It may be just me, but I don't find image->Scale Image at all hard.
There's a lot of things that are problematic.
Like a go-kart and a 747 are both vehicles, Paint and Gimp are both graphics editors, but they are in an entirely different class and for entirely different target uses.
Your analogy is still broken. A go-kart and 747 are to vehicles as Gimp is to MS Word. Both GIMP and MS Word are software in the same sense that a go-kart and a 747 are vehicles. MS Paint and GIMP are both graphical editors in the same way that a go-kart and an F1 racer are both cars; and a Piper Cub and a 747 are both airplanes.
You don't get to change my analogy before you refute it. Knowing how to drive a go-kart doesn't make you ready for a 747, now does it?
Except your analogy is broken. You're comparing Apples to Oranges; I'm comparing Apples to Apples. MS Paint and GIMP while they are respectively the Go-Kart vs F1 Racer or Cessna vs 747 respectively, they are in the same class of software. Notepad vs. GIMP would be equivalent to your analogy. Yes, you could use GIMP to edit text, but Notepad would be a better tool. Compare apples to apples, and I'll use your analogy AS-IS.
Gimp does copy/paste just fine. It looks a lot like any other copy/paste operation. Honestly, have you ever even tried Gimp?
I didn't need a manual the first time I used Gimp, and I have yet to consult one.
Yes, I've tried using GIMP for various simple tasks several times over the years. Tasks I have no problem using PhotoShop or MS Paint to do. Yet, every time from basic copy/paste operations, resizing images, or similar tasks GIMP fails in making the interface obvious on what to do; even as a programmer, I end up giving up and finding some other software (IrFanView32, MS Paint, etc.) to do the job and get it done quickly. I don't want to be spending hours learning a piece of software to do some simple task that I am only going to do once in a blue moon, and when I do do that task, need it done quickly so I can go on to other things.
Once GIMP can pass that kind of test, then I'll spend time learning the other features. I'd honestly rather use GIMP than PhotoShop. I'd like to be able to promote the use of GIMP over PhotoShop, but have yet to find it pass muster. The learning curve for basic operations is too high to promote it.
Yes, I keep GIMP installed on my Linux PCs just to be able to try it out every now and again. I use to install it on Windows PCs I would use too for the same reason. I do tell people about it; but I have yet to run across anyone that actually uses GIMP - even in the many FLOSS meetings I attend. Everyone admits GIMP has a very steep learning curve. And as evidenced from the GIMP FAQ (e.g. http://www.gimp.org/docs/userfaq.html#Lost) they developers don't seem to care - and FYI, PhotoShop doesn't have those kinds of issues; you don't need a book to tell you how to do basic things.
Funny, I found Gimp to be quite intuitive from the very beginning. Meanwhile, I have no idea why you expect a 747 to be as easy to operate as a go-kart.
A pilot of a Cessna, Piper Cub, or nearly any other small plane - even a glider - could get into a 747 and easily fly it. Things will be familiar; and the procedures are basically the same. I'm not a certified pilot, but it is still true - there are some differences; but basic flight operation is the same.
An operator of a go-kart could get into an F1 racer, and things are still basically the same for basic operations.
The same applies to software - whether Word Processing, Graphics Editing, or using a compiler. If you are doing basic operations (e.g. copy, paste) then the functionality should be the same regardless of whether you are using Notepad, Vi, MS Word, OpenOffice, or Adobe Acrobat; or MS Paint, PhotoShop, InkScape, or GIMP. If new users to the software are not able to do the very basic tasks the software is meant to accomplish without having to spend hours learning the software then the there is something wrong in the UI design of the software. If you want to do more advanced tasks, then yes time and learning the software should be required.
So, if all you want to do is land that 747 in the event of an emergency (e.g. the pilots died and you're the next best person on board), then you better be able to get in there and land the aircraft without having to learn all the advanced functionality the aircraft computers are capable of (e.g. programming the flight plan, enabling auto-pilot, etc.). Even if you've never had any experience as a pilot, you'll be able to get into a 747 and be able to easily walk through the process with someone over the radio; if you do have experience as a pilot, you won't need much help at all.
You could as easily as a Gimp user say you loaded Photoshop the other day and it's still a hairy ness to figure out. Different software is different, go figure.
But at least in Photoshop someone can easily figure out how to do basic tasks like available in MS Paint.
In GIMP, that's not even possible without hours of learning the software.
They had Maemo/MeeGo and those phones sold quite well without any marketing behind them - 3:1 compared to the heavily marketed Lumias in the same markets.
For some value of "sold quite well," I'm sure. Maemo/MeeGo were dysfunctional as platforms, and Nokia showed no indication that they had any ability to deliver a coherent platform. Their revenues were declining, their profits were cratering, and they had no plan for moving forward.
The N900 sold very well in all markets is was available in. The problem was that Elop wasn't willing to commit to it, namely due to his conflict of interests with Microsoft. He was shill from day one as Nokia's CEO and has done nothing that is in the interest of Nokia itself, only what benefits Microsoft. The problem is, what benefits Microsoft is in direct conflict with what benefits Nokia - which is finding a platform to put on their phones that will actually sell. Maemo proved to be capable in that respect - and everyone that used it has praised it. It's not that Nokia couldn't deliver it, sustain it, etc; it's that Nokia's leadership didn't want to.
They COULD have bet heavily on Android, and in all likelihood, would have continued to decline. Instead, they decided to place a bigger bet on WP7 in the hopes that would differentiate their products - Microsoft needed a showpiece, and Nokia needed a lifeline. So they partnered up, and are making a go of a third platform. It doesn't mean they'll be successful, but Nokia was in decline years before Microsoft arrived. Their decline is not "because" of WP7, their decline is due to their inability to compete and offer a successful platform - they dicked around with Maemo & MeeGo while iOS and Android ate their markets, and then were left with the choice of jumping into Android (and being a small player with declining revenues and profits), or going with WP7, and hopefully being the first mover (and thus more profitable share) of what they hope will eventually be a winning platform.
My honest opinion is that Nokia is doomed in the phone market, and these are just part of the slow slide to oblivion - Android or WP7, I think they've declined too far to rally. But trying to pin their failure on Windows misses the significant pre-WP7 history where they were failing.
Nokia stuck to Symbian way too long. But WP7 is the real "burning platform" for them, and its sinking the company fast.
They could have gone with other platforms - they had Maemo, and could have continued with it if their leadership wanted to, and probably would have taken 3rd place in that case. Both Maemo and WebOS are very functional useful platforms. But it will never be a success unless someone stands behind it, and Elop basically destroyed any ability of Nokia to stand behind it upon the release of the N900. If they went with Android, they'd probably be lost in the myriad of Android vendors, but also probably doing a lot better than they are with WP7.
The point is, their leadership is too stuck on Windows to admit the platform is failing to deliver what the company needs. Nokia as a company should not be tied to any one platform necessarily - they should be delivering phones using multiple platforms - Maemo, Android, and yes perhaps even WP7 - and then let the market decide which sells best. Instead, under direction of someone whose only interest is to do so they tie themselves to a single platform that is going down like the Titanic, and taking everyone with it.
The N9 barely sold more than the Lumias have. So, no, it wasn't a homerun.
N9 outsold Lumia something like 3 to 1. And as others pointed out, Lumia had the marketing dollars (advertising, subsidies) behind it while the N9 was full price and no advertising.
I think this argument is interesting, but is ultimately a false choice. You can't have android on the lumia because it doesn't exist that way. Is like saying, iPhone would be better with android on it.
The bet thing ms / Nokia can do right now is take their lumps, invest in advertising, and have faith that they have a great product on the shelf. Build it and people will come.
Nokia could put Android on Lumia if they so wanted. The problem is that their CEO (Steven Elop) has a really big conflict-of-interest - his ownership in Microsoft, not to mention his loyalty to Microsoft, Bill Gates, and Steve Jobs, and his following "one Microsoft way".
Android could easily put on the phones, and save the company from the downfall with which Windows is bring to Nokia.
If Nokia had been able to abandon it's own failed software and adopt android I have no doubt the company would be in much better shape than it is today.
Wasn't Nokia already in massive decline, long before any hint of Windows came on the scene? They were selling feature phones, which are low profit-per-unit, and releasing dud after dud in the smartphone space while Apple & Android exploded.
They had Maemo/MeeGo and those phones sold quite well without any marketing behind them - 3:1 compared to the heavily marketed Lumias in the same markets.
They could have gone with Android, but then they would have been "just another Android maker," fighting tooth and claw with Motorola, Samsung, HTC, and the rest over the small portion of industry *profits* being earned by Android smartphones. (Remember, 50-75% of the *profits* are being earned by Apple in this space).
They could have gone with Android and just done what Amazon or B&N did - both sell Android, but heavily customized UIs so that they have a very big differentiation. Put it together with top-of-the-line hardware (or even a variety of hardware lines) and you've got something that can at least stack up to the rest of the market.
Instead, they decided to go with a third alternative - WP7, and bet that they could duplicate the iPhone model, with a different OS than anybody else is offering running on their hardware. It's a massive bet, but Microsoft and Nokia might have the marketing & financial clout to pull it off - but that very much remains to be seen. If they're able to push WP7 as a viable third alternative, they could be in a similar position as Apple: a hardware AND software package that are differentiated from the competition in some way other than "it's a different color."
Instead, Ex-Microsoftie Steven Elop, who is also one of the biggest Microsoft shareholders, took the company down a Windows-only path, and is losing everything in the process. (All Hail Bill Gates!)
Nokia has viable alternatives to using Windows, but Elop won't let them - his biggest COI is his loyalty to and ownership in Microsoft.
Just loaded GIMP 2.6 - and I'll tell ya' it's not fixed. it's still a hairy mess to figure out. Though has been reported they are working on a new interface (one more Photoshop like); but I don't know the status or what version it was to come out in.
2.8 does the single-window interface thing. It looks like this:
...whether that's now a single window hairy mess is not something I can really comment on. Personally, I find Photoshop to be an unintuitive horror and gimp works just how I'd expect, but that's probably because I started out with Autodesk Animator and weird things like that. If I had started on Photoshop my opinion would probably be very different.
Thanks for the screen shot. Per a Single WIndow Interface it's not the worse; but it still comes down to how functional it is for an average user to do basic tasks. If it's anything like GIMP 2.6 in that respect, then it will still be a hairy mess, just a "single window hair mess" (as you put it) instead.
Unfortunately, it seems that being able to do basic tasks easily (without having to read books or spend hours learning the software) is lost on the GIMP developers. If they solved that issue, they'd probably get a lot less flak about the learning curve, etc; because that's really what people want to get started with - something that is nearly as easy to use as MS Paint to do very basic tasks.
HOLY SHIT! You "just loaded GIMP 2.6" (and not the offshoots that try to look like photoshop GimPhoto and GimpShop) and after a STUNNING 3.5 minutes you couldn't find the buttons that you're familiar with in Photoshop after having spent the last 2 decades getting used to Adobe's user interface.
No, I loaded GIMP 2.6 to see if it had an MDI/Single Window Mode that it. I'm not very familiar with Photoshop, but if given Photoshop I can edit photos for what I want to do without having to spend hours on end trying to figure out how the software works. I have yet to get GIMP to do any kind of basic photo editing despite hours of playing with the interface - in any GIMP version I've tried.
I know GIMP is great for people that work with it every day, do all kinds of scripting, etc; but until a normal computer user (not a photo editing specialist, but Grandma & Grandpa) can do basic photo editing with GIMP, it's useless for the majority of people and will continue to have too high a learning curve to overcome the Photoshop interface issue.
Honest, if it could do what I wanted easily, I wouldn't care that it had the windows interface that it does; but it can't even to the basics without hours of learning; and even GIMP's FAQs point to books on the program to help people out in those cases - so something is obviously wrong with their UI design no matter how they want to cut it.
The user interface wasn't the problem. It was fixed in 2.0. A lot of what was hampering the gimp was the lack of support for larger bit depths and support for non-destructive editing.
Just loaded GIMP 2.6 - and I'll tell ya' it's not fixed. it's still a hairy mess to figure out. Though has been reported they are working on a new interface (one more Photoshop like); but I don't know the status or what version it was to come out in.
While I think you make a lot of good points. I don't think your comments are that constructive on the matter. I don't say that to be critical. Merely, that rather then dismissing the whole attempt, you should say what they specifically did wrong and how to fix it.
I've been more pointing to the history of Microsoft with mobile than anything else. WinPhone7/Win8 is their first real departure from that history. And really, the only reason they are in the position they now find themselves in is due to that history - shunning mobile in preference for the Desktop, and trying to force the Desktop environment into mobile. That is all.
The notion that the interface doesn't work on for mobile is irrelevant. The interface isn't the OS. The interface is a skin thrown over the OS. Take explorer out of windows and OS still works. I think it would be possible to strip out the GUI from desktop windows and fit it with a Mobile GUI. it would be a big deal especially in the corporate world if they could push their software directly on to a mobile without having to recode it.
But that's the point. Microsoft's history has been until WinPhone7 trying to put the Desktop interface on mobile devices. This is broken from the view that the desktop environment does not really do well for touch style interface, requires too much screen realestate to support, and just plain doesn't scale for the various form factors.
WinPhone7's (and Win8's) Metro interface is the first move from that. However, it too is not what users are looking for. It's a step in the right direction for them in that they are finally realizing that the Desktop environment doesn't fit. But it'll be a while before they really get it right. It did differentiate them; but that differentiation hasn't helped them either.
About the only thing MS did right with WinPhone's app-store was allowing FOSS applications to by-pass the rest of the store restrictions if their license was OSI approved - but they only did that because they are so far behind and desprately need developers on the platform (which is still not happening).
Companies are not writing apple Apps for their internal use. They might waste their time with that for customers but for internal use... they'll sooner push everything to a web/cloud service. And that only works when the internet is up which if you're in a mobile environment is spotty. Even in New York... get on a subway...
Either apple or MS or some palatable version of Linux needs to hit the phone. We need these devices to have a grown up OS for grown up programs.
I will grant you that it is unlikely that corporate IT are unlikely to deliver apps for iOS. However, I would be surprised if they were not in some form doing so for Android as it is relatively easy to add a new app-store to Android (it's a configuration option) so they could easily do so for their own internal app-store on devices they provide to employees.
Now, I wouldn't expect SMBs to be doing this; but the Large and Enterprise IT departments to be doing so - companies like Northrop Grumman, IBM, Oracle, HP, or even gov't entities (e.g. DISA, DoD).
But I think at the very ABSOLUTE LEAST a windows mobile phone should be able to emulate a windows environment with decent performance.
We have quad core phones now... I'm not expecting anything amazing... WIndows 3.1 level graphics would be fine at least for a demo. THe point is to get the cross compatibility. And once you have a non-linux phone running desktop applications it will be a game changer.
The point is that the Windows Environment is not suitable for the mobile platform. Windows Desktop as an environment just doesn't fit mobile or how mobile works. Android and iOS in the current generation, and Palm, RIM, and Symbian in the previous generation were all successful because they embraced mobile for what it is - they embraced how mobile functions, and how users use mobile - things that very contrary to the Windows Environment, even the design of Windows at its heart.
Now the interesting twist with Windows 8 is that Microsoft is trying to do the exact opposite of what it has done historicallly - instead of pushing desktop to mobile, they're trying to push their (failed) mobile platform to the desktop; however, this will really only cost them even more of their desktop market share - yes, it's going to be a big flop - the biggest they ever made, and if they can't recover from it with Win9, it'll cost them the company. But expect Win9 to be more like Win7 than Win8 due to how big a flop Win8 will be - they'll be trying to recover their desktop status with Win9 while continuing to lose out on mobile.
Of course, it's interesting that the one company that they paid off to push WP7, is now burning through its cash (under the leadership of a Ex-Microsoft Executive), and months away from being in good stating for bonds it sells to having them relegated to junk bond status. They'll probably only survive that by ousting the Ex-Microsoft leadership, and going wholesale to Android; but they'll have lost significant market share that they won't likely be able to recover in the process. (Don't expect Microsoft's biggest shareholder who is stationed there to adopt any other platform under his watch either.)
Windows mobile was really pretty great for when it came out. It had decent integration with office, a more extensive library of programs then any competing system, and a similar structure to windows in many respects. It even had a registry.
But MS blew it. They didn't take the platform seriously and they left it to rot on the vine.
That said, lets not forget that what is really making apple so strong here is itunes. And that isn't MS's mistake so much as it is the content providers. Apple is eating the publishing industry and nibbling on MS, motorola, and a few other companies. But indifferent to apple's successes, MS screwed up on windows mobile.
Well, it wasn't simply that Microsoft blew it - it was that they didn't want mobile to take off. They released WinCE to combat mobile - yes, they did an okay job in the initial delivery, but it was always about pushing the Windows Desktop design onto the devices - despite the fact that the Windows Desktop just would not fundamentally work on those device. They did enough to keep mobile from taking off until Apple and Google/OHA came around and released their respective platforms and completely decimated any ability of Microsoft (in part due to the Antitrust finding) to keep mobile under wraps any longer.
If Microsoft did not try to destroy mobile the way they did, then things like iPhone/iPod and Android would probably have been around 10 years or more earlier than they did. However, Microsoft chose to try to use its Windows Desktop monopoly to protect itself, and pushed WinCE to destroy the mobile environment. Malicious? You bet.
Just one of many ways that Microsoft held the markets back (destroying innovation) to try to further its own interests.
Yes, but what if the floormat is blocking the brake as well?
From the other direction, pushing it up.
I mean, they obviously don't know how to design floormats...:P
Then you use the Emergency Brake (Automatics) or Hand-Brake (Standards).
My first thought about such situations? Every car has such an override already: put the transmission at the NEUTRAL position.
Seriously! Another safety? Aren't the possibilities already present on all cars enough?
But then I think about it, and what it represent: it seems to be a very high tech mechanism, and such a novel concept, that it seems to have eluded public attention altogether...
Not to mention the Emergency Brake that's been standard for decades; true - it only controls the rear wheels (typically) but it still will slow you down at the very least if not stop you.
Put the two together and you've already got a 23rd Century Override system, developed by 19th Century minds!.
And using Skype on Linux is a problem because.... ?
It's unsupported, well out of date, and very problematic.
I often try to chat with people via Skype; only to get one or two chats through and then have it stop sending/receiving chats. I'm still supposedly on-line; but it's not working.
And its functionally broken when trying to find the microphone under Linux; so voice calls are nearly impossible - they work sometimes, but most of the time they don't. I gave up on it.
Interestingly, this lack of support and updates started about the time Microsoft started its acquisition of the company, vowing to keep Linux support active - that support has basically been "here's a beta version that 2+ years old, use it if you like".
Don't you know that an economy can only grow? We did multiple billions of dollars in the past and should be doing that plus all the inflation since then. It's jus the laws of economics. Once you get there you never go down.
Seriously - that was the thinking that caused the Housing Bubble - prices will only ever go up, so buy buy buy. And i'd be surprised (given the information put out) that the MPAA and RIAA didn't think likewise, despite the facts that:
* the quality is not what is has been in the past
* the prices are more expensive then ever
* the economy is down, so higher prices mean few sales
* they're sue happy and alienating their customers as a result
* the world is moving on without them in many more ways than one
I just finished switching all my clients to duckduckgo.com, take the hint
This I don't get, you're leery of Google and you switch to a service that uses bing? I'm sorry, Google might be scary, but how can anyone prefer Microsoft over it?
<sarcasm>
Microsoft is extremely Capitalist and we keep hearing about Google funding Socialist and Communist political movements, etc. So Microsoft must be better, no?
</sarcasm>
Seriously I agree though.
I expect cash might be outlawed in the USA in my lifetime.
You can only outlaw what you can control; and if the US gov't stops making cash available, then they will lose control of the currency entirely as at the very least the black markets will just move to a different currency to continue business as usual, and if necessary they will create their own barter system or currency - again, outside the control of the US gov't - and given the utility of cash it will spill over to the rest of the economy no matter how much Uncle Sam tries to keep it from doing so.
Cash is simply too useful to the populace.
For example, many arcade centers already have their own currency. You have to purchase their currency before playing any games - essentially the cashiers act as a currency exchange, and it's totally legal. All that would have to happen is for someone to implement the same kind of thing and extend the system to other services. For example, if Joe's Arcade, Jane's Grocery, and Bob's Fuel & Garage Services all accept the private currency between each other.
In some respects that is already happening - only the private currency's are gift cards (specialized to the store or credit card of your choice), and available at nearly all grocery stores in the US; though their "credit" currency is 1:1 with the US dollar, they could simply (and legally) move it off and act as their own exchanges.
It wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing either - whether pure cash or electronic. It would certainly make things a lot harder for the Fed to control the economy (which would probably be a good thing as it would give more economic freedom, and allow the ups and downs cycles to occur as they ought to).
May be they're turtles from the Battlestar Galactica caught in some radioactive slime that survived a crashed landing on Earth, the 13th colony, when they finally made it?
Yeah, the basic story could still stand while changing the circumstances of how it occurred or why. It might make it more believable in the process. (The original turtles in radioactive goo never made much sense to me.)
All it takes is for the tablet/smart phone to become the core of the PC while you use a series of peripherals (monitors, keyboards, processors) attached to it at your desk to extend it for the rest of the work. Yes, a tablet and even a smart phone will be able to replace your desktop - it's just a matter of time.
I do believe that smart phones and tablets will replace laptops and even desktops eventually, leaving the high performance desktops to certain uses; but it's a matter of how long it takes for smart phones and tablets to do things like the Motorolo Atrix/Bionic/Atrix2/etc - external, hi-res monitor, and docking station for keyboard, mouse, etc. So like another parallel poster said (to paraphrase) - dock, production device, undock, portable device.
Of course, it would get even better once they figure out how to do dockable processor and memory modules to go with it so you dock your phone/tablet in, and get more memory/processor capabilities to run heavier applications on - applications that are installed on the mobile device.
Of course MS can afford a product cycle that isn't hugely popular. Their biggest competition for Windows 8 is Windows
Except that might be changing. Win8 will have to compete with Android and iOS in the tablet, phone, and multimedia (e..g TV) markets at the very least; and if tablets start to eat into laptop sales (which is starting to happen, but not quite significant yet though the potential to be so is there) then the Android/iOS tablets will be directly competing with laptops and Win7/Win8 as well.
Yes, it is certainly a time for a paradigm shift; and Microsoft is finally showing enough chuzzpah to do mobile at least better than they did in the past and risk their traditional markets to a degree. But it may be too little, too late as well for a world that has certainly learned through iOS/Android that it can do without Microsoft - which is itself a problem for Microsoft.
Slashdot Mirror
It may be just me, but I don't find image->Scale Image at all hard.
There's a lot of things that are problematic.
Like a go-kart and a 747 are both vehicles, Paint and Gimp are both graphics editors, but they are in an entirely different class and for entirely different target uses.
Your analogy is still broken. A go-kart and 747 are to vehicles as Gimp is to MS Word. Both GIMP and MS Word are software in the same sense that a go-kart and a 747 are vehicles. MS Paint and GIMP are both graphical editors in the same way that a go-kart and an F1 racer are both cars; and a Piper Cub and a 747 are both airplanes.
You don't get to change my analogy before you refute it. Knowing how to drive a go-kart doesn't make you ready for a 747, now does it?
Except your analogy is broken. You're comparing Apples to Oranges; I'm comparing Apples to Apples. MS Paint and GIMP while they are respectively the Go-Kart vs F1 Racer or Cessna vs 747 respectively, they are in the same class of software. Notepad vs. GIMP would be equivalent to your analogy. Yes, you could use GIMP to edit text, but Notepad would be a better tool. Compare apples to apples, and I'll use your analogy AS-IS.
Gimp does copy/paste just fine. It looks a lot like any other copy/paste operation. Honestly, have you ever even tried Gimp?
I didn't need a manual the first time I used Gimp, and I have yet to consult one.
Yes, I've tried using GIMP for various simple tasks several times over the years. Tasks I have no problem using PhotoShop or MS Paint to do. Yet, every time from basic copy/paste operations, resizing images, or similar tasks GIMP fails in making the interface obvious on what to do; even as a programmer, I end up giving up and finding some other software (IrFanView32, MS Paint, etc.) to do the job and get it done quickly. I don't want to be spending hours learning a piece of software to do some simple task that I am only going to do once in a blue moon, and when I do do that task, need it done quickly so I can go on to other things.
Once GIMP can pass that kind of test, then I'll spend time learning the other features. I'd honestly rather use GIMP than PhotoShop. I'd like to be able to promote the use of GIMP over PhotoShop, but have yet to find it pass muster. The learning curve for basic operations is too high to promote it.
Yes, I keep GIMP installed on my Linux PCs just to be able to try it out every now and again. I use to install it on Windows PCs I would use too for the same reason. I do tell people about it; but I have yet to run across anyone that actually uses GIMP - even in the many FLOSS meetings I attend. Everyone admits GIMP has a very steep learning curve. And as evidenced from the GIMP FAQ (e.g. http://www.gimp.org/docs/userfaq.html#Lost) they developers don't seem to care - and FYI, PhotoShop doesn't have those kinds of issues; you don't need a book to tell you how to do basic things.
Funny, I found Gimp to be quite intuitive from the very beginning. Meanwhile, I have no idea why you expect a 747 to be as easy to operate as a go-kart.
A pilot of a Cessna, Piper Cub, or nearly any other small plane - even a glider - could get into a 747 and easily fly it. Things will be familiar; and the procedures are basically the same. I'm not a certified pilot, but it is still true - there are some differences; but basic flight operation is the same.
An operator of a go-kart could get into an F1 racer, and things are still basically the same for basic operations.
The same applies to software - whether Word Processing, Graphics Editing, or using a compiler. If you are doing basic operations (e.g. copy, paste) then the functionality should be the same regardless of whether you are using Notepad, Vi, MS Word, OpenOffice, or Adobe Acrobat; or MS Paint, PhotoShop, InkScape, or GIMP. If new users to the software are not able to do the very basic tasks the software is meant to accomplish without having to spend hours learning the software then the there is something wrong in the UI design of the software. If you want to do more advanced tasks, then yes time and learning the software should be required.
So, if all you want to do is land that 747 in the event of an emergency (e.g. the pilots died and you're the next best person on board), then you better be able to get in there and land the aircraft without having to learn all the advanced functionality the aircraft computers are capable of (e.g. programming the flight plan, enabling auto-pilot, etc.). Even if you've never had any experience as a pilot, you'll be able to get into a 747 and be able to easily walk through the process with someone over the radio; if you do have experience as a pilot, you won't need much help at all.
You could as easily as a Gimp user say you loaded Photoshop the other day and it's still a hairy ness to figure out. Different software is different, go figure.
But at least in Photoshop someone can easily figure out how to do basic tasks like available in MS Paint.
In GIMP, that's not even possible without hours of learning the software.
his loyalty to Microsoft, Bill Gates, and Steve Jobs
wtf?
Yeah, mean Balmer there. My bad.
Seriously...
For some value of "sold quite well," I'm sure. Maemo/MeeGo were dysfunctional as platforms, and Nokia showed no indication that they had any ability to deliver a coherent platform. Their revenues were declining, their profits were cratering, and they had no plan for moving forward.
The N900 sold very well in all markets is was available in. The problem was that Elop wasn't willing to commit to it, namely due to his conflict of interests with Microsoft. He was shill from day one as Nokia's CEO and has done nothing that is in the interest of Nokia itself, only what benefits Microsoft. The problem is, what benefits Microsoft is in direct conflict with what benefits Nokia - which is finding a platform to put on their phones that will actually sell. Maemo proved to be capable in that respect - and everyone that used it has praised it. It's not that Nokia couldn't deliver it, sustain it, etc; it's that Nokia's leadership didn't want to.
They COULD have bet heavily on Android, and in all likelihood, would have continued to decline. Instead, they decided to place a bigger bet on WP7 in the hopes that would differentiate their products - Microsoft needed a showpiece, and Nokia needed a lifeline. So they partnered up, and are making a go of a third platform. It doesn't mean they'll be successful, but Nokia was in decline years before Microsoft arrived. Their decline is not "because" of WP7, their decline is due to their inability to compete and offer a successful platform - they dicked around with Maemo & MeeGo while iOS and Android ate their markets, and then were left with the choice of jumping into Android (and being a small player with declining revenues and profits), or going with WP7, and hopefully being the first mover (and thus more profitable share) of what they hope will eventually be a winning platform.
My honest opinion is that Nokia is doomed in the phone market, and these are just part of the slow slide to oblivion - Android or WP7, I think they've declined too far to rally. But trying to pin their failure on Windows misses the significant pre-WP7 history where they were failing.
Nokia stuck to Symbian way too long. But WP7 is the real "burning platform" for them, and its sinking the company fast.
They could have gone with other platforms - they had Maemo, and could have continued with it if their leadership wanted to, and probably would have taken 3rd place in that case. Both Maemo and WebOS are very functional useful platforms. But it will never be a success unless someone stands behind it, and Elop basically destroyed any ability of Nokia to stand behind it upon the release of the N900. If they went with Android, they'd probably be lost in the myriad of Android vendors, but also probably doing a lot better than they are with WP7.
The point is, their leadership is too stuck on Windows to admit the platform is failing to deliver what the company needs. Nokia as a company should not be tied to any one platform necessarily - they should be delivering phones using multiple platforms - Maemo, Android, and yes perhaps even WP7 - and then let the market decide which sells best. Instead, under direction of someone whose only interest is to do so they tie themselves to a single platform that is going down like the Titanic, and taking everyone with it.
The N9 barely sold more than the Lumias have. So, no, it wasn't a homerun.
N9 outsold Lumia something like 3 to 1. And as others pointed out, Lumia had the marketing dollars (advertising, subsidies) behind it while the N9 was full price and no advertising.
Nokia could put Android on Lumia if they so wanted. The problem is that their CEO (Steven Elop) has a really big conflict-of-interest - his ownership in Microsoft, not to mention his loyalty to Microsoft, Bill Gates, and Steve Jobs, and his following "one Microsoft way".
Android could easily put on the phones, and save the company from the downfall with which Windows is bring to Nokia.
Wasn't Nokia already in massive decline, long before any hint of Windows came on the scene? They were selling feature phones, which are low profit-per-unit, and releasing dud after dud in the smartphone space while Apple & Android exploded.
They had Maemo/MeeGo and those phones sold quite well without any marketing behind them - 3:1 compared to the heavily marketed Lumias in the same markets.
They could have gone with Android, but then they would have been "just another Android maker," fighting tooth and claw with Motorola, Samsung, HTC, and the rest over the small portion of industry *profits* being earned by Android smartphones. (Remember, 50-75% of the *profits* are being earned by Apple in this space).
They could have gone with Android and just done what Amazon or B&N did - both sell Android, but heavily customized UIs so that they have a very big differentiation. Put it together with top-of-the-line hardware (or even a variety of hardware lines) and you've got something that can at least stack up to the rest of the market.
Instead, they decided to go with a third alternative - WP7, and bet that they could duplicate the iPhone model, with a different OS than anybody else is offering running on their hardware. It's a massive bet, but Microsoft and Nokia might have the marketing & financial clout to pull it off - but that very much remains to be seen. If they're able to push WP7 as a viable third alternative, they could be in a similar position as Apple: a hardware AND software package that are differentiated from the competition in some way other than "it's a different color."
Instead, Ex-Microsoftie Steven Elop, who is also one of the biggest Microsoft shareholders, took the company down a Windows-only path, and is losing everything in the process. (All Hail Bill Gates!)
Nokia has viable alternatives to using Windows, but Elop won't let them - his biggest COI is his loyalty to and ownership in Microsoft.
Just loaded GIMP 2.6 - and I'll tell ya' it's not fixed. it's still a hairy mess to figure out. Though has been reported they are working on a new interface (one more Photoshop like); but I don't know the status or what version it was to come out in.
2.8 does the single-window interface thing. It looks like this:
http://tapewolf.wildernessguardians.com/gimp28-screenshot.jpg
...whether that's now a single window hairy mess is not something I can really comment on. Personally, I find Photoshop to be an unintuitive horror and gimp works just how I'd expect, but that's probably because I started out with Autodesk Animator and weird things like that. If I had started on Photoshop my opinion would probably be very different.
Thanks for the screen shot. Per a Single WIndow Interface it's not the worse; but it still comes down to how functional it is for an average user to do basic tasks. If it's anything like GIMP 2.6 in that respect, then it will still be a hairy mess, just a "single window hair mess" (as you put it) instead.
Unfortunately, it seems that being able to do basic tasks easily (without having to read books or spend hours learning the software) is lost on the GIMP developers. If they solved that issue, they'd probably get a lot less flak about the learning curve, etc; because that's really what people want to get started with - something that is nearly as easy to use as MS Paint to do very basic tasks.
HOLY SHIT! You "just loaded GIMP 2.6" (and not the offshoots that try to look like photoshop GimPhoto and GimpShop) and after a STUNNING 3.5 minutes you couldn't find the buttons that you're familiar with in Photoshop after having spent the last 2 decades getting used to Adobe's user interface.
No, I loaded GIMP 2.6 to see if it had an MDI/Single Window Mode that it. I'm not very familiar with Photoshop, but if given Photoshop I can edit photos for what I want to do without having to spend hours on end trying to figure out how the software works. I have yet to get GIMP to do any kind of basic photo editing despite hours of playing with the interface - in any GIMP version I've tried.
I know GIMP is great for people that work with it every day, do all kinds of scripting, etc; but until a normal computer user (not a photo editing specialist, but Grandma & Grandpa) can do basic photo editing with GIMP, it's useless for the majority of people and will continue to have too high a learning curve to overcome the Photoshop interface issue.
Honest, if it could do what I wanted easily, I wouldn't care that it had the windows interface that it does; but it can't even to the basics without hours of learning; and even GIMP's FAQs point to books on the program to help people out in those cases - so something is obviously wrong with their UI design no matter how they want to cut it.
The user interface wasn't the problem. It was fixed in 2.0. A lot of what was hampering the gimp was the lack of support for larger bit depths and support for non-destructive editing.
Just loaded GIMP 2.6 - and I'll tell ya' it's not fixed. it's still a hairy mess to figure out. Though has been reported they are working on a new interface (one more Photoshop like); but I don't know the status or what version it was to come out in.
While I think you make a lot of good points. I don't think your comments are that constructive on the matter. I don't say that to be critical. Merely, that rather then dismissing the whole attempt, you should say what they specifically did wrong and how to fix it.
I've been more pointing to the history of Microsoft with mobile than anything else. WinPhone7/Win8 is their first real departure from that history. And really, the only reason they are in the position they now find themselves in is due to that history - shunning mobile in preference for the Desktop, and trying to force the Desktop environment into mobile. That is all.
The notion that the interface doesn't work on for mobile is irrelevant. The interface isn't the OS. The interface is a skin thrown over the OS. Take explorer out of windows and OS still works. I think it would be possible to strip out the GUI from desktop windows and fit it with a Mobile GUI. it would be a big deal especially in the corporate world if they could push their software directly on to a mobile without having to recode it.
But that's the point. Microsoft's history has been until WinPhone7 trying to put the Desktop interface on mobile devices. This is broken from the view that the desktop environment does not really do well for touch style interface, requires too much screen realestate to support, and just plain doesn't scale for the various form factors.
WinPhone7's (and Win8's) Metro interface is the first move from that. However, it too is not what users are looking for. It's a step in the right direction for them in that they are finally realizing that the Desktop environment doesn't fit. But it'll be a while before they really get it right. It did differentiate them; but that differentiation hasn't helped them either.
About the only thing MS did right with WinPhone's app-store was allowing FOSS applications to by-pass the rest of the store restrictions if their license was OSI approved - but they only did that because they are so far behind and desprately need developers on the platform (which is still not happening).
Companies are not writing apple Apps for their internal use. They might waste their time with that for customers but for internal use... they'll sooner push everything to a web/cloud service. And that only works when the internet is up which if you're in a mobile environment is spotty. Even in New York... get on a subway...
Either apple or MS or some palatable version of Linux needs to hit the phone. We need these devices to have a grown up OS for grown up programs.
I will grant you that it is unlikely that corporate IT are unlikely to deliver apps for iOS. However, I would be surprised if they were not in some form doing so for Android as it is relatively easy to add a new app-store to Android (it's a configuration option) so they could easily do so for their own internal app-store on devices they provide to employees.
Now, I wouldn't expect SMBs to be doing this; but the Large and Enterprise IT departments to be doing so - companies like Northrop Grumman, IBM, Oracle, HP, or even gov't entities (e.g. DISA, DoD).
But I think at the very ABSOLUTE LEAST a windows mobile phone should be able to emulate a windows environment with decent performance.
We have quad core phones now... I'm not expecting anything amazing... WIndows 3.1 level graphics would be fine at least for a demo. THe point is to get the cross compatibility. And once you have a non-linux phone running desktop applications it will be a game changer.
The point is that the Windows Environment is not suitable for the mobile platform. Windows Desktop as an environment just doesn't fit mobile or how mobile works. Android and iOS in the current generation, and Palm, RIM, and Symbian in the previous generation were all successful because they embraced mobile for what it is - they embraced how mobile functions, and how users use mobile - things that very contrary to the Windows Environment, even the design of Windows at its heart.
Now the interesting twist with Windows 8 is that Microsoft is trying to do the exact opposite of what it has done historicallly - instead of pushing desktop to mobile, they're trying to push their (failed) mobile platform to the desktop; however, this will really only cost them even more of their desktop market share - yes, it's going to be a big flop - the biggest they ever made, and if they can't recover from it with Win9, it'll cost them the company. But expect Win9 to be more like Win7 than Win8 due to how big a flop Win8 will be - they'll be trying to recover their desktop status with Win9 while continuing to lose out on mobile.
Of course, it's interesting that the one company that they paid off to push WP7, is now burning through its cash (under the leadership of a Ex-Microsoft Executive), and months away from being in good stating for bonds it sells to having them relegated to junk bond status. They'll probably only survive that by ousting the Ex-Microsoft leadership, and going wholesale to Android; but they'll have lost significant market share that they won't likely be able to recover in the process. (Don't expect Microsoft's biggest shareholder who is stationed there to adopt any other platform under his watch either.)
Windows mobile was really pretty great for when it came out. It had decent integration with office, a more extensive library of programs then any competing system, and a similar structure to windows in many respects. It even had a registry.
But MS blew it. They didn't take the platform seriously and they left it to rot on the vine.
That said, lets not forget that what is really making apple so strong here is itunes. And that isn't MS's mistake so much as it is the content providers. Apple is eating the publishing industry and nibbling on MS, motorola, and a few other companies. But indifferent to apple's successes, MS screwed up on windows mobile.
Well, it wasn't simply that Microsoft blew it - it was that they didn't want mobile to take off. They released WinCE to combat mobile - yes, they did an okay job in the initial delivery, but it was always about pushing the Windows Desktop design onto the devices - despite the fact that the Windows Desktop just would not fundamentally work on those device. They did enough to keep mobile from taking off until Apple and Google/OHA came around and released their respective platforms and completely decimated any ability of Microsoft (in part due to the Antitrust finding) to keep mobile under wraps any longer.
If Microsoft did not try to destroy mobile the way they did, then things like iPhone/iPod and Android would probably have been around 10 years or more earlier than they did. However, Microsoft chose to try to use its Windows Desktop monopoly to protect itself, and pushed WinCE to destroy the mobile environment. Malicious? You bet.
Just one of many ways that Microsoft held the markets back (destroying innovation) to try to further its own interests.
Yes, but what if the floormat is blocking the brake as well? From the other direction, pushing it up. I mean, they obviously don't know how to design floormats... :P
Then you use the Emergency Brake (Automatics) or Hand-Brake (Standards).
My first thought about such situations? Every car has such an override already: put the transmission at the NEUTRAL position.
Seriously! Another safety? Aren't the possibilities already present on all cars enough?
But then I think about it, and what it represent: it seems to be a very high tech mechanism, and such a novel concept, that it seems to have eluded public attention altogether...
Not to mention the Emergency Brake that's been standard for decades; true - it only controls the rear wheels (typically) but it still will slow you down at the very least if not stop you. Put the two together and you've already got a 23rd Century Override system, developed by 19th Century minds!.
And using Skype on Linux is a problem because.... ?
It's unsupported, well out of date, and very problematic.
I often try to chat with people via Skype; only to get one or two chats through and then have it stop sending/receiving chats. I'm still supposedly on-line; but it's not working.
And its functionally broken when trying to find the microphone under Linux; so voice calls are nearly impossible - they work sometimes, but most of the time they don't. I gave up on it.
Interestingly, this lack of support and updates started about the time Microsoft started its acquisition of the company, vowing to keep Linux support active - that support has basically been "here's a beta version that 2+ years old, use it if you like".
Is there anything else Skype is good for?
I just finished switching all my clients to duckduckgo.com, take the hint
This I don't get, you're leery of Google and you switch to a service that uses bing? I'm sorry, Google might be scary, but how can anyone prefer Microsoft over it?
<sarcasm> Microsoft is extremely Capitalist and we keep hearing about Google funding Socialist and Communist political movements, etc. So Microsoft must be better, no? </sarcasm> Seriously I agree though.
You can only outlaw what you can control; and if the US gov't stops making cash available, then they will lose control of the currency entirely as at the very least the black markets will just move to a different currency to continue business as usual, and if necessary they will create their own barter system or currency - again, outside the control of the US gov't - and given the utility of cash it will spill over to the rest of the economy no matter how much Uncle Sam tries to keep it from doing so.
Cash is simply too useful to the populace.
For example, many arcade centers already have their own currency. You have to purchase their currency before playing any games - essentially the cashiers act as a currency exchange, and it's totally legal. All that would have to happen is for someone to implement the same kind of thing and extend the system to other services. For example, if Joe's Arcade, Jane's Grocery, and Bob's Fuel & Garage Services all accept the private currency between each other.
In some respects that is already happening - only the private currency's are gift cards (specialized to the store or credit card of your choice), and available at nearly all grocery stores in the US; though their "credit" currency is 1:1 with the US dollar, they could simply (and legally) move it off and act as their own exchanges.
It wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing either - whether pure cash or electronic. It would certainly make things a lot harder for the Fed to control the economy (which would probably be a good thing as it would give more economic freedom, and allow the ups and downs cycles to occur as they ought to).
May be they're turtles from the Battlestar Galactica caught in some radioactive slime that survived a crashed landing on Earth, the 13th colony, when they finally made it?
Yeah, the basic story could still stand while changing the circumstances of how it occurred or why. It might make it more believable in the process. (The original turtles in radioactive goo never made much sense to me.)
All it takes is for the tablet/smart phone to become the core of the PC while you use a series of peripherals (monitors, keyboards, processors) attached to it at your desk to extend it for the rest of the work. Yes, a tablet and even a smart phone will be able to replace your desktop - it's just a matter of time.
I do believe that smart phones and tablets will replace laptops and even desktops eventually, leaving the high performance desktops to certain uses; but it's a matter of how long it takes for smart phones and tablets to do things like the Motorolo Atrix/Bionic/Atrix2/etc - external, hi-res monitor, and docking station for keyboard, mouse, etc. So like another parallel poster said (to paraphrase) - dock, production device, undock, portable device.
Of course, it would get even better once they figure out how to do dockable processor and memory modules to go with it so you dock your phone/tablet in, and get more memory/processor capabilities to run heavier applications on - applications that are installed on the mobile device.
Except that might be changing. Win8 will have to compete with Android and iOS in the tablet, phone, and multimedia (e..g TV) markets at the very least; and if tablets start to eat into laptop sales (which is starting to happen, but not quite significant yet though the potential to be so is there) then the Android/iOS tablets will be directly competing with laptops and Win7/Win8 as well.
Yes, it is certainly a time for a paradigm shift; and Microsoft is finally showing enough chuzzpah to do mobile at least better than they did in the past and risk their traditional markets to a degree. But it may be too little, too late as well for a world that has certainly learned through iOS/Android that it can do without Microsoft - which is itself a problem for Microsoft.