*shudders at the thought of that android I tried for a short bit*
When? Early versions of Android was an ugly mess, but 4.0 was a massive redesign. Also, was it "stock" Android, or some manufacturer customization? And was it a flagship, or some low-end device?
I think the Android UI are collectively terrible. Something as simple as finding the apps can take multiple taps.
Android: press the "application drawer" icon. It's all there, sorted alphabetically.
iOS: no need for that silly drawer complicating things, all applications are already on the main screen. I mean, somewhere in one of multiple screens. Without any sort of automatic organization. Possibly tucked away inside a folder.
This kind of hype reminds me of Apple/IBM/Radioshack/Commodore and fans variously claiming they were the "roots" of the PC market. Look into the history of Altair, Imsai and SWTPC, for instance. Not saying who was first, I'm not sure by any means -- but I am sure who wasn't.
Maybe the right question is not who was first, but who was first in the mainstream market. In this sense, it is only proper to credit the "1977 trinity".
I quite often see students with far less disposable income than me spending £600 on a brand-new iPhone and then £10-20/month on a contract for it. This isn't a new phenomenon by any means, but a lot of people seem really bad at doing cost-benefit analyses.
Bad analysis would be a dumb but innocent mistake. But this seems to be a sort of conspicuous consumption. Sure, you can get essentially the same functionality and performance from a $200 Android (if anything the Android will offer more functionality because it's far less locked down). But those kids want to signal their belonging to a group, and being on par with the elite of that group; their friends have fancy iPhones, so they have to do the same, even if they can't afford to.
Pretty much every Nokia user was, which was a fuckton of people all around the world (except in North America). I think most of them had never even considered getting a non-Nokia phone, but when WP showed up, everyone said NOPE and ran to Android's arms.
Slashdot Mirror
*shudders at the thought of that android I tried for a short bit*
When? Early versions of Android was an ugly mess, but 4.0 was a massive redesign. Also, was it "stock" Android, or some manufacturer customization? And was it a flagship, or some low-end device?
The first LG Prada was not a smartphone at all. Then again, the first iPhone was also so limited that some say it was not one either.
Queue is an interesting word: it is the letter q, followed by four silent vowels.
I think the Android UI are collectively terrible. Something as simple as finding the apps can take multiple taps.
Android: press the "application drawer" icon. It's all there, sorted alphabetically.
iOS: no need for that silly drawer complicating things, all applications are already on the main screen. I mean, somewhere in one of multiple screens. Without any sort of automatic organization. Possibly tucked away inside a folder.
aka Hamlet with big cats.
antiviri
What is an "against men"?
The Newton Messagepad could have forged the path to our current smartphones, and with handwriting recognition they would be much better today.
It exists. And it's just less convenient than a swiping keyboard.
Luddites, luddites, luddites!
Maybe it's the other way around - men just underreport any such issues.
Dual-booting Mint with Cinnamon and Win10. Yeah, I've tried Xfce before, will try other DEs eventually.
It irks me that modern systems lack those borders. They help make each window visually distinct.
That was fsn. There is a modern clone called fsv.
This kind of hype reminds me of Apple/IBM/Radioshack/Commodore and fans variously claiming they were the "roots" of the PC market. Look into the history of Altair, Imsai and SWTPC, for instance. Not saying who was first, I'm not sure by any means -- but I am sure who wasn't.
Maybe the right question is not who was first, but who was first in the mainstream market. In this sense, it is only proper to credit the "1977 trinity".
MaXX Desktop's site seems to be down.
at the time they only provided the cheap and simple MS-DOS, nothing more.
Microsoft also produced Xenix, the most popular Unix variant of the 80s.
The problem is not necessarily the friends, but the kid's fear that he'll not fit in.
I quite often see students with far less disposable income than me spending £600 on a brand-new iPhone and then £10-20/month on a contract for it. This isn't a new phenomenon by any means, but a lot of people seem really bad at doing cost-benefit analyses.
Bad analysis would be a dumb but innocent mistake. But this seems to be a sort of conspicuous consumption. Sure, you can get essentially the same functionality and performance from a $200 Android (if anything the Android will offer more functionality because it's far less locked down). But those kids want to signal their belonging to a group, and being on par with the elite of that group; their friends have fancy iPhones, so they have to do the same, even if they can't afford to.
but as far as I know Android's marketshare is much lower than all others combined.
Android has recently surpassed Windows as the world's most used OS, and it has 80% of the mobile market.
But it also offers a point of redundance. Say, if your hardware fails and you lose your local files, you still have them online.
No! DAT is the future!
It's worse, people will DEFEND the new product when you point it's actually inferior. Utterly baffling.
Checking porn in bed, duh.
Too bad Jolla doesn't have the financial power to make it really take off.
After playing some games in 3D (anaglyph, but still), I think 3D screens could be pretty swell for gaming.
Uh, nobody was hyped for MeeGo.
Pretty much every Nokia user was, which was a fuckton of people all around the world (except in North America). I think most of them had never even considered getting a non-Nokia phone, but when WP showed up, everyone said NOPE and ran to Android's arms.