>That's the problem though. Sure, you can reconfigure it to be like Windows 7...but WTF? If that's better then why are they wasting everybody's time developing something that serves only to make everybody turn it back off?
Everybody != Slashdot posters
Much of their target audience will not do that. It's the power users and geeks on here who make the most noise, but the platforms still sell millions when they're targeted towards average users. Remember what Slashdot said about the iPod, iPhone, and iPad? If companies targeted only Slashdot users, they would be stuck at a terminal. Well maybe with Xterm. Remember what happened to OpenMoko?
>What Microsoft has done with Windows 8 is it has taken a UI that works and put a big curtain in front of it (Metro) so that every time you want to use the OS the way you're accustomed to doing, you have to push the curtain aside. And as soon as you push the wrong button (the Windows key) or you want to launch a new application, the curtain drops down again.
Unpin all the Metro tiles and keep only desktop apps pinned, and the tiles become nothing more than a revamped Start screen and you can use shortcuts for other tasks. >Keyboard shortcuts do not make an "OS."
What? Did you fail reading comprehension? Whoever said that? I only meant that before you discount it, learn it, try it and then do that. Do not expect it to work like Windows 7 on day 1 and do not expect everything to run like the old OSes starting from day one.
> It's not logical to get rid of the more efficient way of doing things for the sake of something that looks cool.
My point was that they did NOT get rid of the more efficient way, it's a just a different way now and all your desktop apps work exactly the same and some even better.
As I said, it's funny how on all the Post PC articles, the PC and MS are dying anyway, but now the PC is alive and well and MS should just release service packs for Windows 7 till the demand dries up. So which is it, is the PC industry dying or is it going to grow and thrive?
Let's see; I work on two 22 inch monitors. I can move from the far left edge to the far right edge with a three inch movement of my mouse. Now you want me to have to lean toward the monitors and move my arm over three feet to accomplish the same thing. How ergonomic! How NEW! How efficient!
Then don't use touch? Remove all the Metro apps from the Start screen and pin only your desktop apps and you'll end up with something like Windows 7 with a glorified start menu. You're acting as if Ballmer stole your mouse or something.
All these form factors tied in the with the vast Win32 ecosystem(except ARM tablets) and a single Touch-first Metro ecosystem.
It's interesting how the comments on Apple/iPad/Post-PC articles, financials of Apple/Dell/HP etc. state that "MS is dying in the Post-PC" era, but now when they come out with a solution to make a OS run on different form factors and to have tablets that are not just consumption devices, the comments on here are skewed towards "Why change something that works?". If PCs are really dying, why not attempt to fix that instead of standing by with their head in the sand(like RIMM)?
There will always be people unhappy with anything you build or change. They should just go with their vision of what they think is right and that's what they did. They envision that with Windows 8, most new monitors will be touch enabled because of the demand so that for some functions(like clicking on links), people can use touch.
You may disagree with the vision, but you can't disagree that there is a method behind the madness.
Nowhere does the article say they controlled for sleep problems.
The people who go to the doctor for and use prescription strength sleeping pills have severe sleeping issues. Comparing them to a control group that does not suffer from them does not make a good control. How does compensating for heart disease and asthma help?
I'm tired of seeing these stupid comments every time an article on statistics is brought up. Clearly, a bunch of scientists doing studies along these lines know less about statistics and research design than some random Slashdot poster. Gee. Get over yourself.
But in just this situation, academics in neuroscience papers routinely claim to have found a difference in response, in every field imaginable, with all kinds of stimuli and interventions: comparing younger versus older participants; in patients against normal volunteers; between different brain areas; and so on.
How often? Nieuwenhuis looked at 513 papers published in five prestigious neuroscience journals over two years. In half the 157 studies where this error could have been made, it was. They broadened their search to 120 cellular and molecular articles in Nature Neuroscience, during 2009 and 2010: they found 25 studies committing this fallacy, and not one single paper analysed differences in effect sizes correctly.
These errors are appearing throughout the most prestigious journals for the field of neuroscience. How can we explain that? Analysing data correctly, to identify a "difference in differences", is a little tricksy, so thinking generously, we might suggest that researchers worry it's too longwinded for a paper, or too difficult for readers. Alternatively, less generously, we might decide it's too tricky for the researchers themselves.
Why is it wrong for a Slashdot poster to have a conversation over the statistics involved when the headline is so sensationalist? What if someone reading stops taking sleeping pills that are helping them sleep and then get needlessly killed by insomnia because of bad statistics? Can't there atleast be a discussion on the statistics used?
I am tired of seeing stupid comments like yours that actually don't refute anything and instead attack the poster and call scientists infallible and above question.
They said "matched set of controls," not "general populace." How do you know they did it wrong?
By RTFA, which I strongly advise you to do before jumping in to comment. They matched them on other factors like gender, sex, occupation etc, but not sleep trouble. Since lack of good sleep is a proven strong factor in heart disease and cancer, I feel that they did it wrong.
The people taking the medications might be dying sooner because they have insomnia which is not fixed by sleeping pills easily. The study should not compare with the general populace since they are, by definition, better sleepers than the group that isn't able to get good sleep.
Sounds like regular salesman pitch to me, nothing specific about Microsoft there. Everyone knows lawyers, used car salesmen and marketers are full of BS. That's a job qualification.
Who cares, the post-PC world is almost here and Apple won't even allow you to install a real browser on their post-PC devices. At least MS always allowed that.
>Now is this motive to mod you down straight away and accusing you of following a particular agenda? Because that's exactly what was done to me.
Relax, moderation is not the be all and end all of Slashdot. Anyway, I accused the website you linked of following a particular agenda, not you. Read through the articles and if you don't find an agenda, then heaven save you.
The article you linked talks about vaporware, how is it a good sum of past MS anti-competitive behavior?
And if you think linking to Roughly Drafted is similar to linking to Wikipedia... well then I have nothing to say.
The problem is that if this is allowed, all the companies will start suing each other over technology that they previously added to the standard on the promise of FRAND.
Don't forget that MS has patents in the patent pool and a zillion other patents not in it. They can easily turn around and sue everyone in sight for exorbitant amounts for implementing standards.
And it will happen not just with H.264 but everything else too.
Imagine Nokia suing Motorola and Apple for $50 per phone for implementing LTE (a standard). You'd expect Apple and Motorola to rollout their own 4G network and towers?
Or MS suing Google over patents on Google docs importing MS Office documents (OOXML).
Google intentionally breaks a W3C standard for its profit and it's totally MS' fault and Google is the knight in shining armor that deserves no blame whatsoever. Wow, just wow.
That link is much ado about nothing. If the user has agreed to the conditions of the Bing bar, it uploads the keyword and the link that was clicked on. No other information like the results returned or the ranking of the results is sent to MS. This is used as one of the many signals by Bing. I fail to see how this is the same as "serving results from Google".
Google is using +1 buttons to track visitors browsing on 3rd party sites to enhance their ad profiles for users. This is explicitly why P3P was even made as a standard. Circumventing the standard by sending invalid data while saying nothing exactly fits the definition is a cop-out.
P3P sounds like a stupid idea anyway. How does it protect user privacy if something as trivial as the attack described above totally defeats it?
If the IE or Safari teams really cared about user privacy, they would be more strict about allowing sites to set or read cookies. This is just an excuse for Microsoft and Apple to publicly bash one of their competitors while continuing to not give two hoots about their users.
Reading your Gmail emails should very trivial for Google employees. That doesn't make it okay does it? One would expect Google to have higher standards.
You'd expect shady sites to "attack" a gentleman's agreement, not Google. If you think they're the same, would you be okay with hosting your mail on warez-email.com ? After all, they're both on the big bad internet.
While not the topic of this post, we do want to assure you that, when a consumer buys a WOA PC, it will be clearly labeled and branded so as to avoid potential confusion with Windows 8 on x86/64. The PC will come with the OS preinstalled, and all drivers and supporting software. WOA will not be available as a software-only distribution, so you never have to worry about which DVD to install and if it will work on a particular PC.
Slashdot Mirror
>That's the problem though. Sure, you can reconfigure it to be like Windows 7...but WTF? If that's better then why are they wasting everybody's time developing something that serves only to make everybody turn it back off?
Everybody != Slashdot posters
Much of their target audience will not do that. It's the power users and geeks on here who make the most noise, but the platforms still sell millions when they're targeted towards average users. Remember what Slashdot said about the iPod, iPhone, and iPad? If companies targeted only Slashdot users, they would be stuck at a terminal. Well maybe with Xterm. Remember what happened to OpenMoko?
>What Microsoft has done with Windows 8 is it has taken a UI that works and put a big curtain in front of it (Metro) so that every time you want to use the OS the way you're accustomed to doing, you have to push the curtain aside. And as soon as you push the wrong button (the Windows key) or you want to launch a new application, the curtain drops down again.
Unpin all the Metro tiles and keep only desktop apps pinned, and the tiles become nothing more than a revamped Start screen and you can use shortcuts for other tasks.
>Keyboard shortcuts do not make an "OS."
What? Did you fail reading comprehension? Whoever said that? I only meant that before you discount it, learn it, try it and then do that. Do not expect it to work like Windows 7 on day 1 and do not expect everything to run like the old OSes starting from day one.
> It's not logical to get rid of the more efficient way of doing things for the sake of something that looks cool.
My point was that they did NOT get rid of the more efficient way, it's a just a different way now and all your desktop apps work exactly the same and some even better.
As I said, it's funny how on all the Post PC articles, the PC and MS are dying anyway, but now the PC is alive and well and MS should just release service packs for Windows 7 till the demand dries up. So which is it, is the PC industry dying or is it going to grow and thrive?
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57393848-37/apple-reaches-for-singularity-in-the-post-pc-world/
Let's see; I work on two 22 inch monitors. I can move from the far left edge to the far right edge with a three inch movement of my mouse. Now you want me to have to lean toward the monitors and move my arm over three feet to accomplish the same thing. How ergonomic! How NEW! How efficient!
Then don't use touch? Remove all the Metro apps from the Start screen and pin only your desktop apps and you'll end up with something like Windows 7 with a glorified start menu. You're acting as if Ballmer stole your mouse or something.
http://www.winsupersite.com/article/windows8/windows-8-consumer-preview-call-common-sense-142476
Also, try to spend a few minutes learning shortcuts etc. before dissing the experience. It's not a SP for Windows 7, it's a new OS.
http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2012/02/getting-starte...
http://www.kotaku.com.au/2012/03/windows-8-tricks-tips-and-s...
And it will enable many devices like these that don't exist now:
Idea Pad Yoga: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yz2R9y9ZvkA&hd=1
Samsung x86 Tablet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8-K1ELv6DE&hd=1
Try doing that with an iPad.(There are iPad-like ARM Windows 8 tablets too that won't run x86 apps but which will have Office).
83inch displays: http://www.theverge.com/2012/2/29/2833173/windows-8-82-inch-...
All these form factors tied in the with the vast Win32 ecosystem(except ARM tablets) and a single Touch-first Metro ecosystem.
It's interesting how the comments on Apple/iPad/Post-PC articles, financials of Apple/Dell/HP etc. state that "MS is dying in the Post-PC" era, but now when they come out with a solution to make a OS run on different form factors and to have tablets that are not just consumption devices, the comments on here are skewed towards "Why change something that works?". If PCs are really dying, why not attempt to fix that instead of standing by with their head in the sand(like RIMM)?
There will always be people unhappy with anything you build or change. They should just go with their vision of what they think is right and that's what they did. They envision that with Windows 8, most new monitors will be touch enabled because of the demand so that for some functions(like clicking on links), people can use touch.
You may disagree with the vision, but you can't disagree that there is a method behind the madness.
Nowhere does the article say they controlled for sleep problems.
The people who go to the doctor for and use prescription strength sleeping pills have severe sleeping issues. Comparing them to a control group that does not suffer from them does not make a good control. How does compensating for heart disease and asthma help?
I'm tired of seeing these stupid comments every time an article on statistics is brought up. Clearly, a bunch of scientists doing studies along these lines know less about statistics and research design than some random Slashdot poster. Gee. Get over yourself.
Are you sure?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/09/bad-science-research-error
But in just this situation, academics in neuroscience papers routinely claim to have found a difference in response, in every field imaginable, with all kinds of stimuli and interventions: comparing younger versus older participants; in patients against normal volunteers; between different brain areas; and so on.
How often? Nieuwenhuis looked at 513 papers published in five prestigious neuroscience journals over two years. In half the 157 studies where this error could have been made, it was. They broadened their search to 120 cellular and molecular articles in Nature Neuroscience, during 2009 and 2010: they found 25 studies committing this fallacy, and not one single paper analysed differences in effect sizes correctly.
These errors are appearing throughout the most prestigious journals for the field of neuroscience. How can we explain that? Analysing data correctly, to identify a "difference in differences", is a little tricksy, so thinking generously, we might suggest that researchers worry it's too longwinded for a paper, or too difficult for readers. Alternatively, less generously, we might decide it's too tricky for the researchers themselves.
Why is it wrong for a Slashdot poster to have a conversation over the statistics involved when the headline is so sensationalist? What if someone reading stops taking sleeping pills that are helping them sleep and then get needlessly killed by insomnia because of bad statistics? Can't there atleast be a discussion on the statistics used?
I am tired of seeing stupid comments like yours that actually don't refute anything and instead attack the poster and call scientists infallible and above question.
They said "matched set of controls," not "general populace." How do you know they did it wrong?
By RTFA, which I strongly advise you to do before jumping in to comment. They matched them on other factors like gender, sex, occupation etc, but not sleep trouble. Since lack of good sleep is a proven strong factor in heart disease and cancer, I feel that they did it wrong.
The people taking the medications might be dying sooner because they have insomnia which is not fixed by sleeping pills easily. The study should not compare with the general populace since they are, by definition, better sleepers than the group that isn't able to get good sleep.
Sounds like regular salesman pitch to me, nothing specific about Microsoft there. Everyone knows lawyers, used car salesmen and marketers are full of BS. That's a job qualification.
Who cares, the post-PC world is almost here and Apple won't even allow you to install a real browser on their post-PC devices. At least MS always allowed that.
And no one seems to care.
>Now is this motive to mod you down straight away and accusing you of following a particular agenda? Because that's exactly what was done to me.
Relax, moderation is not the be all and end all of Slashdot. Anyway, I accused the website you linked of following a particular agenda, not you. Read through the articles and if you don't find an agenda, then heaven save you.
The article you linked talks about vaporware, how is it a good sum of past MS anti-competitive behavior?
And if you think linking to Roughly Drafted is similar to linking to Wikipedia... well then I have nothing to say.
>information is still information even if you don't agree with it.
Glenn Beck's information is also still information. But it is repulsive to someone with half a brain.
Anyway I fail to see how that link is even relevant here.
Tech companies have a lot of failures. Looking at everything as a conspiracy is a sign of being biased.
Apple had it's own Copland which promised a lot and turned out to be vaporware.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copland_(operating_system)
Something along the lines of "If you use a non-free codec in HTML we will kill video on the web".
FTFY
>Standards that MS forced onto the industry, like Fat32, ExFat, MTP. The list goes on and on.
Microsoft did not promise patent immunity over Fat32, which became a defacto standard.
Careful what you wish for, it may be granted.
This will open a Pandora's box on technology used to implement standards.
Nokia has the most patents on LTE which are deemed standards essential.
http://www.itproportal.com/2012/02/22/nokia-samsung-qualcomm-hold-most-lte-patents-claims-study/
What if they sue Apple, Motorola for $50 per device based on Motorola getting away with this?
Will they roll out their own towers with their own 4G technology around the world?
The problem is that if this is allowed, all the companies will start suing each other over technology that they previously added to the standard on the promise of FRAND.
Eg. Look at the large number companies in the H.264 patent list. http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/avc-att1.pdf
Don't forget that MS has patents in the patent pool and a zillion other patents not in it. They can easily turn around and sue everyone in sight for exorbitant amounts for implementing standards.
And it will happen not just with H.264 but everything else too.
Imagine Nokia suing Motorola and Apple for $50 per phone for implementing LTE (a standard). You'd expect Apple and Motorola to rollout their own 4G network and towers?
Or MS suing Google over patents on Google docs importing MS Office documents (OOXML).
Ew, I feel dirty even looking at that website name.
Reading that for information on Microsoft is like reading Glenn Beck for information on Obama.
It is abject partisan crap set to an agenda.
Not to mention the browser ballot imposed on Microsoft.
True, but H.264 is a standard and comes with a patent pool. Exorbitant costs to implement a worldwide industry standard is not a good thing.
Google intentionally breaks a W3C standard for its profit and it's totally MS' fault and Google is the knight in shining armor that deserves no blame whatsoever. Wow, just wow.
That link is much ado about nothing. If the user has agreed to the conditions of the Bing bar, it uploads the keyword and the link that was clicked on. No other information like the results returned or the ranking of the results is sent to MS. This is used as one of the many signals by Bing. I fail to see how this is the same as "serving results from Google".
Gmail doesn't need third party cookies. This is about sites with +1 buttons. They allow Google to track all users across all sites that have them.
Google is using +1 buttons to track visitors browsing on 3rd party sites to enhance their ad profiles for users. This is explicitly why P3P was even made as a standard. Circumventing the standard by sending invalid data while saying nothing exactly fits the definition is a cop-out.
P3P sounds like a stupid idea anyway. How does it protect user privacy if something as trivial as the attack described above totally defeats it?
If the IE or Safari teams really cared about user privacy, they would be more strict about allowing sites to set or read cookies. This is just an excuse for Microsoft and Apple to publicly bash one of their competitors while continuing to not give two hoots about their users.
Reading your Gmail emails should very trivial for Google employees. That doesn't make it okay does it? One would expect Google to have higher standards.
You'd expect shady sites to "attack" a gentleman's agreement, not Google. If you think they're the same, would you be okay with hosting your mail on warez-email.com ? After all, they're both on the big bad internet.
Opera too gets a lot of money from Google.
From FA:
While not the topic of this post, we do want to assure you that, when a consumer buys a WOA PC, it will be clearly labeled and branded so as to avoid potential confusion with Windows 8 on x86/64. The PC will come with the OS preinstalled, and all drivers and supporting software. WOA will not be available as a software-only distribution, so you never have to worry about which DVD to install and if it will work on a particular PC.