Well thinness does have some advantages (you can fit it into a smaller bag, for example) but I think the real issue is weight. You lower the weight by getting rid of as much material as possible, which means that if you used a casing with normal thickness, most of it would be empty anyway. Also, the casing material itself weighs something, and the thinner a laptop is, the less casing material there is.
Weight can become a very important issue if you're carrying your laptop all over the place, and a laptop with these specs coming in at 2.3 lbs is impressive.
Or it's possible that they had some talks with Oracle, and Oracle indicated that they would sue. Or Oracle indicated that they would not be continuing to support Java in a way that Apple thought made their own future support make sense. Or Apple believes that there aren't enough people using their Java implementation on OSX to warrant continued support. Or Apple is making enough changes in Lion that it would require them to overhaul their Java implementation, and they believed it wasn't worth it.
There are a number of legitimate reasons why Apple might not want to continue the project. Of course, some people will see conspiracies. And conspiracies are possible, but it's hard to say at this point.
Rewind a few years, and there was a class of notebook computer called either "subnotebook" or "ultraportable". They were high-end laptops that focussed on being as small as possible while still being fully-functional (though perhaps missing some ports).
Then Asus created the Eee PC, which people called a "netbook". When distinguished the Eee PC from normal laptops was that it was very small and lightweight and cheap, but it was also not fully-featured enough to be considered an ultraportable. The Eee PC was lacking in processing power and internal storage, and so it was mostly only good for web browsing, which is why it was a netbook. It shipped with a stripped-down Linux distribution with the expectation that, if people wanted to run applications on it, they would generally use web applications. So it was designed to work more as a terminal than as a full PC.
As time went on, manufacturers started adding features while raising prices, turning "netbooks" into something between a netbook and an ultraportable. They became more expensive, ran full desktop operating systems, and had much more storage, but were not quite full-powered and fully-featured enough to call them ultraportable notebooks. It doesn't really matter at this point, since it seems like manufacturers have decided that "netbook" is a good marketing term, and they'll probably keep using it to mean any ultraportable laptop.
So is this an ultraportable laptop, and thereby in marketing-speak a "netbook"? Yeah, I guess so. But it's also a fully-functional laptop, which netbooks traditionally were not.
I have a dual install of L/SL, and it's hard to tell the difference
They were pretty upfront: Snow Leopard was not supposed to add a lot of features. The main purpose was to fix bugs, optimize code, and strip out legacy code.
The worst habitual offender is Safari, followed by Mail.app. The Apple Kernel guzzles memory like no other I know. My machine right now has been up for 10h and the kernel is eating 10% of the memory (400MB).
How much memory is being allocated for an application isn't necessarily a great measure. Many Microsoft products will also allocate a bunch of memory-- Exchange, for example, will just grow and grow and not give up any memory until it needs to. BUT! That's not necessarily a bad thing. Free memory doesn't really do anything for you. You might like to see a big number next to "Free:" but often it's better to go ahead and load things into memory. Free RAM is wasted RAM.
Well to me it's really just an issue of inconsistent versioning schemes across the software industry. Lots of developers create "betas" that are not feature complete and "release candidates" that are never candidates for release. For Microsoft Windows, I believe both Windows 2000 and Windows XP were considered part of v5 (5.0 and 5.1, or something like that). Apple has kept their OS at version 10 for several years and through entire architecture changes. Meanwhile, Google is updating Chrome whole version numbers every few months for changes small enough that I never even notice.
For commercial software, whole version numbers usually have a specific purpose: to signal to customers that it will be a paid upgrade. However, developers of free software can be a little more flexible. It makes sense to me to have full version-number changes when an update goes far beyond bug fixes, including new major features and UI redesigns. However, I recognize that it doesn't matter all that much.
You have a tiny computer without as much battery, so it's a sensible move to keep the clock speed down. I'm running a 2 GHz C2D computer right now, and the CPU is never pegged. The hard drive is usually what slows it down. This 1.86 GHz Macbook Air will probably be faster.
Clock speed is not an absolute measure of computer speed, and for what most people do on their computers these days (email/web browsing), any modern computer is enormous overkill.
... when announcing Lion and its new features that sound like they're going to brutalize processing power.
The new features don't sound that much more intensive than what exists today in OSX, and Apple has been getting better at improving efficiency and using the GPU, so you might even see performance gains.
With CPU speeds like these, it almost seems like they just didn't want to say the word 'Atom'.
Or maybe they didn't use the word "Atom" because it's not an Atom processor, and maybe they didn't use an Atom processor because a low-voltage C2D was a better design choice for their needs.
They haven't clarified all these points, but I think the likely answers are:
Will the app store have the same lock down? - No
With no apps that can use plug ins? - Apps will probably be normal apps
No games with user maps or mods? - It will probably be as dependent on the developer as it is now
No sex apps? - No, I don't think there will be sex apps, but you'll still be able to download sex apps from elsewhere
No fat app? - I don't know what a "fat app" is, but if it's offensive, it probably won't be on their app store. Again, you will still be able to get it elsewhere.
$99 year fee even for free apps? - Unclear. Maybe.
fixed price points? - Unclear
will you be able to buy app and use it on all systems you own? - Sounds like it. It's still unclear what the restrictions will be.
can apple pull a app at any time? - Probably
Will there be a max app size? - I wouldn't be surprised if Apple exercised some judgment on this one.
As long as the back haul is neutral then people are free to start up community co-op ISPs. It's not provider neutrality that I see as most important but backbone neutrality.
I really think the key is to enforce a separation between the infrastructure provider and the service provider. Let's say Verizon builds the actual backbone and the line to your house-- the whole thing-- then they should be absolutely forbidden from acting as an ISP or cable company. They should have to lease use of their lines to other service providers at a consistent rate, with no special side deals.
In my opinion, vertical integration is the culprit here. You get one company who owns the cables in the ground, the DNS servers and the firewalls, the cable TV provider, the television station people are watching on the TV, the production resources to make TV shows, etc. There's no way that this company isn't going to show self-favoritism.
We can't expect that there will be lots of private companies willing to stretch cable to every home in America, and so I think it's only reasonable that you'll get a monopoly or duopoly on the last-mile infrastructure. A neutral backbone isn't enough. We need one company (or the government) to create completely dumb pipes, and then have various service providers able to provide service through those pipes.
Your comment is implicitly saying that Google should enforce these things...
No, my comment is more intended to question how much sense it makes to call Android "open", given that in most real-world scenarios, it's on a locked-down device.
Actually, from what I've read, it does sound like Microsoft doesn't really believe in design. When Microsoft is creating/updating a UI, for example, they kind of throw it together and then do massive amounts of testing, finding out what users like and what they don't like, measuring how users respond, etc, and then altering the UI to achieve the best user response.
Apple, as a counter-example, seems to rely on talented UI designers and the personal tastes of Steve Jobs.
It seems to me like a very different design philosophy. It's almost like Apple believes in intelligent design while Microsoft believes in evolution.
Well, larger hard drives means greater density of storage in the server room, which in turn means cheaper online storage. Have you considered making backups?
Yeah, I've always thought about this when I hear that line from Microsoft about "poor support".
I've been working in IT for 15 years, and I've worked in a few different companies of different size and in different industries. I have never been aware of anyone getting support from Microsoft beyond searching their website knowledge base to clarify obscure error messages.
The only times I have called Microsoft for anything (or heard of anyone else doing it) was for 1 purpose: product activation. I've had copies of Windows and Office spuriously decide that they weren't legitimate, and I had to call Microsoft to get them to fix it. So the only use Microsoft's support personnel have been to me is when Microsoft broke my computer on purpose, and I had to get them to undo it.
Well it's a similar and connected issue. One of the chief worries about "net neutrality" is that content owners and network owners will get together and restrict access to content. So, for example, there's a fear that Microsoft could partner with Verizon and make Google's search unavailable or unappealing. There's a fear that Comcast and NBC would get together and give special access to NBC content or inhibit access to CBS content.
Whether the actual filtering happens at the content/service providers or the ISP, you get some of the same dangers. You get a fragmented Internet where the available content and services are restricted based on special deals between the ISP and the content owner. You get a lot of arbitrary restrictions and anti-competitive practiced based on backroom deals.
Now the problem of net neutrality is larger than just these issues, but I wouldn't call this an unrelated debate.
And my acer aspire one (which is about 2 years old) does all of those things perfectly fine, possibly with a few accessories.... The screen is about an inch smaller (8.9), it weighs about 1kg (2.2 pounds - not at all hard to hold) and I estimate about.8" thick...
Yeah, but my whole point is that it's not about computing power or even about raw functionality-- it's specifically about the form factor. The iPad is very very light and very thin for a device with such a large screen, which makes it very pleasant to use in certain situations. Even the fact that it's a touchscreen instead of a clamshell form-factor means that it's more accessible in certain situations.
So if your usage doesn't make the form-factor particularly appealing, then the iPad won't be attractive to you. Of course, in that case you're also not the target audience.
keep in mind that your ipad will need a case which brings these form factors closer unless you want to risk damaging it.
I have an ipad, and I carried it around without a case for a couple weeks without any damage. I eventually got one of Apple's cases, which ads very little to the dimensions or weight, and I feel comfortable tossing it into a bag without special precautions.
Not to mention that the netbook has a mousepad and full keyboard (which is good for typing)...
... and isn't what the people who bought iPads were looking for. Look, different form-factors have different advantages. If you have no interest in the iPad form-factor, fair enough. Someone might say, "I have no interest in laptop computers. I can get a desktop computer with more power, more storage, a bigger screen, and more functionality for cheaper, and I have no interest in carrying my computer around with me." For that guy, it's true, there's no point in buying a laptop. That doesn't mean that laptops are stupid.
I can buy a very capable laptop with 3G capability for less than that
which of those laptops has a high-quality 10" screen, is 0.5" thick, and weighs 1.5 lbs?
my Samsung Epic is just as capable as the iPad
Your Samsung Epic has a small screen.
Here's what you have to understand: it's not about raw computing power, and it's not about being able to hack the kernel. The people who bought iPads are interested in usability for certain specific applications. It's a web-browsing appliance, an ebook reader, a document viewer, a picture browser, a giant iPod, and a bunch of other things. Being the right form-factor is essential. If you don't care about the form-factor and usability features, then you aren't its target audience at all.
I can't keep up with the new entertainment as it is. Still haven't seen Dr. Horrible, How I met your mom, and numerous other shows. Even missing some movie's I'd like to see but don't have time for.
Same for books.
I wonder if this could reasonably be blamed as contributing to poor sales in recent years. Obviously there's a lot of entertainment to choose from-- books, TV, movies, video games, music. But also, I now have a big backlog of old movies and TV shows I want to watch on Netflix. I've seen a bit of people borrowing/trading DVD box sets of whole television seasons. Plus there's a lot of stuff on Hulu...
Yeah, personally I've used Office 2010 and I like it. It's fast, and the UI looks nice. It doesn't offer a lot of new functionality for me, but it has some good refinements of features over 2003 and 2007 (especially in Outlook), and it has new templates that look better than the old ones. That's about it, so I'm not sure it's worth the upgrade price.
But what really stops me dead in my tracks (I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it) is the requirement that it be activated. Up until Office 2007, it was possible to get a volume-licensing copy that did not require activation, and that's what I've always bought for my company. I've had too many random problems with copy-protection schemes from various companies, so I refuse to buy anything else that requires any kind of activation.
No, activation does not work well. I've had "activated" products die when I reimaged a machine or moved a hard drive. I've had products which I could not activate anymore because support was discontinued, and my only recourse was to buy a newer version of the product. I've spent several hours over the past couple years sitting on the telephone, waiting for some kind of unlock-code so I could use a rightfully purchased piece of software.
So Microsoft, if you drop activation from Windows 7 and Office 2010, I'll promise to buy a copy of each for every user in my company. Otherwise, you're not seeing another dollar.
Well one of the reasons that Microsoft has always relied on is incompatibility between versions of Office. They often revise the Office formats between versions, and if everyone else has newer versions of Office, then you have to upgrade too, or your documents might be mangled.
It pain me every time I sit with others writing/correcting a document to wait for them to walk through the whole ribbon thing to find an option or a button. Before they had to simply move mouse over the toolbar and read the tool-tips.
Not quite true. In the past, you just had to mouse over the button on the toolbar if that option happened to be visible on the toolbar. However, most of the toolbars would be turned off by default, and only magically appear in certain circumstances which the users might not understand. If the toolbar you wanted was not visible, you either needed to understand the circumstances which would trigger the appearance of the toolbar, enable the toolbar manually, or find the option in the menu system.
On top of that little bit of possible confusion, Microsoft had a habit of silently hiding things. Menus would hide options that you did not use actively, and the toolbars would drop buttons if the screen was not wide enough to accommodate all of the buttons. This can still happen with the ribbon interface, but it's a little more clear, in my opinion.
Funny, but by "services" I meant services offered via web page. For example, I don't know if Slashdot requires that you use HTTPS to sign in. I've seen webmail services that doesn't require it.
Virtually nothing will protect you from people who have access to your desk.
Security is never about absolutes. Absolutely nothing will protect you 100% of the time from all possible eventualities, yet we still employ security measures. The general purpose to security is to increase the difficulty of an attack, decrease the possibility of meaningful success, and increase the possibility of catching the attacker.
So for example, simply putting a screensaver password on my computer might improve my security substantially. It gives casual attackers with limited technical knowledge and limited availability to my computer a relatively small window of attack-- they must get access to my computer in the period of time between when I leave my desk and when the screensaver kicks on. They must then install a trojan (or whatever you would suggest) in the short amount of time before I return to my desk and leave the area without being detected. But then there are other issues too-- they have to make sure the trojan won't be detected by my security package; they need to make sure the computer is more or less in the state that I left it, so as not to arouse suspicion; they may need to trigger the screensaver so that I don't come back and think, "why isn't my screensaver active?"
Yes, if they get access to my CPU while I'm out sick, they could try to get access a few different ways, but that all assumes that there aren't other people around the office, there's no security, and there are no cameras which would catch them in the act. It also assumes the attackers are substantially sophisticated to get past a simple password.
So there's a lot to consider. However, I can tell you right now that a simple screensaver password would be plenty of protection to keep my wife from reading my email. My wife isn't very technical, and even if you gave her physical access to my CPU and as much time as she wanted, she wouldn't know what to do.
And that's what I meant by "security depends on context". You have to ask things like:
What kind of information am I protecting?
What's more dangerous, the prospect of someone else having access to the information, or the prospect of the information being lost to me?
How important is security in this case?
How important is easy accessibility in this case?
Who am I protecting the data from?
Who are the people likely to try to bypass this security?
Regarding the potential attackers, what kinds of attacks are they likely to try?
Regarding the potential attackers, how motivated will they be?
Without knowing the context of what the information is, who the authorized personnel will be, and who the potential attackers will be, you can't begin to evaluate the effectiveness of a security scheme.
Slashdot Mirror
Well thinness does have some advantages (you can fit it into a smaller bag, for example) but I think the real issue is weight. You lower the weight by getting rid of as much material as possible, which means that if you used a casing with normal thickness, most of it would be empty anyway. Also, the casing material itself weighs something, and the thinner a laptop is, the less casing material there is.
Weight can become a very important issue if you're carrying your laptop all over the place, and a laptop with these specs coming in at 2.3 lbs is impressive.
Or it's possible that they had some talks with Oracle, and Oracle indicated that they would sue. Or Oracle indicated that they would not be continuing to support Java in a way that Apple thought made their own future support make sense. Or Apple believes that there aren't enough people using their Java implementation on OSX to warrant continued support. Or Apple is making enough changes in Lion that it would require them to overhaul their Java implementation, and they believed it wasn't worth it.
There are a number of legitimate reasons why Apple might not want to continue the project. Of course, some people will see conspiracies. And conspiracies are possible, but it's hard to say at this point.
Well it depends on what you mean by "netbook".
Rewind a few years, and there was a class of notebook computer called either "subnotebook" or "ultraportable". They were high-end laptops that focussed on being as small as possible while still being fully-functional (though perhaps missing some ports).
Then Asus created the Eee PC, which people called a "netbook". When distinguished the Eee PC from normal laptops was that it was very small and lightweight and cheap, but it was also not fully-featured enough to be considered an ultraportable. The Eee PC was lacking in processing power and internal storage, and so it was mostly only good for web browsing, which is why it was a net book. It shipped with a stripped-down Linux distribution with the expectation that, if people wanted to run applications on it, they would generally use web applications. So it was designed to work more as a terminal than as a full PC.
As time went on, manufacturers started adding features while raising prices, turning "netbooks" into something between a netbook and an ultraportable. They became more expensive, ran full desktop operating systems, and had much more storage, but were not quite full-powered and fully-featured enough to call them ultraportable notebooks. It doesn't really matter at this point, since it seems like manufacturers have decided that "netbook" is a good marketing term, and they'll probably keep using it to mean any ultraportable laptop.
So is this an ultraportable laptop, and thereby in marketing-speak a "netbook"? Yeah, I guess so. But it's also a fully-functional laptop, which netbooks traditionally were not.
I have a dual install of L/SL, and it's hard to tell the difference
They were pretty upfront: Snow Leopard was not supposed to add a lot of features. The main purpose was to fix bugs, optimize code, and strip out legacy code.
The worst habitual offender is Safari, followed by Mail.app. The Apple Kernel guzzles memory like no other I know. My machine right now has been up for 10h and the kernel is eating 10% of the memory (400MB).
How much memory is being allocated for an application isn't necessarily a great measure. Many Microsoft products will also allocate a bunch of memory-- Exchange, for example, will just grow and grow and not give up any memory until it needs to. BUT! That's not necessarily a bad thing. Free memory doesn't really do anything for you. You might like to see a big number next to "Free:" but often it's better to go ahead and load things into memory. Free RAM is wasted RAM.
Flash is its own problem. I'm not sure there are processors fast enough to cope with Flash.
But your 2GHz C2D choking on 720p h264? The bottleneck there might very well be the hard drive.
Well to me it's really just an issue of inconsistent versioning schemes across the software industry. Lots of developers create "betas" that are not feature complete and "release candidates" that are never candidates for release. For Microsoft Windows, I believe both Windows 2000 and Windows XP were considered part of v5 (5.0 and 5.1, or something like that). Apple has kept their OS at version 10 for several years and through entire architecture changes. Meanwhile, Google is updating Chrome whole version numbers every few months for changes small enough that I never even notice.
For commercial software, whole version numbers usually have a specific purpose: to signal to customers that it will be a paid upgrade. However, developers of free software can be a little more flexible. It makes sense to me to have full version-number changes when an update goes far beyond bug fixes, including new major features and UI redesigns. However, I recognize that it doesn't matter all that much.
C2D 1.4 and 1.86 Ghz processors?
You have a tiny computer without as much battery, so it's a sensible move to keep the clock speed down. I'm running a 2 GHz C2D computer right now, and the CPU is never pegged. The hard drive is usually what slows it down. This 1.86 GHz Macbook Air will probably be faster.
Clock speed is not an absolute measure of computer speed, and for what most people do on their computers these days (email/web browsing), any modern computer is enormous overkill.
... when announcing Lion and its new features that sound like they're going to brutalize processing power.
The new features don't sound that much more intensive than what exists today in OSX, and Apple has been getting better at improving efficiency and using the GPU, so you might even see performance gains.
With CPU speeds like these, it almost seems like they just didn't want to say the word 'Atom'.
Or maybe they didn't use the word "Atom" because it's not an Atom processor, and maybe they didn't use an Atom processor because a low-voltage C2D was a better design choice for their needs.
They haven't clarified all these points, but I think the likely answers are:
Will the app store have the same lock down? - No
With no apps that can use plug ins? - Apps will probably be normal apps
No games with user maps or mods? - It will probably be as dependent on the developer as it is now
No sex apps? - No, I don't think there will be sex apps, but you'll still be able to download sex apps from elsewhere
No fat app? - I don't know what a "fat app" is, but if it's offensive, it probably won't be on their app store. Again, you will still be able to get it elsewhere.
$99 year fee even for free apps? - Unclear. Maybe.
fixed price points? - Unclear
will you be able to buy app and use it on all systems you own? - Sounds like it. It's still unclear what the restrictions will be.
can apple pull a app at any time? - Probably
Will there be a max app size? - I wouldn't be surprised if Apple exercised some judgment on this one.
As long as the back haul is neutral then people are free to start up community co-op ISPs. It's not provider neutrality that I see as most important but backbone neutrality.
I really think the key is to enforce a separation between the infrastructure provider and the service provider. Let's say Verizon builds the actual backbone and the line to your house-- the whole thing-- then they should be absolutely forbidden from acting as an ISP or cable company. They should have to lease use of their lines to other service providers at a consistent rate, with no special side deals.
In my opinion, vertical integration is the culprit here. You get one company who owns the cables in the ground, the DNS servers and the firewalls, the cable TV provider, the television station people are watching on the TV, the production resources to make TV shows, etc. There's no way that this company isn't going to show self-favoritism.
We can't expect that there will be lots of private companies willing to stretch cable to every home in America, and so I think it's only reasonable that you'll get a monopoly or duopoly on the last-mile infrastructure. A neutral backbone isn't enough. We need one company (or the government) to create completely dumb pipes, and then have various service providers able to provide service through those pipes.
Your comment is implicitly saying that Google should enforce these things...
No, my comment is more intended to question how much sense it makes to call Android "open", given that in most real-world scenarios, it's on a locked-down device.
Great that you can alter Android's kernel. Too bad you can't just install it on whatever Android phone you want to.
If you don't like what they're saying about you, change the conversation.
Actually, from what I've read, it does sound like Microsoft doesn't really believe in design. When Microsoft is creating/updating a UI, for example, they kind of throw it together and then do massive amounts of testing, finding out what users like and what they don't like, measuring how users respond, etc, and then altering the UI to achieve the best user response.
Apple, as a counter-example, seems to rely on talented UI designers and the personal tastes of Steve Jobs.
It seems to me like a very different design philosophy. It's almost like Apple believes in intelligent design while Microsoft believes in evolution.
Well, larger hard drives means greater density of storage in the server room, which in turn means cheaper online storage. Have you considered making backups?
Yeah, I've always thought about this when I hear that line from Microsoft about "poor support".
I've been working in IT for 15 years, and I've worked in a few different companies of different size and in different industries. I have never been aware of anyone getting support from Microsoft beyond searching their website knowledge base to clarify obscure error messages.
The only times I have called Microsoft for anything (or heard of anyone else doing it) was for 1 purpose: product activation. I've had copies of Windows and Office spuriously decide that they weren't legitimate, and I had to call Microsoft to get them to fix it. So the only use Microsoft's support personnel have been to me is when Microsoft broke my computer on purpose, and I had to get them to undo it.
Well it's a similar and connected issue. One of the chief worries about "net neutrality" is that content owners and network owners will get together and restrict access to content. So, for example, there's a fear that Microsoft could partner with Verizon and make Google's search unavailable or unappealing. There's a fear that Comcast and NBC would get together and give special access to NBC content or inhibit access to CBS content.
Whether the actual filtering happens at the content/service providers or the ISP, you get some of the same dangers. You get a fragmented Internet where the available content and services are restricted based on special deals between the ISP and the content owner. You get a lot of arbitrary restrictions and anti-competitive practiced based on backroom deals.
Now the problem of net neutrality is larger than just these issues, but I wouldn't call this an unrelated debate.
And my acer aspire one (which is about 2 years old) does all of those things perfectly fine, possibly with a few accessories.... The screen is about an inch smaller (8.9), it weighs about 1kg (2.2 pounds - not at all hard to hold) and I estimate about .8" thick...
Yeah, but my whole point is that it's not about computing power or even about raw functionality-- it's specifically about the form factor. The iPad is very very light and very thin for a device with such a large screen, which makes it very pleasant to use in certain situations. Even the fact that it's a touchscreen instead of a clamshell form-factor means that it's more accessible in certain situations.
So if your usage doesn't make the form-factor particularly appealing, then the iPad won't be attractive to you. Of course, in that case you're also not the target audience.
keep in mind that your ipad will need a case which brings these form factors closer unless you want to risk damaging it.
I have an ipad, and I carried it around without a case for a couple weeks without any damage. I eventually got one of Apple's cases, which ads very little to the dimensions or weight, and I feel comfortable tossing it into a bag without special precautions.
Not to mention that the netbook has a mousepad and full keyboard (which is good for typing)...
... and isn't what the people who bought iPads were looking for. Look, different form-factors have different advantages. If you have no interest in the iPad form-factor, fair enough. Someone might say, "I have no interest in laptop computers. I can get a desktop computer with more power, more storage, a bigger screen, and more functionality for cheaper, and I have no interest in carrying my computer around with me." For that guy, it's true, there's no point in buying a laptop. That doesn't mean that laptops are stupid.
I can buy a very capable laptop with 3G capability for less than that
which of those laptops has a high-quality 10" screen, is 0.5" thick, and weighs 1.5 lbs?
my Samsung Epic is just as capable as the iPad
Your Samsung Epic has a small screen.
Here's what you have to understand: it's not about raw computing power, and it's not about being able to hack the kernel. The people who bought iPads are interested in usability for certain specific applications. It's a web-browsing appliance, an ebook reader, a document viewer, a picture browser, a giant iPod, and a bunch of other things. Being the right form-factor is essential. If you don't care about the form-factor and usability features, then you aren't its target audience at all.
I can't keep up with the new entertainment as it is. Still haven't seen Dr. Horrible, How I met your mom, and numerous other shows. Even missing some movie's I'd like to see but don't have time for. Same for books.
I wonder if this could reasonably be blamed as contributing to poor sales in recent years. Obviously there's a lot of entertainment to choose from-- books, TV, movies, video games, music. But also, I now have a big backlog of old movies and TV shows I want to watch on Netflix. I've seen a bit of people borrowing/trading DVD box sets of whole television seasons. Plus there's a lot of stuff on Hulu...
I feel absolutely flooded with options.
Yeah, personally I've used Office 2010 and I like it. It's fast, and the UI looks nice. It doesn't offer a lot of new functionality for me, but it has some good refinements of features over 2003 and 2007 (especially in Outlook), and it has new templates that look better than the old ones. That's about it, so I'm not sure it's worth the upgrade price.
But what really stops me dead in my tracks (I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it) is the requirement that it be activated. Up until Office 2007, it was possible to get a volume-licensing copy that did not require activation, and that's what I've always bought for my company. I've had too many random problems with copy-protection schemes from various companies, so I refuse to buy anything else that requires any kind of activation.
No, activation does not work well. I've had "activated" products die when I reimaged a machine or moved a hard drive. I've had products which I could not activate anymore because support was discontinued, and my only recourse was to buy a newer version of the product. I've spent several hours over the past couple years sitting on the telephone, waiting for some kind of unlock-code so I could use a rightfully purchased piece of software.
So Microsoft, if you drop activation from Windows 7 and Office 2010, I'll promise to buy a copy of each for every user in my company. Otherwise, you're not seeing another dollar.
Mozilla Thunderbird is not a replacement for Outlook. If you just want an IMAP client, then any IMAP client will do.
Well one of the reasons that Microsoft has always relied on is incompatibility between versions of Office. They often revise the Office formats between versions, and if everyone else has newer versions of Office, then you have to upgrade too, or your documents might be mangled.
It pain me every time I sit with others writing/correcting a document to wait for them to walk through the whole ribbon thing to find an option or a button. Before they had to simply move mouse over the toolbar and read the tool-tips.
Not quite true. In the past, you just had to mouse over the button on the toolbar if that option happened to be visible on the toolbar. However, most of the toolbars would be turned off by default, and only magically appear in certain circumstances which the users might not understand. If the toolbar you wanted was not visible, you either needed to understand the circumstances which would trigger the appearance of the toolbar, enable the toolbar manually, or find the option in the menu system.
On top of that little bit of possible confusion, Microsoft had a habit of silently hiding things. Menus would hide options that you did not use actively, and the toolbars would drop buttons if the screen was not wide enough to accommodate all of the buttons. This can still happen with the ribbon interface, but it's a little more clear, in my opinion.
Funny, but by "services" I meant services offered via web page. For example, I don't know if Slashdot requires that you use HTTPS to sign in. I've seen webmail services that doesn't require it.
Virtually nothing will protect you from people who have access to your desk.
Security is never about absolutes. Absolutely nothing will protect you 100% of the time from all possible eventualities, yet we still employ security measures. The general purpose to security is to increase the difficulty of an attack, decrease the possibility of meaningful success, and increase the possibility of catching the attacker.
So for example, simply putting a screensaver password on my computer might improve my security substantially. It gives casual attackers with limited technical knowledge and limited availability to my computer a relatively small window of attack-- they must get access to my computer in the period of time between when I leave my desk and when the screensaver kicks on. They must then install a trojan (or whatever you would suggest) in the short amount of time before I return to my desk and leave the area without being detected. But then there are other issues too-- they have to make sure the trojan won't be detected by my security package; they need to make sure the computer is more or less in the state that I left it, so as not to arouse suspicion; they may need to trigger the screensaver so that I don't come back and think, "why isn't my screensaver active?"
Yes, if they get access to my CPU while I'm out sick, they could try to get access a few different ways, but that all assumes that there aren't other people around the office, there's no security, and there are no cameras which would catch them in the act. It also assumes the attackers are substantially sophisticated to get past a simple password.
So there's a lot to consider. However, I can tell you right now that a simple screensaver password would be plenty of protection to keep my wife from reading my email. My wife isn't very technical, and even if you gave her physical access to my CPU and as much time as she wanted, she wouldn't know what to do.
And that's what I meant by "security depends on context". You have to ask things like:
Without knowing the context of what the information is, who the authorized personnel will be, and who the potential attackers will be, you can't begin to evaluate the effectiveness of a security scheme.