That was succinct, but not very informative. I'm thinking "no it won't" also, my reason being that the rumors of any of these new technologies taking over for the desktop is naive. But I'd love to hear your reason.
Seriously? People are going to convert en-masse from Wintel desktops to Android tablets?
Let's get real here. Desktops are still desktops and tablets are still tablets. Next year most personal computing will still be done on Wintel machines. I'd love to say otherwise, but let's tone down the starry-eyed dreaming, ok? The death of Wintel is once again being greatly exaggerated. It's getting tiresome.
Tablets will make some inroads into the space currently occupied by laptops, pretty much decimate the portable DVD player market, change the face of the portable navigator market, and create their own tablet-specific space. People will find *new* things they can do on tablets that they hadn't been able to do before, like carry a device in their coat pocket that allows reasonably effective remote access to their devices at home, or provide ultra-portable hand-held access to web applications in the field without the heft and inconvenient piano hinge of a notebook and the dinky screen of a smartphone.
There *is* a difference between the growing tablet market and the Netbook market. Netbooks were effectively killed by the perception that computers must run Windows. Microsoft met the market halfway by forestalling the death of Windows XP, but the fact of the matter is that netbooks had to grow in size to be able to run Winders effectively, which destroyed their main appeal -- small size, low power, long battery life. There is so much overlap between netbooks and notebooks these days both in price and capabilities that the difference isn't important anymore.
What's different in the tablet market is that Microsoft has nothing to compete in this space. With Windows 7 shamelessly re-branding Accessibility features as "Tablet ready", it's plain that Microsoft expects to capture the tablet market through sheer inertia rather than actually having, you know, a product. iPads and Android tablets will continue to be purchased for the things they can do, and a few Windows tablets will be purchased because they're running Windows. Which will rapidly be seen as Not Reason Enough.
Beats the hell outta me. Were I trying to operate under those conditions I'd maybe look at a smartphone with wifi and without a data plan, and then set it up to only use data on wifi. That gives you pretty much what you get with an ipod touch or whatever Samsung is coming out with. And you only have to carry one device. But I don't think your condition is normal.
> Hows all that "open platform" "not locked to a walled garden" "no need to jailbreak" Android working out for all the people that rant and rave against the iPhone?
An important thing to understand in this day and age is that dedicated mp3 players are fast becoming unimportant. Practically every smartphone made since 2005 already provides that function, with support for playlists, host sync cover art and stereo bluetooth. (I've heard that even Apple provides support for stereo bluetooth now.)
I happen to own a couple of ipods, (one 3rd gen and one "classic") but they haven't been touched in years. My Droid X does the job better, as did my BB Tour before that and BB Bold before that. My daughter's ipod touch sits on the tank in her bathroom where it has been since she got her Galaxy phone in July. Should she finally get fed up with Samsung and go with a Droid or HTC, her ipod touch will *still* be untouched because the phone does the same job as well or better.
So I don't see how it relates. If you already have a smartphone, going to a different smartphone doesn't affect whether you buy the previous manufacturer's mp3 player, because you weren't going to anyway.
In general, I find the fact that Samsung is selling a galaxy phone without the phone part as a curiosity, not something I have to have.
However, I have been interested in the Galaxy tablet, and my interest in that *is* waning, based on the frustration my daughter is experiencing with her Galaxy phone.
In summary, the fact that Samsung has the only mp3 player to compete with the iPod touch (arguably true) is not important if the mp3 player as a device is rapidly becoming this century's buggy whip.
Um, yeah, so? I'm not understanding your reasoning. I'll keep my crappy Galaxy running 2.1 after everyone else is upgraded to Honeycomb, because Samsung makes an MP3 player?
The thing is, Samsung preventing the users from upgrading may cause us to abandon the phone, but in what bizarro world would we ever buy another device from Samsung? The thing about Android is that many different manufacturers sell handsets, and if I have to buy another device anyway, I might as well buy from a manufacturer that delivers TIMELY UPDATES.
So, I'm thinking this will play out as just another rumor caused by severe update anxiety.
According to a recent (like last week) article, Hef is still CEO and still has creative control over the magazine. Moreover, he's currently trying to buy it back from it's current owners and take it private.
>> And now, all of these years later, we discover that this seminal event was corrupted by the presence of hardcore pornography.
I can't find the original message, so must reply to a reply. I finally got access to the actual image and... Hardcore? Really? Really?? You can see as much on Miami beach these days. I suspect that the author either hasn't seen the image and is guessing at the content, or has a definition of "hardcore" that would include Vanity Fair, Elle and Shape.
Mid sixties to mid seventies. Around about 1977 is when the centerfolds started becoming overproduced, with unnatural poses in unnatural colors. The unnatural bodies came a little later.
> In the 90s something happened and the publishers started using less attractive women with a lot of cosmetic surgery and makeup applied, and manipulating them more.
Yes. Besides that, the magazine itself was starting to deteriorate. Production values got cheaper, photos weren't registered correctly, print bled through the page from the other side. There was only the occasional striking photo, usually ruined in the print process. Having a nearly unbroken collection from 1954, (due to years of haunting old book stores) I finally got fed up and canceled my subscription in 1998.
Besides, it's all online now anyway. I sold my entire collection two years ago, never looked back. I only kept perhaps four or five issues, one of which, oddly enough, was August 1967, Dee Dee Lind.
You are not alone. 1966 through 1973 was a magical time. The sexual revolution was in full swing but the style was still natural, innocent and unconsciously sexual. There hasn't been anything like it since.
I can't either. Cue cards are usually not nudes, they're either bikini shots or clothed portraits sporting some kind of bunny logo. Will try accessing again later.
> There was more wrong with Vista than just needing heavy-duty hardware for the time.
Yes, you're right. I'd say that there are always problems with any new release which is why you always wait for SP1, but Vista appeared to have more than it's share.
But I'd say that the most VISIBLE problem with Vista was all the "vista ready" hardware that wasn't.
> But they weren't strategic decisions, they were just mistakes resulting from the chronic miscalculation of what the real world can actually do outside of their test environments.
I could only speak to what I had observed, and was trying to get M$ the benefit of the doubt, having no evidence that it was miscalculation rather than decision.
> they just assumed that you had tons of spare network to let your file/print servers/clients constantly blather to each other about where they were and how they were feeling.
My experience with Windows started at 3.1. I was an NT early adopter but had to support Windows 95/98/ME. About the time I noticed that the Plus! pack for Windows XP was bigger than the entire OS and Plus! distribution for 98, I realized that every release was bigger, in some cases a LOT bigger, and slower. In some cases, a LOT slower.
It seemed like Microsoft was betting HEAVILY that computer speed and storage prices would continue to keep up with the bloat. It's possible that when Vista came out and initially had poor performance on the hardware at the time, the issue wasn't really that Vista was too slow but that the hardware that users had on their desk did not progress as much as Microsoft had been betting it would. Eventually the hardware did catch up and Vista runs fine now.
I had similar experiences (although not for as long a time) with Windows Mobile. I had a Windows Mobile 5 phone and it was a pig. I had to reboot it regularly and doing any operation beyond initiating or answering calls was an exercise in patience.
When Mobile 6 became available, I jumped on it.
And it was *worse*. I now realize that this is probably because I had not jumped the gap to the next generation hardware.
And so, I'm not surprised at all that the design process for Mobile 7 probably included the assumption that we would have significantly faster hardware, on networks of significantly higher capacity *and* speed (which are two different things) and that they may have been a little too optimistic in that regard.
Slashdot Mirror
That was succinct, but not very informative. I'm thinking "no it won't" also, my reason being that the rumors of any of these new technologies taking over for the desktop is naive. But I'd love to hear your reason.
Seriously? People are going to convert en-masse from Wintel desktops to Android tablets?
Let's get real here. Desktops are still desktops and tablets are still tablets. Next year most personal computing will still be done on Wintel machines. I'd love to say otherwise, but let's tone down the starry-eyed dreaming, ok? The death of Wintel is once again being greatly exaggerated. It's getting tiresome.
Tablets will make some inroads into the space currently occupied by laptops, pretty much decimate the portable DVD player market, change the face of the portable navigator market, and create their own tablet-specific space. People will find *new* things they can do on tablets that they hadn't been able to do before, like carry a device in their coat pocket that allows reasonably effective remote access to their devices at home, or provide ultra-portable hand-held access to web applications in the field without the heft and inconvenient piano hinge of a notebook and the dinky screen of a smartphone.
There *is* a difference between the growing tablet market and the Netbook market. Netbooks were effectively killed by the perception that computers must run Windows. Microsoft met the market halfway by forestalling the death of Windows XP, but the fact of the matter is that netbooks had to grow in size to be able to run Winders effectively, which destroyed their main appeal -- small size, low power, long battery life. There is so much overlap between netbooks and notebooks these days both in price and capabilities that the difference isn't important anymore.
What's different in the tablet market is that Microsoft has nothing to compete in this space. With Windows 7 shamelessly re-branding Accessibility features as "Tablet ready", it's plain that Microsoft expects to capture the tablet market through sheer inertia rather than actually having, you know, a product. iPads and Android tablets will continue to be purchased for the things they can do, and a few Windows tablets will be purchased because they're running Windows. Which will rapidly be seen as Not Reason Enough.
But the death of Wintel? It is to laugh.
"The creature from invisible Galaxy X"
Is Feces.
Um, ok. I dunno. You could tell yourself that if you buy a used iphone or a broken one and refurbish it yourself, the money isn't going to Apple.
Beats the hell outta me. Were I trying to operate under those conditions I'd maybe look at a smartphone with wifi and without a data plan, and then set it up to only use data on wifi. That gives you pretty much what you get with an ipod touch or whatever Samsung is coming out with. And you only have to carry one device. But I don't think your condition is normal.
> Unlike Archos and others, this Samsung product has official access to Android Market.
True, and a distinction Samsung will enjoy for... maybe another three weeks. Six on the outside.
> Hows all that "open platform" "not locked to a walled garden" "no need to jailbreak" Android working out for all the people that rant and rave against the iPhone?
Just fine, thanks. How are things in prison?
An important thing to understand in this day and age is that dedicated mp3 players are fast becoming unimportant. Practically every smartphone made since 2005 already provides that function, with support for playlists, host sync cover art and stereo bluetooth. (I've heard that even Apple provides support for stereo bluetooth now.)
I happen to own a couple of ipods, (one 3rd gen and one "classic") but they haven't been touched in years. My Droid X does the job better, as did my BB Tour before that and BB Bold before that. My daughter's ipod touch sits on the tank in her bathroom where it has been since she got her Galaxy phone in July. Should she finally get fed up with Samsung and go with a Droid or HTC, her ipod touch will *still* be untouched because the phone does the same job as well or better.
So I don't see how it relates. If you already have a smartphone, going to a different smartphone doesn't affect whether you buy the previous manufacturer's mp3 player, because you weren't going to anyway.
In general, I find the fact that Samsung is selling a galaxy phone without the phone part as a curiosity, not something I have to have.
However, I have been interested in the Galaxy tablet, and my interest in that *is* waning, based on the frustration my daughter is experiencing with her Galaxy phone.
In summary, the fact that Samsung has the only mp3 player to compete with the iPod touch (arguably true) is not important if the mp3 player as a device is rapidly becoming this century's buggy whip.
> Would you buy Apple's MP3 player over Samsung's just to punish Samsung for not upgrading a phone's firmware?
It's not a matter of "punishment", that's downright silly. I'm just a consumer, not Samsung's keeper.
It's a matter of no longer trusting the manufacturer. Why would I continue to buy from a manufacturer that had not treated me fairly?
Um, yeah, so? I'm not understanding your reasoning. I'll keep my crappy Galaxy running 2.1 after everyone else is upgraded to Honeycomb, because Samsung makes an MP3 player?
The thing is, Samsung preventing the users from upgrading may cause us to abandon the phone, but in what bizarro world would we ever buy another device from Samsung? The thing about Android is that many different manufacturers sell handsets, and if I have to buy another device anyway, I might as well buy from a manufacturer that delivers TIMELY UPDATES.
So, I'm thinking this will play out as just another rumor caused by severe update anxiety.
But what about "Why"? Has Steve Jobs said *why* we should do without a home screen button?
> This will affect all of what...11 or 12 Windows phone users?
Who knows? Maybe that's a significant percentage.
> If the offender moves into an "exclusion zone,"
What, like, the mall?
Nope, Christie Hefner stepped down in Jan 2009.
According to a recent (like last week) article, Hef is still CEO and still has creative control over the magazine. Moreover, he's currently trying to buy it back from it's current owners and take it private.
>> And now, all of these years later, we discover that this seminal event was corrupted by the presence of hardcore pornography.
I can't find the original message, so must reply to a reply. I finally got access to the actual image and... Hardcore? Really? Really?? You can see as much on Miami beach these days. I suspect that the author either hasn't seen the image and is guessing at the content, or has a definition of "hardcore" that would include Vanity Fair, Elle and Shape.
At least, that's what Hef wants today. Apparently.
> Playboy's golden age was in the 70s.
Mid sixties to mid seventies. Around about 1977 is when the centerfolds started becoming overproduced, with unnatural poses in unnatural colors. The unnatural bodies came a little later.
> In the 90s something happened and the publishers started using less attractive women with a lot of cosmetic surgery and makeup applied, and manipulating them more.
Yes. Besides that, the magazine itself was starting to deteriorate. Production values got cheaper, photos weren't registered correctly, print bled through the page from the other side. There was only the occasional striking photo, usually ruined in the print process. Having a nearly unbroken collection from 1954, (due to years of haunting old book stores) I finally got fed up and canceled my subscription in 1998.
Besides, it's all online now anyway. I sold my entire collection two years ago, never looked back. I only kept perhaps four or five issues, one of which, oddly enough, was August 1967, Dee Dee Lind.
You are not alone. 1966 through 1973 was a magical time. The sexual revolution was in full swing but the style was still natural, innocent and unconsciously sexual. There hasn't been anything like it since.
I can't either. Cue cards are usually not nudes, they're either bikini shots or clothed portraits sporting some kind of bunny logo. Will try accessing again later.
> There was more wrong with Vista than just needing heavy-duty hardware for the time.
Yes, you're right. I'd say that there are always problems with any new release which is why you always wait for SP1, but Vista appeared to have more than it's share.
But I'd say that the most VISIBLE problem with Vista was all the "vista ready" hardware that wasn't.
> But they weren't strategic decisions, they were just mistakes resulting from the chronic miscalculation of what the real world can actually do outside of their test environments.
I could only speak to what I had observed, and was trying to get M$ the benefit of the doubt, having no evidence that it was miscalculation rather than decision.
> they just assumed that you had tons of spare network to let your file/print servers/clients constantly blather to each other about where they were and how they were feeling.
That's my new favorite phrase.
Wow, that actually makes sense.
My experience with Windows started at 3.1. I was an NT early adopter but had to support Windows 95/98/ME. About the time I noticed that the Plus! pack for Windows XP was bigger than the entire OS and Plus! distribution for 98, I realized that every release was bigger, in some cases a LOT bigger, and slower. In some cases, a LOT slower.
It seemed like Microsoft was betting HEAVILY that computer speed and storage prices would continue to keep up with the bloat. It's possible that when Vista came out and initially had poor performance on the hardware at the time, the issue wasn't really that Vista was too slow but that the hardware that users had on their desk did not progress as much as Microsoft had been betting it would. Eventually the hardware did catch up and Vista runs fine now.
I had similar experiences (although not for as long a time) with Windows Mobile. I had a Windows Mobile 5 phone and it was a pig. I had to reboot it regularly and doing any operation beyond initiating or answering calls was an exercise in patience.
When Mobile 6 became available, I jumped on it.
And it was *worse*. I now realize that this is probably because I had not jumped the gap to the next generation hardware.
And so, I'm not surprised at all that the design process for Mobile 7 probably included the assumption that we would have significantly faster hardware, on networks of significantly higher capacity *and* speed (which are two different things) and that they may have been a little too optimistic in that regard.
Soylent Green is People!