"A consumer device needs to cater to consumers, not you specifically."
But I've already shown how a mouse is better. The fact that people don't recognize that is irrelevant.
"I didn't see that but can you see how most people don't want to do that?"
Why would most people not want to do that. With a remote you have to look at it and find the fast forward button, click it, and then wait and wait and wait.
With a mouse and scroll bar you just move the mouse to where you want to be and then click. You're instantly half way through the movie. That's objectively better.
"It might be less efficient that using a desktop to search hundreds of movies but what would be more efficient would be a command line"
How can you justify saying a "command line" would be more efficently to wade through hundreds of movies and hundreds of shows.
I specifically explained how fast using a mouse is to access my media. I asked anyone how they could access their media faster or more efficiently using a remote. No one has done that yet.
I'll just add, I've been using a PC connected to my TV since 1999. I've wasted a lot of time and money using numerous interfaces to access my media. A PC/mouse combination is the best.
Close your eyes, imagine how easy it would be simply mouse clicking to what you want, and then imagine doing the same thing with a clunky remote.
"A mouse is better at a computer interface than a remote but most people don't want a computer interface when dealing with a media center"
But a computer in your living room necessarily is a computer interface. So what's the problem. And I don't care what "most people" think or want. Most people are idiots.
"If you're watching a show and you decide to fast forward, how do you do that with a mouse?"
God, can't you read?! I specifically addressed that. You use the scroll bar feature on the bottom of Media Player Classic.
"Also with a mouse you need some sort of surface."
The arm of the chair. Next to me on the couch. My leg. On the floor. We keep two blu-tooth mice around like remotes.
"Most consumers use remotes because it's rather simplified."
I've already explained how using a mouse is more simple. I can double click an icon on my "desktop" it opens and I have access to hundreds of movies. I then use the scroll wheel to find the one I want, double click it, and I'm watching. I can quickly skip through using the scroll bar on the button and not have to waste time fast forwarding or rewinding.
So I can access hundreds of movies or shows in under ten seconds. How fast could you do that with a remote?
"A mouse while workable isn't what they want."
Once again, I don't care what they want, but at least you agree that it's "workable."
I guess connecting a PC to your TV is simply too complicated? Those HDMI cables can be a real pain, can't they?!
I'll know what someone will say, the mouse and keyboard is too clunky for the living room.
First, you don't need a keyboard for day-to-day use.
Second, a mouse is infinitely better in your living room than a remote.
I have my media mapped as drives. So I can access hundreds of movies or shows with only a few mouse clicks. Using Media Player Classic's scroll-bar I can instantly jump to any portion of the video I want. I can control the volume by simply scrolling the up wheel or down.
By the time you picked up your remote, looked at the remote to find the right buttons to click (you never have to look at a mouse), scrolled and clicked through various menus to finally find what you wanted, I'd have already been watching.
And because I'm using a PC, I can play any format the world gives me and not have to pray and wait for some firmware update.
And one last thing, my computer is whisper quiet, much quieter than my 360 or PS3.
I didn't make myself clear. I should have said the "real data servers will be located elsewhere." So the police would be able to come in and shut down the net server and take away all the servers. But Wikileaks will be able to get the data back online within minutes from their hidden data server. That starts the police process all over again in different jurisdiction.
If they're too classy to tell the truth about copyrights, they'll certainly lose. (Heck, they'll lose anyway, the copyright industry is way too powerful.)
Copyrights are government granted monopolies contrary to the free market. That should be the argument against ASCAP's belief that anyone who disagrees with them are radical anti-copyright extremists.
The EFF should be hammering it: Why does the copyright industry need increased government handouts and draconian government monopolies to survive? Let the free market sort it out. If they can't survive in a free market without massive government help and an erosion of our rights, so be it.
"When it comes to entertainment, it's the ultimate freedom setup."
Yep. I was beginning to think I was the only sane person here. Thanks!
I just wanted to give another example of the ease of this set up. I just checked, I have 718 movies mapped from a spanned drive. I can access those movies with just three double clicks. (I could make short cuts to each "adult movies" "kids movies" "adult TV" and "kids TV" to the desktop. That'd eliminate one double click. But I like to keep the living room desktop clean.)
The PS3's interface is pretty good. But even so I have to click, click, click... about fifteen button clicks. Then I have to scroll. That takes a while because unlike a window in Windows where everything loads instantly, in the PS3 you have to wait for it to catch up. So you scroll down closer to the movie you want, wait, scroll down some more, wait, scroll down some more, wait... and then you finally get to the movie you want.... but guess what, the PS3 doesn't play MKV files. So you can't watch it anyway.
"Not surprisingly, I use a remote control with the one I'm far away from, but not the one I'm close to."
God that's ignorant. What does the distance from the screen have to do with whether or not you use a mouse? My TV is 50". I run it at 1920 x 1080 with a 150% dpi. I can see it perfectly well from across the living room? Please explain why mere distance from the screen makes navigating a computer easier with a remote than a mouse.
With a mouse I can double click my computer, double click the spanned drive, and double click the movie. Bam, it's playing.
As I said, with a mouse I can immediately jump to anywhere in the movie or show. With a remote I have to use fast forward and wait. Like I said, once you use a mouse to navigate video, you realize how awful fast forwarding and rewinding can be. Those made sense with tapes, which had to be fast forwarded and rewound, but they make no sense with digital video.
Simply put, no matter what you are using to view movies, or shows, or music, on your TV, I can access than them faster and easier with a mouse than you can with a remote.
But the truth is that a mouse is quicker and easier to use than a remote. Ask yourself this: If a remote is a better interface than a mouse, why don't you use a remote with your computer?
"A desktop OS will, and never will, be suited for anything other than a Desktop... it will never work on the Living Room."
Based upon what? Right now I run a Windows 7 system via my 50" Samsung in my living room. I use two bluetooth mice and keyboard. The keyboard is rarely used. My system works perfectly.
To get to a movie or TV show you double click My Computer and double click the mapped drives to the movies or shows. Using the scroll wheel you whip through hundreds of movies or subfolders with the shows. You want to instantly get to the end of the list, use the scroll bar. Double click on the one you want.
Media Player Classic opens and you can use the mouse to instantly zip through the movie or show via the seek bar without using the slow "fast" forward or rewind buttons you get with a remote. You don't realize how much fast forward and rewind buttons suck until you start using a mouse to traverse through videos. You want to go half way into the movie, one click and you're half way into the movie. Want to skip to the end, one click and you're at the end. Instantly.
You want to turn up the volume? Scroll up on the mouse. You want to turn it down? Scroll down. You want to pause, click the mouse. Want to unpause, click again.
Tired of watching TV shows or movies on your TV? Double click a short cut to your "rock" play-list on your desktop and the music instantly starts. Want to find a specific song. Double click on the Winamp library, get the song you want, and listen to it.
I have friends who use their PS3s and 360s to access content. That works. You can even buy remotes for them. But I can get to my content much quicker and with more ease than they ever could.
And one more thing, I don't have to wait for some manufacturer to play catch-up. If some new video codec or wrapper is released, I can instantly watch it in my living room. I don't have to wait a few months in hopes that Sony or someone else will play catch-up and include support for it.
This will be great on low powered netbooks and other such devices. I know I'll be installing it on my Acer Aspire ONE. (Assuming it doesn't completely suck, that is!)
Maybe one day the workers in China will get together and form a national union to ensure workers' rights. Maybe through their collective efforts they could make a workers' paradise. Heck, maybe they could turn the entire country into some sort of commune where everyone has to do their fair share and they all benefit from the profits.
I wonder if that could ever work. It's amazing that no people have ever tried it.
Thank you! That is the most annoying part of Firefox. I hate when I open Firefox and it makes me wait while it updates, and then when it finally does open, it does so on a pointless tab that offers me absolutely no useful information and once again delays what I'm trying to do.
I don't like the secret/stealth update either. Here's a very simple idea:
First, install the update when I shut down the browser. You're not wasting my time then because I'm done using it. Second, don't give me a tab telling me what I already know. I know it was updated, I just fricken saw it updated. I'm not an idiot.
Slashdot Mirror
"A consumer device needs to cater to consumers, not you specifically."
But I've already shown how a mouse is better. The fact that people don't recognize that is irrelevant.
"I didn't see that but can you see how most people don't want to do that?"
Why would most people not want to do that. With a remote you have to look at it and find the fast forward button, click it, and then wait and wait and wait.
With a mouse and scroll bar you just move the mouse to where you want to be and then click. You're instantly half way through the movie. That's objectively better.
"It might be less efficient that using a desktop to search hundreds of movies but what would be more efficient would be a command line"
How can you justify saying a "command line" would be more efficently to wade through hundreds of movies and hundreds of shows.
I specifically explained how fast using a mouse is to access my media. I asked anyone how they could access their media faster or more efficiently using a remote. No one has done that yet.
I'll just add, I've been using a PC connected to my TV since 1999. I've wasted a lot of time and money using numerous interfaces to access my media. A PC/mouse combination is the best.
Close your eyes, imagine how easy it would be simply mouse clicking to what you want, and then imagine doing the same thing with a clunky remote.
I'm marked "troll" because I succinctly defended my opinions? Is this what Slashdot has been reduced to?! God, I miss the old days before Digg.
"A mouse is better at a computer interface than a remote but most people don't want a computer interface when dealing with a media center"
But a computer in your living room necessarily is a computer interface. So what's the problem. And I don't care what "most people" think or want. Most people are idiots.
"If you're watching a show and you decide to fast forward, how do you do that with a mouse?"
God, can't you read?! I specifically addressed that. You use the scroll bar feature on the bottom of Media Player Classic.
"Also with a mouse you need some sort of surface."
The arm of the chair. Next to me on the couch. My leg. On the floor. We keep two blu-tooth mice around like remotes.
"Most consumers use remotes because it's rather simplified."
I've already explained how using a mouse is more simple. I can double click an icon on my "desktop" it opens and I have access to hundreds of movies. I then use the scroll wheel to find the one I want, double click it, and I'm watching. I can quickly skip through using the scroll bar on the button and not have to waste time fast forwarding or rewinding.
So I can access hundreds of movies or shows in under ten seconds. How fast could you do that with a remote?
"A mouse while workable isn't what they want."
Once again, I don't care what they want, but at least you agree that it's "workable."
I guess connecting a PC to your TV is simply too complicated? Those HDMI cables can be a real pain, can't they?!
I'll know what someone will say, the mouse and keyboard is too clunky for the living room.
First, you don't need a keyboard for day-to-day use.
Second, a mouse is infinitely better in your living room than a remote.
I have my media mapped as drives. So I can access hundreds of movies or shows with only a few mouse clicks. Using Media Player Classic's scroll-bar I can instantly jump to any portion of the video I want. I can control the volume by simply scrolling the up wheel or down.
By the time you picked up your remote, looked at the remote to find the right buttons to click (you never have to look at a mouse), scrolled and clicked through various menus to finally find what you wanted, I'd have already been watching.
And because I'm using a PC, I can play any format the world gives me and not have to pray and wait for some firmware update.
And one last thing, my computer is whisper quiet, much quieter than my 360 or PS3.
I didn't make myself clear. I should have said the "real data servers will be located elsewhere." So the police would be able to come in and shut down the net server and take away all the servers. But Wikileaks will be able to get the data back online within minutes from their hidden data server. That starts the police process all over again in different jurisdiction.
I agree. But I think this is a ruse/diversion/etc. My guess is that the real servers will be located elsewhere. Security by obscurity.
Are you telling me that people can use technology to infringe copyrights?! Why haven't I heard about this before?! How is this even possible?
A Geek and his money are soon parted.
Just kidding. Let 'em rip.
"You're being purposefully dense..."
Actually I was making a joke which apparently went way over your head. Or underneath. I don't really know what sort of shoes you're wearing.
"And look at it realistically..."
Yeah, let's analyze a joke realistically. That's a great idea. All jokes should stand up to rigorous a priori and a posteriori scrutiny.
So Microsoft is saying that people should voluntary and collectively work on fixing and bettering software for free, without any compensation? Mmmm...
Slowest news day ever!
If they're too classy to tell the truth about copyrights, they'll certainly lose. (Heck, they'll lose anyway, the copyright industry is way too powerful.)
Copyrights are government granted monopolies contrary to the free market. That should be the argument against ASCAP's belief that anyone who disagrees with them are radical anti-copyright extremists.
The EFF should be hammering it: Why does the copyright industry need increased government handouts and draconian government monopolies to survive? Let the free market sort it out. If they can't survive in a free market without massive government help and an erosion of our rights, so be it.
"When it comes to entertainment, it's the ultimate freedom setup."
Yep. I was beginning to think I was the only sane person here. Thanks!
I just wanted to give another example of the ease of this set up. I just checked, I have 718 movies mapped from a spanned drive. I can access those movies with just three double clicks. (I could make short cuts to each "adult movies" "kids movies" "adult TV" and "kids TV" to the desktop. That'd eliminate one double click. But I like to keep the living room desktop clean.)
The PS3's interface is pretty good. But even so I have to click, click, click... about fifteen button clicks. Then I have to scroll. That takes a while because unlike a window in Windows where everything loads instantly, in the PS3 you have to wait for it to catch up. So you scroll down closer to the movie you want, wait, scroll down some more, wait, scroll down some more, wait... and then you finally get to the movie you want.... but guess what, the PS3 doesn't play MKV files. So you can't watch it anyway.
"Not surprisingly, I use a remote control with the one I'm far away from, but not the one I'm close to."
God that's ignorant. What does the distance from the screen have to do with whether or not you use a mouse? My TV is 50". I run it at 1920 x 1080 with a 150% dpi. I can see it perfectly well from across the living room? Please explain why mere distance from the screen makes navigating a computer easier with a remote than a mouse.
With a mouse I can double click my computer, double click the spanned drive, and double click the movie. Bam, it's playing.
As I said, with a mouse I can immediately jump to anywhere in the movie or show. With a remote I have to use fast forward and wait. Like I said, once you use a mouse to navigate video, you realize how awful fast forwarding and rewinding can be. Those made sense with tapes, which had to be fast forwarded and rewound, but they make no sense with digital video.
Simply put, no matter what you are using to view movies, or shows, or music, on your TV, I can access than them faster and easier with a mouse than you can with a remote.
"Wow, that sucks. Hard."
I use Media Center to watch TV and recorded TV.
But the truth is that a mouse is quicker and easier to use than a remote. Ask yourself this: If a remote is a better interface than a mouse, why don't you use a remote with your computer?
"A desktop OS will, and never will, be suited for anything other than a Desktop... it will never work on the Living Room."
Based upon what? Right now I run a Windows 7 system via my 50" Samsung in my living room. I use two bluetooth mice and keyboard. The keyboard is rarely used. My system works perfectly.
To get to a movie or TV show you double click My Computer and double click the mapped drives to the movies or shows. Using the scroll wheel you whip through hundreds of movies or subfolders with the shows. You want to instantly get to the end of the list, use the scroll bar. Double click on the one you want.
Media Player Classic opens and you can use the mouse to instantly zip through the movie or show via the seek bar without using the slow "fast" forward or rewind buttons you get with a remote. You don't realize how much fast forward and rewind buttons suck until you start using a mouse to traverse through videos. You want to go half way into the movie, one click and you're half way into the movie. Want to skip to the end, one click and you're at the end. Instantly.
You want to turn up the volume? Scroll up on the mouse. You want to turn it down? Scroll down. You want to pause, click the mouse. Want to unpause, click again.
Tired of watching TV shows or movies on your TV? Double click a short cut to your "rock" play-list on your desktop and the music instantly starts. Want to find a specific song. Double click on the Winamp library, get the song you want, and listen to it.
I have friends who use their PS3s and 360s to access content. That works. You can even buy remotes for them. But I can get to my content much quicker and with more ease than they ever could.
And one more thing, I don't have to wait for some manufacturer to play catch-up. If some new video codec or wrapper is released, I can instantly watch it in my living room. I don't have to wait a few months in hopes that Sony or someone else will play catch-up and include support for it.
This will be great on low powered netbooks and other such devices. I know I'll be installing it on my
Acer Aspire ONE. (Assuming it doesn't completely suck, that is!)
Other than Stalin, am I the only one here who realizes that China is a communist country?
You don't seem to realize I was making a joke so I'll clue you in. China is communist.
Maybe one day the workers in China will get together and form a national union to ensure workers' rights. Maybe through their collective efforts they could make a workers' paradise. Heck, maybe they could turn the entire country into some sort of commune where everyone has to do their fair share and they all benefit from the profits.
I wonder if that could ever work. It's amazing that no people have ever tried it.
Good point, although Firefox runs pretty stable for me and I've been using it since it was named Phoenix. I guess I'm just lucky.
Thank you! That is the most annoying part of Firefox. I hate when I open Firefox and it makes me wait while it updates, and then when it finally does open, it does so on a pointless tab that offers me absolutely no useful information and once again delays what I'm trying to do.
I don't like the secret/stealth update either. Here's a very simple idea:
First, install the update when I shut down the browser. You're not wasting my time then because I'm done using it. Second, don't give me a tab telling me what I already know. I know it was updated, I just fricken saw it updated. I'm not an idiot.
When Jobs uses "proprietary" he means "not mine."