Not to mention copies of Windows 7 being given away to TechNet people left and right these days, college students, Windows 7 launch party copies, and the $10 copies that Best Buy employees got.
Chrome OS comes with a web-based media player. I think Last.fm claims to have streamed the equivalent of 2000 years of music. Web based media players might be the future.
GIMP is such a pain that Ubuntu is dropping it. My wife uses web-based image editting tools exclusively these days.
There has been work on an OpenGL ES framework for full 3D accelerated programing inside the web browser. So there can be a Second Life client that runs natively fully in your browser in the future. It isn't unfeasible.
There's even *already* been announcements that it will be the worst piece of *DRM* ever in front of security. If *anything* is changed in the system, the OS downloads it and replaces it again.
The core OS itself is being treated more like a piece of firmware than a traditional OS. You can update it. You can make changes to settings. You can install programs. But the core of the OS will repair itself if it thinks it is corrupted.
First off, Windows already does this. Secondly, this doesn't mean you can't intentionally change things. Lastly, since Chromium is completely open, you can remove this feature if you don't like it.
DRM stops you from making copies of material you own. This isn't DRM. It's a system recovery feature.
I do love the new taskbar and window tiling tricks. I like per-application volume control. Windows 7 looks pretty.
However I still loathe UAC. I have to turn it off. I hate the explorer windows and file dialogs keep defaulting to Library. I need to find that in the registry and change it. I hate that like Vista, most of the dialog options are moved from where there were in XP, and not for the better.
There are still tons of UI regressions. And not all Windows 7 device drivers are all that great. Not to mention many games either don't run at all, or run with problems in Windows 7. Samba sharing to and from Linux also seems to be broken. I can see plenty of reasons to stay with XP.
Given that the ONLY reason I keep Windows around is gaming, it really irks me how many issues I'm running into gaming with 7.
Google is a for-profit company that does a lot of work for open standards, FOSS, and charities that they don't have to.
You insist they must do it for PR, yet their PR campaign has been so successful with you. They don't even go out of their way to toot their own horn, to the extent that most people have never heard of the things that Google offers up freely.
A little more ram might be nice. I notice if I have push alerts enabled on certain apps, or any task basically sitting in the background (an alarm or something) the phone gets a little sluggish, and this is on the "fast" 3GS.
Doesn't Google have a deal to just index the AP directly? Who cares if the Washington Post or an individual paper leaves. They aren't going to leave the AP anytime soon. So long as invidual papers feed the AP, and Google pays the AP for their feed, it won't matter.
The Washington Post won't get direct traffic from Google, which will hurt the Washingston Post, and Google still gets their news. How is this good for papers again?
I just left a newspaper because all they were doing was repeatedly laying people off and giving out paycut after paycut. They talked about how they were doing better than most newspapers in the country, and yet revenue kept dropping more and more each quarter.
I know that some newspapers faced bankruptcy for other reasons (The Chicago Tribune Company's equity was mortgaged for bad real estate deals) but we kept hearing about paper after paper going into bankruptcy.
I've seen several magazines stop printing as well. Wired (fantastic magazine that every./er should subscribe to) talks about how even they are struggling a bit these days.
Where exactly do you get the idea that print media is doing well?
Biased, targetted news sells well. Those are the facts. Whether you prefer Fox News or Huffington Post, people enjoy going to a news source that tells people what they want to hear.
Newspapers need to find their niche in targetting local news. Here in Omaha, the big news is stories on the Nebraska Cornhuskers.
Furthermore, I know that I am fairly agnostic about generic news, but I do search out certain authors I enjoy reading. I just left a newspaper, but I often encouraged them to do more to brand their writers. Put more photos of writers in the paper. Push those huge bylines. If someone really likes reading Tom Shatel (local sports columnist for the paper I just left) then they will specifically look for his content.
Furthermore, Google has already said they want to pay newspapers for the content they produce. Our stories already go into an AP feed that others aggregate for free. When big stories happen (our mall shooting last year for instance) we had people all over the world recycling the World-Herald's story. Some linked back, and others didn't. When the BBC recycled the story, they didn't pay the World-Herald for it. However, Google is saying they do want to pay for content.
So how is Google this evil entity that newspapers must rail against? If they were smart, they'd sign up with Google to start selling their content today, and start collecting checks. Newspapers who want to survive in the new market must transition somewhat to a content producer rather than focusing solely on selling a printed product.
Everyone cites the Patriot Act as this great evil, yet the Senators who voted for it (and continue to vote to extend it) say it isn't evil because every provision in it requires a judge to sign off on it, creating a system of checks and balances.
I've read stories in the news of bad judges abusing the system, but what I've yet to read is why specifically the law itself is so evil.
Since you're so convinced of its evil nature, perhaps you can illuminate us.
Google said they felt it was better to create in-roads and tell people they their government was hiding information from them, than rather be blocked and not reach the Chinese populace at all.
Every international company has to obey laws for that country, or not do business in that country. When the Wolfenstein games were released in Germany, they had to remove all Nazi signs because that is German law.
Google was told they had to filter search results, or they would be blocked in China. They filter results, but they are the only search engine in China which says right on the search page that the results have been filtered. At least they made a small effort to stand up for free speech while technically complying with China's laws.
I assumed I'd have issue with the touch keyboard on the iPhone. However, when I press a key, that key is highlighted and enlarges. I receive visual feedback of the key I pressed, even if I don't have physical feedback. Yes, it requires I look when I text, but I can't imagine many scenarios where I'd really ever text without looking just because there was some physical feedback.
I'll take the lack of moving parts over the physical feedback, especially given how often I've dropped my phone.
I can't imagine that Google likes AdBlock, but they've made no effort to stop people from developing AdBlock solutions for the Chrome browser. Likewise, Google is the primary source of revenue for Mozilla, and Mozilla says Google has never suggested they try to block AdBlock.
The test hardware they've been showing off apparently has a 32 GB SSD, and also accepts SD card storage. It isn't mammoth, but you can keep cached versions (via Google Gears) of all your data on your SSD just the same.
AT&T subsidized $400 of my iPhone for signing a two-year contract with data plan.
Let's say that Google offers up $50 of the netbook cost to get their OS in people's hands, and to get search and advertising revenue. Even if they lose a little money, they're buying market share. AT&T would only need to subsidize $100 of the netbook to get it to me for free. AT&T and Verizon are already doing deals where they will subsidize $100 of a netbook if you sign up for an associated data plan for it.
Is the bootloader based off of grub, or did you write your own? If you're using grub, why not use grub2, which I think Ubuntu, Fedora, openSUSE, etc. have all shifted to.
I quoted a parent who mentioned Starter Edition. And Microsoft has said they recommend Starter Edition for netbooks. So, when compared to a Chrome device, Starter Edition is the most logical comparison.
As for Microsoft removing the 3 app limit, I hadn't read that.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to mention copies of Windows 7 being given away to TechNet people left and right these days, college students, Windows 7 launch party copies, and the $10 copies that Best Buy employees got.
Chrome OS comes with a web-based media player. I think Last.fm claims to have streamed the equivalent of 2000 years of music. Web based media players might be the future.
GIMP is such a pain that Ubuntu is dropping it. My wife uses web-based image editting tools exclusively these days.
There has been work on an OpenGL ES framework for full 3D accelerated programing inside the web browser. So there can be a Second Life client that runs natively fully in your browser in the future. It isn't unfeasible.
There's even *already* been announcements that it will be the worst piece of *DRM* ever in front of security. If *anything* is changed in the system, the OS downloads it and replaces it again.
The core OS itself is being treated more like a piece of firmware than a traditional OS. You can update it. You can make changes to settings. You can install programs. But the core of the OS will repair itself if it thinks it is corrupted.
First off, Windows already does this. Secondly, this doesn't mean you can't intentionally change things. Lastly, since Chromium is completely open, you can remove this feature if you don't like it.
DRM stops you from making copies of material you own. This isn't DRM. It's a system recovery feature.
A little off-topic, but I've been recommending people stay away from AVG free and check out Microsoft Security Essentials.
Yes, I know I'm recommending a Micrsoft product. But it has a much lower footprint, and better detection.
I do love the new taskbar and window tiling tricks. I like per-application volume control. Windows 7 looks pretty.
However I still loathe UAC. I have to turn it off. I hate the explorer windows and file dialogs keep defaulting to Library. I need to find that in the registry and change it. I hate that like Vista, most of the dialog options are moved from where there were in XP, and not for the better.
There are still tons of UI regressions. And not all Windows 7 device drivers are all that great. Not to mention many games either don't run at all, or run with problems in Windows 7. Samba sharing to and from Linux also seems to be broken. I can see plenty of reasons to stay with XP.
Given that the ONLY reason I keep Windows around is gaming, it really irks me how many issues I'm running into gaming with 7.
Actually they do.
http://linux.dell.com/projects.shtml
Windows 3.1? Talk about ancient! Why are you so behind the times?
Windows 3.11 for Workgroups is where it is at!
Google is a for-profit company that does a lot of work for open standards, FOSS, and charities that they don't have to.
You insist they must do it for PR, yet their PR campaign has been so successful with you. They don't even go out of their way to toot their own horn, to the extent that most people have never heard of the things that Google offers up freely.
Google is not a company like any other.
Google does release many of these inventions to the public for free.
For instance, Google released their designs for their own special power supplies. Apparently they run DC data-centers and reap massive energy savings.
A little more ram might be nice. I notice if I have push alerts enabled on certain apps, or any task basically sitting in the background (an alarm or something) the phone gets a little sluggish, and this is on the "fast" 3GS.
I'd also like to see a higher-res OLED screen.
Individuals won't pay for news online for the most part.
But Google will pay the newspapers. That's why it is so brilliant for newspapers to alienate Google.
Doesn't Google have a deal to just index the AP directly? Who cares if the Washington Post or an individual paper leaves. They aren't going to leave the AP anytime soon. So long as invidual papers feed the AP, and Google pays the AP for their feed, it won't matter.
The Washington Post won't get direct traffic from Google, which will hurt the Washingston Post, and Google still gets their news. How is this good for papers again?
I just left a newspaper because all they were doing was repeatedly laying people off and giving out paycut after paycut. They talked about how they were doing better than most newspapers in the country, and yet revenue kept dropping more and more each quarter.
I know that some newspapers faced bankruptcy for other reasons (The Chicago Tribune Company's equity was mortgaged for bad real estate deals) but we kept hearing about paper after paper going into bankruptcy.
I've seen several magazines stop printing as well. Wired (fantastic magazine that every ./er should subscribe to) talks about how even they are struggling a bit these days.
Where exactly do you get the idea that print media is doing well?
Biased, targetted news sells well. Those are the facts. Whether you prefer Fox News or Huffington Post, people enjoy going to a news source that tells people what they want to hear.
Newspapers need to find their niche in targetting local news. Here in Omaha, the big news is stories on the Nebraska Cornhuskers.
Furthermore, I know that I am fairly agnostic about generic news, but I do search out certain authors I enjoy reading. I just left a newspaper, but I often encouraged them to do more to brand their writers. Put more photos of writers in the paper. Push those huge bylines. If someone really likes reading Tom Shatel (local sports columnist for the paper I just left) then they will specifically look for his content.
Furthermore, Google has already said they want to pay newspapers for the content they produce. Our stories already go into an AP feed that others aggregate for free. When big stories happen (our mall shooting last year for instance) we had people all over the world recycling the World-Herald's story. Some linked back, and others didn't. When the BBC recycled the story, they didn't pay the World-Herald for it. However, Google is saying they do want to pay for content.
So how is Google this evil entity that newspapers must rail against? If they were smart, they'd sign up with Google to start selling their content today, and start collecting checks. Newspapers who want to survive in the new market must transition somewhat to a content producer rather than focusing solely on selling a printed product.
Everyone cites the Patriot Act as this great evil, yet the Senators who voted for it (and continue to vote to extend it) say it isn't evil because every provision in it requires a judge to sign off on it, creating a system of checks and balances.
I've read stories in the news of bad judges abusing the system, but what I've yet to read is why specifically the law itself is so evil.
Since you're so convinced of its evil nature, perhaps you can illuminate us.
Google said they felt it was better to create in-roads and tell people they their government was hiding information from them, than rather be blocked and not reach the Chinese populace at all.
It is pretty hard to argue with that logic.
Every international company has to obey laws for that country, or not do business in that country. When the Wolfenstein games were released in Germany, they had to remove all Nazi signs because that is German law.
Google was told they had to filter search results, or they would be blocked in China. They filter results, but they are the only search engine in China which says right on the search page that the results have been filtered. At least they made a small effort to stand up for free speech while technically complying with China's laws.
Mine doesn't. There may be a setting for that I haven't enabled.
I assumed I'd have issue with the touch keyboard on the iPhone. However, when I press a key, that key is highlighted and enlarges. I receive visual feedback of the key I pressed, even if I don't have physical feedback. Yes, it requires I look when I text, but I can't imagine many scenarios where I'd really ever text without looking just because there was some physical feedback.
I'll take the lack of moving parts over the physical feedback, especially given how often I've dropped my phone.
I can't imagine that Google likes AdBlock, but they've made no effort to stop people from developing AdBlock solutions for the Chrome browser. Likewise, Google is the primary source of revenue for Mozilla, and Mozilla says Google has never suggested they try to block AdBlock.
The test hardware they've been showing off apparently has a 32 GB SSD, and also accepts SD card storage. It isn't mammoth, but you can keep cached versions (via Google Gears) of all your data on your SSD just the same.
Your $150 price point is interesting.
AT&T subsidized $400 of my iPhone for signing a two-year contract with data plan.
Let's say that Google offers up $50 of the netbook cost to get their OS in people's hands, and to get search and advertising revenue. Even if they lose a little money, they're buying market share. AT&T would only need to subsidize $100 of the netbook to get it to me for free. AT&T and Verizon are already doing deals where they will subsidize $100 of a netbook if you sign up for an associated data plan for it.
Is the bootloader based off of grub, or did you write your own? If you're using grub, why not use grub2, which I think Ubuntu, Fedora, openSUSE, etc. have all shifted to.
Except almost every single dialog and configuration option moved to new places, and in most cases it takes more clicks to perform the same task.
I quoted a parent who mentioned Starter Edition. And Microsoft has said they recommend Starter Edition for netbooks. So, when compared to a Chrome device, Starter Edition is the most logical comparison.
As for Microsoft removing the 3 app limit, I hadn't read that.