> Let me first begin by saying, let's have some foresight here fellow Slashdot readers. If the DVD business has been increasingly difficult for Netflix to maintain, and considering when they did change the price plans, most people dropped the DVD package but kept the instant video. Why would you try to push a market that is doomed to fail especially with the rise of instant media players for the TV and applications for phones/tablets?
Um, perhaps because, at least so far, the selection sucks?
Or... someone else should combine streaming and DVD rental with a single queue and a single website and a reasonable price under the name "Not Netflix".
> I owned the original Mona Lisa, I could spray-paint it, toss it in a fire, or do whatever else I please with it.
...which is about what Lucas did to Star Wars.
> Contrary to what appears to be popular belief, there are no laws whatsoever about such things with your own property.
True, and I personally wouldn't want to see such laws, even to protect a work of art I used to love. We can't really do anything except mourn the loss and curse the owner. And not buy anything from him ever again.
It's too late. Star Wars is already irrevocably trashed. I saw the first film multiple times at the Cine Capri in Phoenix in 1977. Those memories have been pissed on, and nothing will bring them back. We'll have to wait for something new to replace them. Probably not by Lucas.
Yes, and what *this* means is that most people will simply stay on the Desktop. Because why would you switch back and forth when the browser you needs is only on one interface? And if you have to stay on Desktop, what use is a touch interface?
Right, users will simply switch to a browser that works. ("Works" being defined as a browser that correctly displays content from the sites the user wants to browse, which is the only definition of "works" that counts, with browsers.)
...and Microsoft will brag about how many copies of Metro Browser are in the field, which will only fool the people who don't understand that it comes free with the operating system and you couldn't uninstall it if you wanted to.
When the ipad came out, I don't recall Apple going on and on about their ipad browser and how superior it was. The marketing was centered on the product, not some integral part of the product that should JUST WORK. Mind you, I'm not an Apple fanboi -- I make fun of fanbois -- but in my experience, the more Microsoft zeros in on a particular feature of an upcoming operating system, the more likely that feature will be unintelligible, incompatible, buggy, and generally unusable.
Whether I go to 8 or skip it as we did Vista depends on the initial reviews and how soon service pack 1 comes out, and what it fixes. But it seems like Microsoft could do themselves a favor and spend more time on (a) listening to what users really want and (b) implementing same, and less time on promoting in what new way the engineers have have pissed on individual pieces of the OS.
It's like Ubuntu wrote news releases about a new "ls" command. That's an automatic fail. We just want it to work, in a recognizable fashion.
The main point, I guess, is that I'm not looking for a "new experience" from my operating system. It's primary purpose is to manage and run applications in a relatively safe, fast, reliable, compatible and non-annoying manner. What I'm looking for in a new OS is safer, faster, more reliable and compatible, and less annoying. What I usually get is new failure modes, brand new exploits, new hardware requirements, and a whole 'nother level of annoying.
Yes, Windows 8 is supposed to work well with touch, something we've been promised at least twice in the past (XP tablet edition, Win 7 tablet edition... can't speak for Vista) and was botched horribly. (Parenthetically, that the design goal of Windows 8 is that the same interface will work equally well with KB/Mouse, Finger, and Stylus, tells me that it probably won't deliver a satisfactory experience with any input method.)
In the name of all that's holy, instead of bragging about some new spiffy paradigm that you're all going to love, (which in this case is "we've removed a feature!!! Aren't you glad???") why not just assure us that poking a dialog box will bring up the virtual keyboard in a place where it doesn't COVER UP THE DIALOG BOX. That we can manipulate icons without learning cabalistic finger gestures designed to imitate the actions of a three button mouse. This would be a lot better sell to someone who has spent a few minutes with Android or IOS and then tried to use Win 7 tablet, and knows what it lacks.
And really truly, I'd like to know that this "Metro" interface isn't just Windows Media Center rebranded. Because that isn't going to be good enough. We have a wired mouse on a long extension cord on the PC connected to our TV because of the drawbacks of Win 7 Media Center, (the routine things you can't do with the Media Center remote, and the terrible functionality of the media center wireless keyboard) and we have no confidence whatsoever that Windows 8 Metro will be substantially more usable. Except, of course, in carefully controlled demos on stage.
This isn't a flash issue, it's a major "see the internet as we want you to or not at all" issue. For just one example, the moment I discovered Noscript awhile back, it became absolutely required for internet access. A browser that won't use it is a browser I'm not usin'. I don't trust Microsoft to manage the security of my browsing experience. What knowledgeable person would?
That's one scenario. Another might be, a significant number of users will get frustrated with the number of websites that don't work with the metro browser, and dump it.
I'm not a fan of flash and want to see it dead, but I think trying to force the issue on the browser level is more likely to reduce browser penetration than it is reduce flash usage.
> For instance, being able to listen to a song in your car on the way home from work, your phone while you walk to the mail box and through your home entertainment system when you walk in the door, with all the systems seamlessly interacting with each other so you never miss a beat.
> Obviously this won't happen with Windows 8 but at least it's step in the right direction.
I wouldn't expect it to happen with any version of Windows. I don't see windows ever having that degree of integration. At least in our lifetimes.
With one exception. They could do it by having all of your devices remotely logged into your media server and playing it through the multimedia capabilities of RDP. This could work at least well enough to demo on stage, and it dovetails nicely with Microsoft's philosophy of code reuse and rebranding.
Exactly. Or it's a feature that was already in the previous product with a new marketing spin. Or it is a new feature but it's implemented in a way that makes it not useful. Or it's a mushy "feature" (like "improved security", "improved stability") that regular users lack the resources to test.
Well, some of us are. For instance, I do things because they need doing. Or because they are the right things to do. And I can be convinced to do something by a good enough explanation, and they don't even have to appeal to my own self-interest. Which I think is what you're talking about.
In fact, I'll go further than that. Someone who responds to reason, who will do something because it needs doing, is likely to be insulted by an appeal to their own self-interest. Which I think is also what you're talking about.
So, ok you're absolutely right. And presuming that everyone responds only to carrot or stick leads one down a dark road.
But I'm not withdrawing my observation.
Because, I submit that, even though it's insulting and in many cases unnecessary, the feedback from society really *is* primarily carrot-or-stick. Can you honestly say this is not true?
Oh, there are exceptions. I recently got a politely worded letter from the sheriff's office saying I was observed doing something with the car that was technically illegal and potentially dangerous, and they explained why I shouldn't do it and asked that I stop. And I *did* stop, because they made a good case and appealed to reason. Score one for your argument.
Also recently I followed a car through a left turn. There were only two of us and plenty of time to make the turn. The car had to cross railroad tracks at the end of the turn and for God only knows what reason, stopped just short of the tracks for a significant amount of time, causing the light to go red and for me to get trapped in the intersection.
I got a ticket. I explained what happened, still got a ticket. I explained to the judge that I began the turn legally and had no legal option to avoid getting stuck in the intersection other than foresee that the guy in front of me would behave irrationally before I started the turn. He reduced the ticket from $250 to $125. (Gee, thanks. You usually get that much reduction just by showing up.) In this case, reason absolutely did not enter into it. I don't want to go through red lights, because I don't want to be t-boned, especially since half the time I'm on a motorcycle. I'm really careful about that. But I can't control the car in front of me. And upholding the law was in that case so absolutely carrot-and-stick that it could not account for extenuating circumstance. It wasn't enough that I wanted to do the right thing.
I would submit that most traffic tickets, in fact most fines and penalties including incarceration, are not appeals to reason, except the reason that if you do this and get caught bad things will happen, so don't do it. Which is an appeal to self-interest, not (I submit) doing the right thing.
I hasten to add, you're right! There *is* a misconception that humans are stupid and react only to reward and punishment. (although I can think of a few humans who don't respond to reason...) But I submit that regardless, this is the feedback we get from society. I will amend that to say "usually get from society", if you wish.
Yes, I know, and I now have my notebook set to do that. It amused me to see how inept the default settings behaved in real world environment.
But being what I would like to think of as a responsible IT person, I try to see it from the user standpoint, not the uber-geek standpoint. Those settings (and "mandatory customization" settings in general) are often difficult for the non-technical to find. You know the people -- the ones with work to do, who don't necessarily know or want to know or have a job that requires knowing administrative minutia of their laptop, which is after all ONLY A TOOL to get their ACTUAL work done, which doesn't include doing their own wintel administration.
Slashdot Mirror
> Let me first begin by saying, let's have some foresight here fellow Slashdot readers. If the DVD business has been increasingly difficult for Netflix to maintain, and considering when they did change the price plans, most people dropped the DVD package but kept the instant video. Why would you try to push a market that is doomed to fail especially with the rise of instant media players for the TV and applications for phones/tablets?
Um, perhaps because, at least so far, the selection sucks?
Or... someone else should combine streaming and DVD rental with a single queue and a single website and a reasonable price under the name "Not Netflix".
Piss off your customers in a down economy. It's like printing money!
Foundation! Done retro-futuristic.
> I owned the original Mona Lisa, I could spray-paint it, toss it in a fire, or do whatever else I please with it.
> Contrary to what appears to be popular belief, there are no laws whatsoever about such things with your own property.
True, and I personally wouldn't want to see such laws, even to protect a work of art I used to love. We can't really do anything except mourn the loss and curse the owner. And not buy anything from him ever again.
It's too late. Star Wars is already irrevocably trashed. I saw the first film multiple times at the Cine Capri in Phoenix in 1977. Those memories have been pissed on, and nothing will bring them back. We'll have to wait for something new to replace them. Probably not by Lucas.
But they still make good target practice. I'd like to see the bacteria resistant to birdshot.
Or, come to think of it, I *wouldn't* like to see the bacteria resistant to birdshot... (shudder)
Yes, and what *this* means is that most people will simply stay on the Desktop. Because why would you switch back and forth when the browser you needs is only on one interface? And if you have to stay on Desktop, what use is a touch interface?
Because after all: "it's the browser, stupid"
Yep. I'm expecting Microsoft to deliver a Newton any day now.
Right, users will simply switch to a browser that works. ("Works" being defined as a browser that correctly displays content from the sites the user wants to browse, which is the only definition of "works" that counts, with browsers.)
When the ipad came out, I don't recall Apple going on and on about their ipad browser and how superior it was. The marketing was centered on the product, not some integral part of the product that should JUST WORK. Mind you, I'm not an Apple fanboi -- I make fun of fanbois -- but in my experience, the more Microsoft zeros in on a particular feature of an upcoming operating system, the more likely that feature will be unintelligible, incompatible, buggy, and generally unusable.
Whether I go to 8 or skip it as we did Vista depends on the initial reviews and how soon service pack 1 comes out, and what it fixes. But it seems like Microsoft could do themselves a favor and spend more time on (a) listening to what users really want and (b) implementing same, and less time on promoting in what new way the engineers have have pissed on individual pieces of the OS.
It's like Ubuntu wrote news releases about a new "ls" command. That's an automatic fail. We just want it to work, in a recognizable fashion.
The main point, I guess, is that I'm not looking for a "new experience" from my operating system. It's primary purpose is to manage and run applications in a relatively safe, fast, reliable, compatible and non-annoying manner. What I'm looking for in a new OS is safer, faster, more reliable and compatible, and less annoying. What I usually get is new failure modes, brand new exploits, new hardware requirements, and a whole 'nother level of annoying.
Yes, Windows 8 is supposed to work well with touch, something we've been promised at least twice in the past (XP tablet edition, Win 7 tablet edition... can't speak for Vista) and was botched horribly. (Parenthetically, that the design goal of Windows 8 is that the same interface will work equally well with KB/Mouse, Finger, and Stylus, tells me that it probably won't deliver a satisfactory experience with any input method.)
In the name of all that's holy, instead of bragging about some new spiffy paradigm that you're all going to love, (which in this case is "we've removed a feature!!! Aren't you glad???") why not just assure us that poking a dialog box will bring up the virtual keyboard in a place where it doesn't COVER UP THE DIALOG BOX. That we can manipulate icons without learning cabalistic finger gestures designed to imitate the actions of a three button mouse. This would be a lot better sell to someone who has spent a few minutes with Android or IOS and then tried to use Win 7 tablet, and knows what it lacks.
And really truly, I'd like to know that this "Metro" interface isn't just Windows Media Center rebranded. Because that isn't going to be good enough. We have a wired mouse on a long extension cord on the PC connected to our TV because of the drawbacks of Win 7 Media Center, (the routine things you can't do with the Media Center remote, and the terrible functionality of the media center wireless keyboard) and we have no confidence whatsoever that Windows 8 Metro will be substantially more usable. Except, of course, in carefully controlled demos on stage.
This isn't a flash issue, it's a major "see the internet as we want you to or not at all" issue. For just one example, the moment I discovered Noscript awhile back, it became absolutely required for internet access. A browser that won't use it is a browser I'm not usin'. I don't trust Microsoft to manage the security of my browsing experience. What knowledgeable person would?
> is Adobe Flash finally dead?"
That's one scenario. Another might be, a significant number of users will get frustrated with the number of websites that don't work with the metro browser, and dump it.
I'm not a fan of flash and want to see it dead, but I think trying to force the issue on the browser level is more likely to reduce browser penetration than it is reduce flash usage.
Why couldn't you have your own cloud? (Ok, one answer is that you still wouldn't control the conduit.)
> For instance, being able to listen to a song in your car on the way home from work, your phone while you walk to the mail box and through your home entertainment system when you walk in the door, with all the systems seamlessly interacting with each other so you never miss a beat.
> Obviously this won't happen with Windows 8 but at least it's step in the right direction.
I wouldn't expect it to happen with any version of Windows. I don't see windows ever having that degree of integration. At least in our lifetimes.
With one exception. They could do it by having all of your devices remotely logged into your media server and playing it through the multimedia capabilities of RDP. This could work at least well enough to demo on stage, and it dovetails nicely with Microsoft's philosophy of code reuse and rebranding.
Regarding the new improved BSOD: "After expressing emoticon-style sadness"
Windows catches up with 1980's mac.
Well, I guess it's a start.
Exactly. Or it's a feature that was already in the previous product with a new marketing spin. Or it is a new feature but it's implemented in a way that makes it not useful. Or it's a mushy "feature" (like "improved security", "improved stability") that regular users lack the resources to test.
Well, some of us are. For instance, I do things because they need doing. Or because they are the right things to do. And I can be convinced to do something by a good enough explanation, and they don't even have to appeal to my own self-interest. Which I think is what you're talking about.
In fact, I'll go further than that. Someone who responds to reason, who will do something because it needs doing, is likely to be insulted by an appeal to their own self-interest. Which I think is also what you're talking about.
So, ok you're absolutely right. And presuming that everyone responds only to carrot or stick leads one down a dark road.
But I'm not withdrawing my observation.
Because, I submit that, even though it's insulting and in many cases unnecessary, the feedback from society really *is* primarily carrot-or-stick. Can you honestly say this is not true?
Oh, there are exceptions. I recently got a politely worded letter from the sheriff's office saying I was observed doing something with the car that was technically illegal and potentially dangerous, and they explained why I shouldn't do it and asked that I stop. And I *did* stop, because they made a good case and appealed to reason. Score one for your argument.
Also recently I followed a car through a left turn. There were only two of us and plenty of time to make the turn. The car had to cross railroad tracks at the end of the turn and for God only knows what reason, stopped just short of the tracks for a significant amount of time, causing the light to go red and for me to get trapped in the intersection.
I got a ticket. I explained what happened, still got a ticket. I explained to the judge that I began the turn legally and had no legal option to avoid getting stuck in the intersection other than foresee that the guy in front of me would behave irrationally before I started the turn. He reduced the ticket from $250 to $125. (Gee, thanks. You usually get that much reduction just by showing up.) In this case, reason absolutely did not enter into it. I don't want to go through red lights, because I don't want to be t-boned, especially since half the time I'm on a motorcycle. I'm really careful about that. But I can't control the car in front of me. And upholding the law was in that case so absolutely carrot-and-stick that it could not account for extenuating circumstance. It wasn't enough that I wanted to do the right thing.
I would submit that most traffic tickets, in fact most fines and penalties including incarceration, are not appeals to reason, except the reason that if you do this and get caught bad things will happen, so don't do it. Which is an appeal to self-interest, not (I submit) doing the right thing.
I hasten to add, you're right! There *is* a misconception that humans are stupid and react only to reward and punishment. (although I can think of a few humans who don't respond to reason...) But I submit that regardless, this is the feedback we get from society. I will amend that to say "usually get from society", if you wish.
Ok, that was funny.
Mod up Kielistic.
Yes, I know, and I now have my notebook set to do that. It amused me to see how inept the default settings behaved in real world environment.
But being what I would like to think of as a responsible IT person, I try to see it from the user standpoint, not the uber-geek standpoint. Those settings (and "mandatory customization" settings in general) are often difficult for the non-technical to find. You know the people -- the ones with work to do, who don't necessarily know or want to know or have a job that requires knowing administrative minutia of their laptop, which is after all ONLY A TOOL to get their ACTUAL work done, which doesn't include doing their own wintel administration.
You're probably right. Ok, let's break... I'm drawing a blank here... Some other entertainment-based encryption scheme. Any ideas?
I guess I was yelling at the little icon to the right of the article, Mister Pedantic.
C'mon, Bill, do you really expect us to fall for that AGAIN?
(Of course, some will... I'm depressed now...)