What's wrong with cascading menus is that there's not enough real-estate on a mobile device to do them well. It becomes an exercise in patience and fine motor skills. It takes a remarkable number of gestures to get to some arbitrary app (up to seven on the WM phone I suffered with for 3 months) and there isn't enough real-estate to put all the apps one commonly uses on the front page. Cascading menus are OK on a PC, endurable (barely) on a netbook, and intolerable on a mobile device. Microsoft apparently thinks that users will endure decreased usability and eyestrain for a consistent interface across their PC, netbook and mobile devices. It appears that in some cases they're right. But I suspect it's because the users haven't adequately explored the alternatives.
What is important on a mobile device is navigation on a small screen with imprecise gestures. The best I've ever experienced was a tab-based interface (LauncherX) on Palm -- you move between screens of applications by rocking left and right, and rock down to choose an app. I had about 40 apps in 5 categories and could get to any of them in 2-3 seconds. The second best was the iPod Touch -- wiping to different screens of apps is fast and something a toddler could pick up in minutes. Third is Blackberry, (trackball) which only has one "page" but supports hierarchical folders. Even at that, you have to choose your app placement carefully to avoid spending all your time opening and closing folders. The absolute worst is tapping "Start", then "Programs", then "Accessories", then "Entertainment" and so forth. Try another gui -- practically any other current mobile gui -- and you'll find that just about any operation is faster and more intuitive.
One of us is not understanding the original topic. My understanding is that we're talking about the connector on the device end, not the connector that plugs into the computer (or the wall, for that matter). The issue is charging and/or data cables, and in some cases headphone/microphone cables that have proprietary connectors, will not interplay, and can only be purchased from the device manufacturer at huge markup. The iPod/iPhone products fall into this category because, despite connecting to vanilla USB or Firewire ports, they have a proprietary connector on the other end, which means the cable will always be cute and stylish and contribute to the overall visual user experience, and you'll never have to see a potentially ugly (but much cheaper) third-party cable hanging off your iPod like a malignant growth. Or something.
Besides that, yes, all ipods will plug into usb or firewire, but some refuse to charge on firewire, and some refuse to charge on usb, depending on the generation of the unit, and I seem to recall that the Touch won't even sync on Firewire, so even that level of compatibility is not ubiquitous amongst Apple devices. So, for instance, I standardized on stylish white Firewire cables for the 3rd generation ipod, and then had to buy stylish white USB cables to do the same thing for the Classic and Touch.
Parenthetically, does anyone remember the Apple "USB" (quotes deliberate) keyboards that had an extra ridge on one side of the otherwise standard USB connector, so that only stylish white Apple USB cables would fit?
> Lately I've been really pessimistic about the whole thing, I mean, really, who cares? Even if there were intelligent life on planets that close, we would only be able to exchange communication once every 10 years, not enough to actually learn their language, and we would never be able to travel to visit them, right?
Not really. The idea of radio communications with light-years distant targets has been discussed at least as far back as the forties. The idea is, you just keep talking -- send any data you think they might need, or anything you want to send, without waiting for a response, and send each item multiple times. They do the same. If they do send you a request, if you haven't already sent them the answer in the 10 year interval, you insert it into the regular traffic. It's not that hard.
(I remember reading about ocean voyages and exploration missions taking years, even decades to complete on earth. A 12 -- 15 year voyage to another star doesn't seem that unreasonable.)
But what will probably happen is that both sides of the conversation will be former texters, and the conversation will go like:
Hi.
(10 years later)
Hi.
(10 years later)
Whatcha doin?
(10 years)
Nothin
(10 years)
Me too. This is boring.
...Also some Motorola phones, and Blackberry. (My Bold and daughter's Curve will charge with a standard USB cable.) Dunno, other than the high price of cute white interface cables, Apple hasn't changed over to mini-USB. Their current products already charge and communicate over USB, just with a proprietary connector at the device end.
Regarding headphones, I've noticed that the headset that came with my Blackberry (with microphone and mute switch) works in Daughter's Curve and (oddly enough) in her iPod Touch. Here's the really interesting thing -- when used with the Touch, she can get it to do various things by clicking the mute switch quickly one, two, three times. Like start over, go to next song, etc. Pretty amazing for a peripheral not made by Apple.
And yet... Speaking of headphones, if I could go slightly off-topic, if Apple supported A2DP, like Blackberry already does, you wouldn't have to mess with funky, hardwired adapters. It'd just start playing when it got in range of the headset or the radio, as my Bold already does when I get in the car. That's such an elegant solution I'm astonished that Apple didn't think of it first (and patent it).
...that mini-USB was becoming de-facto, how much you wanna bet that the EU will require some funky, blocky connector nobody has ever heard of, like, I dunno, SCART. And then cell companies will have to support two versions of everything -- the rest of the world, and Europe.
The EU could adopt mini-USB for charging/data and 4 conductor mini-TRS for mic/audio, but I for one would be surprised.
What strikes me about the article is that it for the most part deals only with solutions that the average geek could implement. This is the office of the President of the United States, with the resources and leverage of the US Government at disposal to solve the problem. Talking about "green" solutions, or speculating on whether RIM would sue the US Government if Obama was using a hacked Blackberry is nonsense. I suspect the US Government could go to RIM and get whatever custom firmware they needed, or just roll their own with RIM's blessing. RIM is a Canadian company, but they have to do business here too.
With money literally no object, Obama's team could carry their own short-range portable cell tower, using completely different frequencies and protocols, which patches into the existing network in a secure way from a location distant from the President.
I personally think they'll use decoys, as with the presidential limo. And I strongly suspect that the information that passes between the President's device and the White House blackberry server will be strongly encrypted.
We'll probably never know the actual details. At first I was hoping someone would write a white paper after Obama leaves office, but I don't expect that to happen, as the solution, whatever it is, would have future uses.
> I saw the trailer during the Superbowl and dunno what to think. My first thought was "Oh great, another prequel" I guess exploring the aftermath of the Dominion War or giving a real sendoff to the TNG crowd would have been much to ask for.
If it's only a prequel, I wouldn't bother seeing it. I am so done with Star Trek, for the same reason I was done with the Bond films -- they had mostly descended into painful self-parody.
What makes the new film interesting to me is the same thing that made Casino Royale interesting -- it's supposed to be a complete reboot, a parallel universe, ignoring everything that has gone on before, and with the potential to go in a completely different direction. That's what makes it worth seeing. If it's only purpose is to set up the backstory for "Where no man has gone before", then I'm outta here.
It's too late for a TNG send-off. Sadly, the characters are too old for an action film, and the producers aren't bright enough to use them as strong supporting characters for a next-next-generation.
on-topic content... geeze, this is getting harder... I bet none of the computers on the bridge run Windows. So there.
This is *really* off-topic, (so feel free to mod that way) but practically the only thing that worries me about the upcoming ST reboot is that the previews make it look like a Nemesis rip-off. I *really* hope I'm wrong.
On-topic content... uh... um... Ok, here: Wife is getting a laptop for valentine's (not as geeky as it sounds -- she really does need one) and it'll almost certainly run Vista. After reading this article, (1) I know which versions of Vista to look for, and (2) I can look forward to Windows 7 rather than insist on a "downgrade" to XP.
> God help us all if I see the day where we are bemoaning the new release and swearing that we'll stay with Vista.
I agree. God help us all. But tell yourself -- the people that were cursing ME and saying they'd never leave Windows 98 -- were they wrong? I mean really.
Contrariwise, I don't recall cursing Windows 2000 and vowing that I'd stay with NT 4.0 forever.
After SP1, and once you turned off that Fisher-Price gooey, and some of the more useless effects, XP was pretty solid.
Just because XP was cursed before SP1 by Windows 2000 users (which is still a solid OS, BTW) doesn't equate XP with Vista.
All the people who plan (like myself and the company I work for) to make a direct jump from XP to Windows 7 will not be in a position to "swear they'll stay with Vista", so the point for many of us is moot.
But the Vista users? Well, let's wait and see. I'm running Windows 7 beta in a virtual instance, and with all the wasteful doo-dads turned off, it's not half bad. I'm actually looking forward to migrating my Windows XP MCE to Windows 7.
So... My daughter, who's severely dyslexic, uses the OSX text-to-speech feature to help her with her high school assignments. Is she breaking the law?
I don't even play a lawyer on TV, but this seems like a very specific, targeted claim. So, if I use Mobipocket (PC) in conjunction with Windows TTS am I breaking the law? How about when I read to my child? Ok, that last is probably fair use, but one could probably come up with dozens of uses of TTS which technically fall under this claim. And that's not even opening the speech-to-text can of worms.
If they carry this to the lawsuit stage, I'd be tempted to invoke the Americans with Disabilities Act.
> The same money that would e spend on Windows licences can also be spent on food, on clothing, on soldiers, on graft, on construction projects to gloify the Great Leader, or any number of other things.
I wonder, which antivirus does it exclude? For instance, will it see AVG Free as an antivirus and exclude it from the 3 app limit, or as an application that counts? (How does it know?) Microsoft has been somewhat unfriendly to third-party antivirus companies in the past. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
> I happen to know the gal who write that Mars global warming paper.
Aaaaand, do you also know the gal who write [sic] the Titan global warming paper? Would that be the same gal who wrote the Pluto global warming paper? Just wonderin'.
Where I live, if you head west out of town for 15 miles or so, you reach a section of 4 lane freeway with very limited access (rare on/off ramps) going through unpopulated farmland. It's 65 through much of this, except in one area where it's 55.
The scam requires two patrol cars, and works like this:
Patrol car 1 pulls victim 1 over for going 65 in a 55. Patrol car 2 waits for a car (victim 2) to pass patrol car 1 and victim 1, who are parked on the side of the road. Patrol car 2 then pulls over victim 2, and cites them for a not-well-known and vaguely worded law regarding passing a parked patrol car at an unsafe speed. ("Unsafe" could be the posted speed limit.) In court, it is very difficult to prove that whatever speed you were traveling was not "unsafe". Also difficult to prove whether you were in the right or left lane.
Meanwhile, Patrol car 1 has finished with victim 1, pulls up behind patrol car 2 still ticketing victim 2, and waits for a car to pass them. The moment one does, he pulls them over for passing at an unsafe speed.
In this fashion, the two patrol cars leapfrog down the freeway, passing out tickets as fast as they can write them, until they reach the end of their jurisdiction, where the posted speed limit goes back to 65. They then go back to start and go through it again.
The only reason most people even know about this is because they pulled over someone who was willing to fight back, it made the news, and suddenly people were coming forward with similar stories. (My wife was one.) A judge told them to cut it out. To my knowledge, the practice has ceased, but I still avoid that area if I can.
It's the "worker's own pc" that's puzzling. Wouldn't the worker's PC also run an operating system that must be supported? If the worker's PC is not running Winders, I could see some license savings but (a) I just can't imagine lots of companies doing that, and (b) the company still has to support it, unless (c) the user works from home on his/her own privately supported PC. I was going to say (d) the worker brings his/her own pc to work but that seems the least likely of some very unlikely possibilities. I don't see where this is a really big win for anyone. Thin Client was so last decade. I think it's more likely that companies will generally cling to XP on the desktop until hell freezes over.
tail wagging dog
on
Less Is Moore
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
> [windows 7 same as] Vista, but to run faster and use fewer resources. If so, it will be the first version of Windows that makes computers run faster than the previous version. That could be bad news for computer-makers, since users will be less inclined to upgrade only proving that Moore's law has not been repealed, but that more people are taking the dividend it provides in cash, rather than processor cycles.
I think this somewhat misses the point. People are less likely to buy new hardware in an economic downturn. It doesn't really have anything to do with whether the next version of Windows drives hardsware sales, as previous versions have done.
If Windows 7 really "runs faster with fewer resources" than Vista, (I'm hopeful, but this won't be established until it's actually released) then it could be that Microsoft is recognizing the fact that they will get more over-the-counter purchases if they make it more likely to run on legacy hardware. Else, people will just stick with what they have. It's the economy, not Microsoft, that's the main driver.
I am actually hopeful that we've broken the mindless upgrade cycle. I'm sorry it took a recession to do it.
Slashdot Mirror
What's wrong with cascading menus is that there's not enough real-estate on a mobile device to do them well. It becomes an exercise in patience and fine motor skills. It takes a remarkable number of gestures to get to some arbitrary app (up to seven on the WM phone I suffered with for 3 months) and there isn't enough real-estate to put all the apps one commonly uses on the front page. Cascading menus are OK on a PC, endurable (barely) on a netbook, and intolerable on a mobile device. Microsoft apparently thinks that users will endure decreased usability and eyestrain for a consistent interface across their PC, netbook and mobile devices. It appears that in some cases they're right. But I suspect it's because the users haven't adequately explored the alternatives.
What is important on a mobile device is navigation on a small screen with imprecise gestures. The best I've ever experienced was a tab-based interface (LauncherX) on Palm -- you move between screens of applications by rocking left and right, and rock down to choose an app. I had about 40 apps in 5 categories and could get to any of them in 2-3 seconds. The second best was the iPod Touch -- wiping to different screens of apps is fast and something a toddler could pick up in minutes. Third is Blackberry, (trackball) which only has one "page" but supports hierarchical folders. Even at that, you have to choose your app placement carefully to avoid spending all your time opening and closing folders. The absolute worst is tapping "Start", then "Programs", then "Accessories", then "Entertainment" and so forth. Try another gui -- practically any other current mobile gui -- and you'll find that just about any operation is faster and more intuitive.
One of us is not understanding the original topic. My understanding is that we're talking about the connector on the device end, not the connector that plugs into the computer (or the wall, for that matter). The issue is charging and/or data cables, and in some cases headphone/microphone cables that have proprietary connectors, will not interplay, and can only be purchased from the device manufacturer at huge markup. The iPod/iPhone products fall into this category because, despite connecting to vanilla USB or Firewire ports, they have a proprietary connector on the other end, which means the cable will always be cute and stylish and contribute to the overall visual user experience, and you'll never have to see a potentially ugly (but much cheaper) third-party cable hanging off your iPod like a malignant growth. Or something.
Besides that, yes, all ipods will plug into usb or firewire, but some refuse to charge on firewire, and some refuse to charge on usb, depending on the generation of the unit, and I seem to recall that the Touch won't even sync on Firewire, so even that level of compatibility is not ubiquitous amongst Apple devices. So, for instance, I standardized on stylish white Firewire cables for the 3rd generation ipod, and then had to buy stylish white USB cables to do the same thing for the Classic and Touch.
Parenthetically, does anyone remember the Apple "USB" (quotes deliberate) keyboards that had an extra ridge on one side of the otherwise standard USB connector, so that only stylish white Apple USB cables would fit?
It's stupid, but teachers have no other option. If they confront the student in class, they open themselves and the school to lawsuit.
> Lately I've been really pessimistic about the whole thing, I mean, really, who cares? Even if there were intelligent life on planets that close, we would only be able to exchange communication once every 10 years, not enough to actually learn their language, and we would never be able to travel to visit them, right?
Not really. The idea of radio communications with light-years distant targets has been discussed at least as far back as the forties. The idea is, you just keep talking -- send any data you think they might need, or anything you want to send, without waiting for a response, and send each item multiple times. They do the same. If they do send you a request, if you haven't already sent them the answer in the 10 year interval, you insert it into the regular traffic. It's not that hard.
(I remember reading about ocean voyages and exploration missions taking years, even decades to complete on earth. A 12 -- 15 year voyage to another star doesn't seem that unreasonable.)
But what will probably happen is that both sides of the conversation will be former texters, and the conversation will go like: Hi. (10 years later) Hi. (10 years later) Whatcha doin? (10 years) Nothin (10 years) Me too. This is boring.
> It must have been the "half the Internet" that I don't use.
The non-pr0n half.
Regarding headphones, I've noticed that the headset that came with my Blackberry (with microphone and mute switch) works in Daughter's Curve and (oddly enough) in her iPod Touch. Here's the really interesting thing -- when used with the Touch, she can get it to do various things by clicking the mute switch quickly one, two, three times. Like start over, go to next song, etc. Pretty amazing for a peripheral not made by Apple.
And yet... Speaking of headphones, if I could go slightly off-topic, if Apple supported A2DP, like Blackberry already does, you wouldn't have to mess with funky, hardwired adapters. It'd just start playing when it got in range of the headset or the radio, as my Bold already does when I get in the car. That's such an elegant solution I'm astonished that Apple didn't think of it first (and patent it).
The EU could adopt mini-USB for charging/data and 4 conductor mini-TRS for mic/audio, but I for one would be surprised.
What strikes me about the article is that it for the most part deals only with solutions that the average geek could implement. This is the office of the President of the United States, with the resources and leverage of the US Government at disposal to solve the problem. Talking about "green" solutions, or speculating on whether RIM would sue the US Government if Obama was using a hacked Blackberry is nonsense. I suspect the US Government could go to RIM and get whatever custom firmware they needed, or just roll their own with RIM's blessing. RIM is a Canadian company, but they have to do business here too.
With money literally no object, Obama's team could carry their own short-range portable cell tower, using completely different frequencies and protocols, which patches into the existing network in a secure way from a location distant from the President.
I personally think they'll use decoys, as with the presidential limo. And I strongly suspect that the information that passes between the President's device and the White House blackberry server will be strongly encrypted.
We'll probably never know the actual details. At first I was hoping someone would write a white paper after Obama leaves office, but I don't expect that to happen, as the solution, whatever it is, would have future uses.
> I saw the trailer during the Superbowl and dunno what to think. My first thought was "Oh great, another prequel" I guess exploring the aftermath of the Dominion War or giving a real sendoff to the TNG crowd would have been much to ask for.
If it's only a prequel, I wouldn't bother seeing it. I am so done with Star Trek, for the same reason I was done with the Bond films -- they had mostly descended into painful self-parody.
What makes the new film interesting to me is the same thing that made Casino Royale interesting -- it's supposed to be a complete reboot, a parallel universe, ignoring everything that has gone on before, and with the potential to go in a completely different direction. That's what makes it worth seeing. If it's only purpose is to set up the backstory for "Where no man has gone before", then I'm outta here.
It's too late for a TNG send-off. Sadly, the characters are too old for an action film, and the producers aren't bright enough to use them as strong supporting characters for a next-next-generation.
on-topic content... geeze, this is getting harder... I bet none of the computers on the bridge run Windows. So there.
This is *really* off-topic, (so feel free to mod that way) but practically the only thing that worries me about the upcoming ST reboot is that the previews make it look like a Nemesis rip-off. I *really* hope I'm wrong.
On-topic content... uh... um... Ok, here: Wife is getting a laptop for valentine's (not as geeky as it sounds -- she really does need one) and it'll almost certainly run Vista. After reading this article, (1) I know which versions of Vista to look for, and (2) I can look forward to Windows 7 rather than insist on a "downgrade" to XP.
> God help us all if I see the day where we are bemoaning the new release and swearing that we'll stay with Vista.
I agree. God help us all. But tell yourself -- the people that were cursing ME and saying they'd never leave Windows 98 -- were they wrong? I mean really.
Contrariwise, I don't recall cursing Windows 2000 and vowing that I'd stay with NT 4.0 forever.
After SP1, and once you turned off that Fisher-Price gooey, and some of the more useless effects, XP was pretty solid.
Just because XP was cursed before SP1 by Windows 2000 users (which is still a solid OS, BTW) doesn't equate XP with Vista.
All the people who plan (like myself and the company I work for) to make a direct jump from XP to Windows 7 will not be in a position to "swear they'll stay with Vista", so the point for many of us is moot.
But the Vista users? Well, let's wait and see. I'm running Windows 7 beta in a virtual instance, and with all the wasteful doo-dads turned off, it's not half bad. I'm actually looking forward to migrating my Windows XP MCE to Windows 7.
So... My daughter, who's severely dyslexic, uses the OSX text-to-speech feature to help her with her high school assignments. Is she breaking the law?
I don't even play a lawyer on TV, but this seems like a very specific, targeted claim. So, if I use Mobipocket (PC) in conjunction with Windows TTS am I breaking the law? How about when I read to my child? Ok, that last is probably fair use, but one could probably come up with dozens of uses of TTS which technically fall under this claim. And that's not even opening the speech-to-text can of worms.
If they carry this to the lawsuit stage, I'd be tempted to invoke the Americans with Disabilities Act.
> The same money that would e spend on Windows licences can also be spent on food, on clothing, on soldiers, on graft, on construction projects to gloify the Great Leader, or any number of other things.
Any of which would be preferable. :-)
>> I work in a secure environment (along the line of a massive casino)
> A bank, I presume?
Fannie Mae?
I wonder, which antivirus does it exclude? For instance, will it see AVG Free as an antivirus and exclude it from the 3 app limit, or as an application that counts? (How does it know?) Microsoft has been somewhat unfriendly to third-party antivirus companies in the past. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
> I happen to know the gal who write that Mars global warming paper.
Aaaaand, do you also know the gal who write [sic] the Titan global warming paper? Would that be the same gal who wrote the Pluto global warming paper? Just wonderin'.
Where I live, if you head west out of town for 15 miles or so, you reach a section of 4 lane freeway with very limited access (rare on/off ramps) going through unpopulated farmland. It's 65 through much of this, except in one area where it's 55.
The scam requires two patrol cars, and works like this:
Patrol car 1 pulls victim 1 over for going 65 in a 55. Patrol car 2 waits for a car (victim 2) to pass patrol car 1 and victim 1, who are parked on the side of the road. Patrol car 2 then pulls over victim 2, and cites them for a not-well-known and vaguely worded law regarding passing a parked patrol car at an unsafe speed. ("Unsafe" could be the posted speed limit.) In court, it is very difficult to prove that whatever speed you were traveling was not "unsafe". Also difficult to prove whether you were in the right or left lane.
Meanwhile, Patrol car 1 has finished with victim 1, pulls up behind patrol car 2 still ticketing victim 2, and waits for a car to pass them. The moment one does, he pulls them over for passing at an unsafe speed.
In this fashion, the two patrol cars leapfrog down the freeway, passing out tickets as fast as they can write them, until they reach the end of their jurisdiction, where the posted speed limit goes back to 65. They then go back to start and go through it again.
The only reason most people even know about this is because they pulled over someone who was willing to fight back, it made the news, and suddenly people were coming forward with similar stories. (My wife was one.) A judge told them to cut it out. To my knowledge, the practice has ceased, but I still avoid that area if I can.
It's the "worker's own pc" that's puzzling. Wouldn't the worker's PC also run an operating system that must be supported? If the worker's PC is not running Winders, I could see some license savings but (a) I just can't imagine lots of companies doing that, and (b) the company still has to support it, unless (c) the user works from home on his/her own privately supported PC. I was going to say (d) the worker brings his/her own pc to work but that seems the least likely of some very unlikely possibilities. I don't see where this is a really big win for anyone. Thin Client was so last decade. I think it's more likely that companies will generally cling to XP on the desktop until hell freezes over.
But call me back when you have 60/60 at a reasonable price.
It's probably too late to work the idea into the coming movie.
Glad I heard about this before doing business with them. Carbonite is off the list.
Doesn't congress have better things to do?
> [windows 7 same as] Vista, but to run faster and use fewer resources. If so, it will be the first version of Windows that makes computers run faster than the previous version. That could be bad news for computer-makers, since users will be less inclined to upgrade only proving that Moore's law has not been repealed, but that more people are taking the dividend it provides in cash, rather than processor cycles.
I think this somewhat misses the point. People are less likely to buy new hardware in an economic downturn. It doesn't really have anything to do with whether the next version of Windows drives hardsware sales, as previous versions have done.
If Windows 7 really "runs faster with fewer resources" than Vista, (I'm hopeful, but this won't be established until it's actually released) then it could be that Microsoft is recognizing the fact that they will get more over-the-counter purchases if they make it more likely to run on legacy hardware. Else, people will just stick with what they have. It's the economy, not Microsoft, that's the main driver.
I am actually hopeful that we've broken the mindless upgrade cycle. I'm sorry it took a recession to do it.
> ...all of those flavors were available for Vista as well... ...a carry-over from Vista...
I think that was his point. "Again".