all-in-one PC solutions to create your own audio and video station which can perfectly be integrated into your existing home theatre system. "
Brilliant marketing move: Name a digital video product 'DivX'. Heh. There's a reason that raspberry jelly makers don't call their product 'Monkeybrains'.
"Instead, this is an attempt to gain lobby support from MPAA/RIAA ... so that congress can bless the "proven Microsoft Way" and force the Microsoft "technology" onto the rest of us"
:)
Well, look at the bright side: Since it's MS, you can bet it'll be exploitable.
It'd sure beat the hell out of anything Sony'd dish out. Anybody remember that Spiderman soundtrack that had PC stuff on it, but the anti-PC protection prevented it from working? Heh.
He makes a good point! I can't believe he got modded down.
Would the moderators please re-read his post and reevaluate it? I think he just got modded down for saying 'RIAA is evil.'
None of that explains why PC ownership became necessary circa 1995. Come 1997, you were STRANGE if you didn't have a computer.
You're just arguing with me because you hate MS, not because you're paying any attention to what I'm saying. Heh.
Yay!! Common sense prevailed!!
Hey!! I had an 800XL too!
:( *Sniff*
I miss that little computer.
") It isn't theft to listen to music before buying it. It's breaking copyright law to make unauthorised copies of said music."
Sorry, but the RIAA already gets an economy where customer satisfaction is not guaranteed. They created a situation where people'd want to try shit out.
And why is my second point just dumb? Is that all you have to say? Saying somebody's point is dumb without having a reason to back that up is just dumb. Heh.
And no, I'm not going to change my sig, why dontcha grow up instead? I make a pretty good point actually. Too bad you're assuming things that aren't true. I guess it's hard to see when your point of view is obustructed by your anus.
"However: we would have gotten there faster had MS not gotten in the way, and we had no chance of getting there before MS --- regardless of smarts or technical merit.) "
Yah? And how'd they cheat? By giving consumers what they want? Damn them!
"Computers were fscking _destined_ to be in the home. I think the Commodore and Atari machines pretty much proved that to begin with."
Ouch, bad call. Atari and Commodore *died* long before Windows 3 was out. I know, I used to have an Atari. The ST and the Amiga hung on for a little while, but it didn't last. Nobody was interested. All Atari and Commodore proved was that the market was fragile.
I'll say it again, the people arguing with me are the ppl who hate Microsoft. People sure say strange things in a state like that.
"However: we would have gotten there faster had MS not gotten in the way, and we had no chance of getting there before MS --- regardless of smarts or technical merit.) "
/.
How do you come to that conclusion? How could MS have possibily gotten in the way?
a.) They still have no idea how to be user friendly. That point's been made before here on
b.) MS made computers lots more popular, and at the same time implanted the idea that they were unstable. If anything, GNU could have swept in and closed that gap. It wasn't ready for that, it still isn't ready for that. MS isn't hindering them, instead they gave them an opportunity.
Sorry, not sold. Frankly, I can't shake the feeling that people can't accept that MS did anything right. I think that's the basis for the arguments with me on this topic.
"You really don't think any other system (GNU/Linux, Apple without M$, OS/2, etc.) + Internet wouldn't have produced the same result? "
No.
GNU/Linux - Never really targeted to mass audience
Apple- They had ample opportunity, but for some reason it didn't work. This probably has to do with typically higher prices of Macs (back then) and the fact that few places carried them.
MS wasn't lucky, they were smart. If Apple had been smart, they'd not have been so restrictive on their hardware. As for GNU/Linux, they'd need somebody like Apple or MS to come around and show them how to make an interface. As it is today, nearly all Linux commands wouldn't survive a spell checker. Heh.
"Were Gates to not have come around, we'd all be using Ataris, or Amigas, or Macs, or maybe something totally different instead."
The geeks would, the average person wouldn't. Apple didn't even have a hot product on their hands until the iMac came out. Too little, way too late. Bill Gates wasn't lucky, he was opportunistic. Windows 95 was successful because people felt like they could use it without needing fear it. It had stability issues, nobody's arguing that, but it did do a lot of fundamental things correctly.
I know, I know, everybody hates MS and all. But they poured tons and tons of research into making sure the user experience was a good one. That's why Windows survives today even though there are technically more sophisticated OS's out there.
If Windows 95 hadn't have happened it is almost certain that the population of PC's would be drastically lower today. Argue with me all you want, it doesn't change the fact that MS's release of 95 was extremely profitable to them. That didn't happen because MS went door to door putting a gun to people's heads to make them buy. No other OS company had a similar boom. If your theory had played out, then MS would have competition like Sony has with Nintendo.
okay, fine:
a.) XBOX, being PC based, is easy to develop for. Therefore you can get started cheaper than with Nintendo or Sony.
b.) More choices = more competition. That's always good.
c.) Sony's arrogant as all get out. Trust me when I say: You'd rather have MS in the ring than Sony. Sony doesn't give a rat's ass about developers.
d.) MS added a new twist to the console arena with the built in hard drive and ethernet port. What did Sony add to the PS2? Nothing of interest. The PS2 is a harder-to-program-for minor update to the PS1. They don't care to do anything but milk money where they can.
e.) I don't think you're going to pay any attention to what I'm saying so I'm gonna stop here.
So the surge in PC sales circa 1995 had nothing to do with MS? Heh. Whatever. Win95 + Internet = Huge PC explosion. Computer ownership not only skyrockted into the millions, but females were using them as well!
"Why does all the cool stuff happen on the West Coast? "
Because people prefer earthquakes to hurricanes?
"And unix and linux probably would of still evolved to be as good if not better then it is today."
Doubtful. They're playing catch-up as it is. They're not exactly breaking new barriers today. I honestly hope that changes.
"Alls microsoft did was make a standard. "
All Microsoft did was single-handedly turn the PC into an easy to use household product. Before Windows 95 came along, a PC owner was either a geek or somebody doing graphic work on a Mac.
Without MS, *Nix probably would never have even attempted to be an OS for the everyday Joe. Right now, they're evolving to dethrone MS.
"One can imagine how the world would be if one single little stupid decision wasn't taken... "
Yeah, computers would only be owned by geeks as opposed to ordinary everyday people. MS did some shitty stuff, but they also made PC's the popular item they are today.
"I was disappointed... he was fired from an Atari project, not fired from Microsoft (Thought I missed something good over my weekend of /. withdrawl)"
Why do I have the feeling that this article wouldn't have been posted if not for the Bill Gates reference?
"Pitfall was a revolutionary moment in gaming, but the real news here is that something bad happened to Bill Gates before he was rich."
"I'll come up with a rhyme for "plane", if you can find a way to change "Fantasy Island" to "Islets of Langerhans" without harming the Neilson ratings for it..."
I'm not going to get a +1 Funny with this thread, am I?
Yeah, good idea, get them burned before they've had a chance to make money. Nice Starbucksian business strategy there.
"Tattoo To Monitor Diabetes"
... uhh.. Shit. Can anybody think of a diabetes related word that rhymes with 'plane'?
Look boss! The
"How would this destroy the *CONSOLE* game market?
How does it help the market? "We'll push MS out so that only Sony and Nintendo will compete"? Yeah, thanks. Brilliant.
"the game market can go to hell for all I care. "
Bad call. The success of the PC is largely in part due to the success of the game market.
"This is a cheap box, one that I can use for any number of things including linux development. I can throw it in the corner and have a mp3 server... "
If that's what you want to use it for, have fun. If you want to use it to 'screw MS', then you're not doing anybody any good.
"I don't buy things for games. There's no reason to. "
I'd correct that by saying "There's no reason for YOU to [buy things for games]." Which is a fair statement that I'd have no problem with.
"Microsoft's stock price declines, the dominant market share is weakened, and they have to behave like a good corporate citizen"
Stock price and market share are not the same thing. Market share is how many people have XBOXes and how many people have GameCubes. Stock price is a measure of investor confidence. Since MS is so big, XBOX could be a flop and hardly rock their boat, stock-wise.
"kinda dig that scenario. Not like Xbox is going to precipitate this, but.... "
The only harm you'd do is to the game companies trying to sell games. Not cool. Not cool at all.