I wish I could disagree, but I help so many users that run one program full screen. I just sit back and shake my head as they constantly switch from one program to another instead of arranging the program windows to see everything they need at one time.
Depends on the size of the screen. For small screen sizes, you need the full screen for many applications. And with laptops being far more popular than desktops these days, and 13 inch laptops the most common, that's a lot of people.
Even those that are now using larger screens on desktops will often have learned on screens of 12-14 inches.
Also don't forget that whilst your work might be constantly multitasking, other workers often spend most of their time in a single app, and don't need to transfer data between apps. Less clutter for them is better - at it's most extreme are specialist text editors for writers, that are specifically created to remove all menus and other interface chrome so that the writer can concentrate on just the words.
Quite amusing that your post went on to be so long.:-)
Regarding your reference to the usefulness of the desktop space for putting objects on. I think very few people have used it like that, because most people have had limited sized screens and so have used windows that are either maximised or covering most of the desktop. So actually accessing objects on the desktop would "classically" involve closing, minimising or moving applications windows(s). Later OSs have provided hotkeys for temporarily hiding application windows, but it's a poor workaround for a fundamental problem that the desktop is always at the bottom, with object icons stuck behind windows.
In reality I think most people put their object icons in a file manager window, where that is allowed, as that can be brought to the front, over the top of application windows. Thus making the concept of a desktop irrelevant.
It's not remarkably similar. It's a later version of the same thing. You can't criticise OS X for having features of NeXT given that it was a development of that OS. Neither can other people deny that it has all the significant features of Mac OS 9 and earlier, since of course Apple made the OSX UI familiar for those users.
The attempt to criticise people for choosing a different OS than you only succeeds in making you look like a moronic troll.
Hardly surprising given it came out more than a year later. A year is enough time for specs to go up significantly even now. But then, personal computer technology was exploding.
Classic desktop means Amiga-style desktop, where the initial icons are which disks are in the drive, and double-clicking them opens a window containing more icons.
Of course, the Mac desktop is just a hi-res version of the Amiga (toolbar at the top for the active window, task bar,... were all Amiga desktop features).
Temporal anomaly in your argument. The Mac launched Jan 24th 1984. The Amiga didn't launch till 1985.
Well, when you look at how many times a reference to a tv show or a movie is made by posters here on Slashdot as justification or backup of their point of view or draw analogies.
We expect more from national leasers than we do from the less than average slashdot reader.
When the can of Heinz beans goes from being made in America to being made in Mexico and is called Ole Beans, guess what? It's still Heinz beans.
So these beans are neither made by Heinz, nor made for Heinz, nor labelled as Heinz, nor sold by Heinz. No they are certainly not Heinz Beans.
And you never answered my question in regard to the iPod hypothetical.
Yes I answered your question. And in your very next sentence you misrepresent my answer, meaning that you know I answered it. What you mean is you don't agree with my answer to your question. Big difference.
It's all irrelevant anyway, because even if you exclude IBM, Schiller is still wrong.
Yeah, I already said that in an answer to you 5 days ago.
They didn't "rent" anything -- they paid $10 billion for Motorola's patents.
No they didn't. Google paid $12.5 billion for Motorola Motability in the belief they could use it further their Android interests by manufacturing their own smartphones. They failed.
As a result the are selling Motorola Mobility minus some subset of the patent portfolio on for $2.91 billion.
So they have ended up with some of Motorola's patents at a cost to them of $10 billion. But that certainly wasn't the plan. And there's no indication that the patents they are left with are worth anything like $10 billion.
I'm not sure there's enough information yet to know it was a smack-down. If part of the agreement was that Google has to sell Motorola, that would be quite a concession. And of course it may be that the agreement is for Google to adopt some or all of Samsung's UX design into Android. That would result in them shipping a standard Android distribution in future, without them actually changing anything.
$10 billion for a patent bundle. Wonder what Google is charging Android manufacturers for a license to use Android (and thus these patents) these days?
Oh, there wasn't any ad hominem. There was merely an insult, independent of my argument
In that case your use of the English language is not so good. Both your argument and the ad-hominem were in the same paragraph, thus they were related, not independent.
Not that it puts you in any better light if it were an unrelated insult. It still shows a lack of ability to stick to rational argument of the topic.
which is merely an indication of how little respect I have for your ability to form cogent thoughts, and thus for you.
Ad-hominems and insults have no effect on me. They only diminish your own posts.
So the only difference between those products made by the IBM division of Lenovo and the ones made today by the IBM division of Lenovo is the label.
If that were true they wouldn't be selling many of them. Nobody wants a PC that hasn't progressed in years.
But you realize a label is just a label, and is otherwise meaningless, right?
But we're not just talking about the label. Every aspect of the PCs is Lenovo, not IBM.
Is a can of beans still Heinz beans, if the label says Del Monte Pineapple, and the contents of the can are Del Monte Pineapples?
Lets be clear, IBM neither own the rights, contract out nor assemble Lenovo's PCs, nor is the label IBM. IBM has literally nothing to do with Lenovo's PCs and hasn't for years. It's a can of Del Monte Pineapples that you are trying to pass off as Heinz Baked Beans. It's ridiculous.
If Apple sold their iPod division to Foxconn, who continued to make and sell iPods, would it be any different if they had an Apple label or Foxconn label on them if they were otherwise made with the exact same parts at the exact same factory by the exact same workers?
Apple progresses the design of iPods every year to 18 months. In the situation you describe, 3 years or more on, they'd be Foxconn iPods and Apple would no longer be in the iPod market. Just as IBM is no longer in the PC market.
That's why most Americans are unbelievers in Global Warming.
Thankfully, that's yet another thing you are wrong about.
"Americans' belief in the reality of global warming has increased by 13 percentage points over the past two and a half years, from 57 percent in January 2010 to 70 percent in September 2012. At the same time, the number of Americans who say global warming is not happening has declined nearly by half, from 20 percent in January 2010 to only 12 percent today. "For the first time since 2008, more than half of Americans (54%) believe global warming is caused mostly by human activities, an increase of 8 points since March 2012. Americans who say it is caused mostly by natural changes in the environment have declined to 30 percent (from 37% in March)." - See more at: http://environment.yale.edu/cl...
I'm not the only one to miss the sarcasm. You might consider the/s tag. Otherwise sarcasm isn't a very good communication strategy on the web. People can't hear the tone of your voice.
Besides, I already pointed out I missed your sarcasm 18 minutes ago.
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong. The Xerox star interface did NOT have initial icons for the disk drives. That came from Mac OS.
I wish I could disagree, but I help so many users that run one program full screen. I just sit back and shake my head as they constantly switch from one program to another instead of arranging the program windows to see everything they need at one time.
Depends on the size of the screen. For small screen sizes, you need the full screen for many applications. And with laptops being far more popular than desktops these days, and 13 inch laptops the most common, that's a lot of people.
Even those that are now using larger screens on desktops will often have learned on screens of 12-14 inches.
Also don't forget that whilst your work might be constantly multitasking, other workers often spend most of their time in a single app, and don't need to transfer data between apps. Less clutter for them is better - at it's most extreme are specialist text editors for writers, that are specifically created to remove all menus and other interface chrome so that the writer can concentrate on just the words.
using too many words.
Quite amusing that your post went on to be so long. :-)
Regarding your reference to the usefulness of the desktop space for putting objects on. I think very few people have used it like that, because most people have had limited sized screens and so have used windows that are either maximised or covering most of the desktop. So actually accessing objects on the desktop would "classically" involve closing, minimising or moving applications windows(s). Later OSs have provided hotkeys for temporarily hiding application windows, but it's a poor workaround for a fundamental problem that the desktop is always at the bottom, with object icons stuck behind windows.
In reality I think most people put their object icons in a file manager window, where that is allowed, as that can be brought to the front, over the top of application windows. Thus making the concept of a desktop irrelevant.
I would agree, that visually NeXT had more in common with the Amiga direction than Apple.
Possibly. But don't forget that the Amiga UI was largely copied from Mac OS. As are all UIs with application drop down or pull down menus.
It's not remarkably similar. It's a later version of the same thing. You can't criticise OS X for having features of NeXT given that it was a development of that OS. Neither can other people deny that it has all the significant features of Mac OS 9 and earlier, since of course Apple made the OSX UI familiar for those users.
The attempt to criticise people for choosing a different OS than you only succeeds in making you look like a moronic troll.
Hardly surprising given it came out more than a year later. A year is enough time for specs to go up significantly even now. But then, personal computer technology was exploding.
What well-known window manager on Linux is like a Phone UI?
Classic desktop means Amiga-style desktop, where the initial icons are which disks are in the drive, and double-clicking them opens a window containing more icons.
That came from the Mac, not the Amiga.
Of course, the Mac desktop is just a hi-res version of the Amiga (toolbar at the top for the active window, task bar, ... were all Amiga desktop features).
Temporal anomaly in your argument. The Mac launched Jan 24th 1984. The Amiga didn't launch till 1985.
What is a "Classic Desktop" and in what way are the other GUIs being discussed not "Classic Desktops"?
David Cameron believes so.
I know it was a joke. But lets not forget that there are lawyers who work pro-bono on various human-rights and other good cause cases.
So there are lawyers with consciences. It's just that the money grubbing bastard lawyers tend to make the news more often.
Well, when you look at how many times a reference to a tv show or a movie is made by posters here on Slashdot as justification or backup of their point of view or draw analogies.
We expect more from national leasers than we do from the less than average slashdot reader.
Of course we are constantly disappointed.
British politics differs hugely from American politics. However, yes, in the moving lips = lies point, politicians are the same worldwide.
When the can of Heinz beans goes from being made in America to being made in Mexico and is called Ole Beans, guess what? It's still Heinz beans.
So these beans are neither made by Heinz, nor made for Heinz, nor labelled as Heinz, nor sold by Heinz. No they are certainly not Heinz Beans.
And you never answered my question in regard to the iPod hypothetical.
Yes I answered your question. And in your very next sentence you misrepresent my answer, meaning that you know I answered it. What you mean is you don't agree with my answer to your question. Big difference.
It's all irrelevant anyway, because even if you exclude IBM, Schiller is still wrong.
Yeah, I already said that in an answer to you 5 days ago.
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
10 years to switch isn't what I'd call very successful.
The word I'd use is "Finally!"
They didn't "rent" anything -- they paid $10 billion for Motorola's patents.
No they didn't. Google paid $12.5 billion for Motorola Motability in the belief they could use it further their Android interests by manufacturing their own smartphones. They failed.
As a result the are selling Motorola Mobility minus some subset of the patent portfolio on for $2.91 billion.
So they have ended up with some of Motorola's patents at a cost to them of $10 billion. But that certainly wasn't the plan. And there's no indication that the patents they are left with are worth anything like $10 billion.
the smack-down Google gave Samsung at CES.
I'm not sure there's enough information yet to know it was a smack-down. If part of the agreement was that Google has to sell Motorola, that would be quite a concession. And of course it may be that the agreement is for Google to adopt some or all of Samsung's UX design into Android. That would result in them shipping a standard Android distribution in future, without them actually changing anything.
$10 billion for a patent bundle. Wonder what Google is charging Android manufacturers for a license to use Android (and thus these patents) these days?
Oh, there wasn't any ad hominem. There was merely an insult, independent of my argument
In that case your use of the English language is not so good. Both your argument and the ad-hominem were in the same paragraph, thus they were related, not independent.
Not that it puts you in any better light if it were an unrelated insult. It still shows a lack of ability to stick to rational argument of the topic.
which is merely an indication of how little respect I have for your ability to form cogent thoughts, and thus for you.
Ad-hominems and insults have no effect on me. They only diminish your own posts.
Norway is a niche in itself, offering subsidies to electric vehicles.
Many or possibly most countries in Europe offer EV subsidies and other incentives. As do many US states. So no, that doesn't make Norway a niche.
Contrast that to the eurozone, where sales of said Tesla were about an 1/8 of that in nearby Germany, despite a population 15 times bigger.
I'm not sure what you mean, given that Germany is a Eurozone state. Thus the sales in the Eurozone can't be less than the sales in Germany.
So the only difference between those products made by the IBM division of Lenovo and the ones made today by the IBM division of Lenovo is the label.
If that were true they wouldn't be selling many of them. Nobody wants a PC that hasn't progressed in years.
But you realize a label is just a label, and is otherwise meaningless, right?
But we're not just talking about the label. Every aspect of the PCs is Lenovo, not IBM.
Is a can of beans still Heinz beans, if the label says Del Monte Pineapple, and the contents of the can are Del Monte Pineapples?
Lets be clear, IBM neither own the rights, contract out nor assemble Lenovo's PCs, nor is the label IBM. IBM has literally nothing to do with Lenovo's PCs and hasn't for years. It's a can of Del Monte Pineapples that you are trying to pass off as Heinz Baked Beans. It's ridiculous.
If Apple sold their iPod division to Foxconn, who continued to make and sell iPods, would it be any different if they had an Apple label or Foxconn label on them if they were otherwise made with the exact same parts at the exact same factory by the exact same workers?
Apple progresses the design of iPods every year to 18 months. In the situation you describe, 3 years or more on, they'd be Foxconn iPods and Apple would no longer be in the iPod market. Just as IBM is no longer in the PC market.
Your increasing use of ad-hominem, and abandonment of any rational argument says it all.
there is no "GPL community".
The FSF would disagree with you.
That's why most Americans are unbelievers in Global Warming.
Thankfully, that's yet another thing you are wrong about.
"Americans' belief in the reality of global warming has increased by 13 percentage points over the past two and a half years, from 57 percent in January 2010 to 70 percent in September 2012. At the same time, the number of Americans who say global warming is not happening has declined nearly by half, from 20 percent in January 2010 to only 12 percent today.
"For the first time since 2008, more than half of Americans (54%) believe global warming is caused mostly by human activities, an increase of 8 points since March 2012. Americans who say it is caused mostly by natural changes in the environment have declined to 30 percent (from 37% in March)."
- See more at: http://environment.yale.edu/cl...
I'm not the only one to miss the sarcasm. You might consider the /s tag. Otherwise sarcasm isn't a very good communication strategy on the web. People can't hear the tone of your voice.
Besides, I already pointed out I missed your sarcasm 18 minutes ago.