No offense to the design winner, but too often CSS styles websites just end up a bunch of gradient filled rounded corner boxes. Its like the CSS community thinks with one brain cell. The collapsing side menu is a nice touch though. I would hope that the state of the menu will persist between sessions. Having something collapse or expand is annoying if it resets on every visit to the page (i.e. no point in offering it then). Also, I hope you bring back the running tape of the last few article icons at the top of the page. At a glance I can decide if I should bother to read slashdot or wait for an interesting icon to appear first.
Overall though, it is only a cosmetic change to Slashdot, and I don't think there is any reason why Slashdot cannot start adding theme support to their website. Why fixate on one theme? Why not take the top 5 designs and offer them in the preferences. That IS of course the beauty of designing a website with CSS. With one change of the CSS link, you can have your website easily look completely different.
"Limited Release" means they will make dozens of millions of copies available for 5 years before they stop making them just to ensure people like you will pay full price for it in the first week. Its a marketing gimmick designed to make you feel you need to rush out and buy it for whatever price they slap on it. The Star Wars DVD box set was limited edition, did you have troubles finding it? Are you still able to buy it today? What exactly is limiting about this edition?
I bought a limited edition box set for E.T. on it's 20th anniversary for $80. A couple of years later I could have bought the original sealed box for $15 on a discount rack at some dive video store. Go to amazon and there is 50 new and used to buy right now. - - A sucker is born every second, and marketing knows it.
Sorry, I am not 5 anymore. My love of Fisher Price ended with the Weebles.
I don't understand how PC case makers constantly get it wrong when designing their cases. I just want a sleek metal box that has much attention to details like thumb screws and no sharp edges along with a pleasing design.
Instead, half of the computer stores in town sell garish plastic monstrosities with see-thru side panels so you can attach all kinds of bling and neon lights to your computer.
Honestly, custom computers have become almost as bad as those Honda Civic drivers with the fart cannons and the neon license plate frames. Completely useless and I never understand how these people think they are cool when they look like a joke. The same people that think its cool to make their civic sound like a Ferrari with loud booming exhaust tips (honestly, your diving a friggin civic hatchback) probably think its cool to put neon spinner fans and stickers all over their cases.
The problem is, the moment I find a case that I like, its $300.
PC cases are truly like cars, you can buy cheap ass models and dress them up to look like BMWs and Mercs, but in the end you can't hide the fact its a Civic hatchback. I prefer the Bimmers and Mercs myself, and will pay extra so I don't have to be a poser.
If you have a Batman PC case and are older then 5 years old, move out of your Mother's basement and get a life.
We know that will never happen. I mean, to get it right the first time requires months or even years of beta testing using a very LARGE user base in order to get all the quirks and holes and issues out of the system.
It is arrogant to assume that ANY group of programmers can get it right the first time while developing software, and its not to discredit the quality of programming they are offering. Management is largely at fault for why software products fail to work right out of the box. Management decides when a product is shipped, what features go into the product, and ultimately, at what point does a product have few enough bugs to be shipped.
I think it is laughable that an Executive at some company thinks patching is wrong. Most likely, she has been responsible for some problems and boners at Oracle that have required patches or updates.
Software has become too complicated to ensure you have the perfect build being shipped for sale. You can't take a multi-million line application and expect it to work perfectly in the dynamic environment that is an end-user's computer. You can't anticipate that the end user might install some other software that might enable a security hole in your own, you can't anticipate that hackers might find a way into your meticulously crafted security protocols. You simply cannot anticipate what will happen to your software the moment it leaves you build box. A GOOD company will release stable and secure software, but ensure that ANY unanticipated issues are patched quickly. This is SIMPLY the NATURE of the game.
Adding regulation to software development will destroy the industry, period. If it requires a 3rd party to review the software and test it before it gets a stamp of approval this will unnecessarily add months or even years more to the development cycle. Any government regulatory board will be swamped with numerous pending software releases, and they won't be able to handle the sheer amount of quantity of software being released. Also, a regulatory board, even made of highly trained software engineers, will not be able to fully understand every piece of software they are given to test. Unlike a Civil Engineer whose building techniques were literally set in stone thousands of years ago, software engineering is forever changing and adapting, a single person cannot keep up with all the new concepts implemented in software design. In the end, a software regulatory board will be even less effective then the current mentality of software patching, because in the end, the regulatory board will put their seal of approval on a faulty product giving end users a false sense of security. Patching that product will take months because the patches will have to go through the same regulatory process.
It is arrogant for CSO Mary Ann Davidson to make wide sweeping comments about the state of security and quality in the software industry. Oracle isn't standing a the head of the field with perfect software. Look for Oracle Security Patches in Google and you will find pages and pages of links patching Oracle's products. If you are frustrated with patching mentality, clean up your own house. ANY company offering better quality and more secure software right out of the box will be recognized quickly and will quickly rise to the top in success. But you can't yell from the gutters that things need to improve without looking around you and realising where you are.
Despite all the naysayers, most of you will run out and pirate a copy of Vista just to play Halo 2. I mean, you bought the Xbox and Xbox360 simply to play Halo, at least you will be able to pirate a copy of Vista to play it as well.
Ottawa was consider Silicon Valley North (Ottawa is even in a "valley" technically). For most of the 90's, it was the darling city for Nortel, Alcatel/Newbridge and JDS Uniphase along with Corel's headquarters and Adobe offices and a slew of high tech hardware and software firms. Ottawa's population has nearly doubled in the last 2 decades, and this is due to the influx of technology and software firms into the area.
However, with the recent downturn in the tech market, Nortel laying off over 60% of their workforce, same with Alcatel and JDS Uniphase, its become more like Silicon Valley Ghost Town. I think this was mirrored in the original Silicon Valley, but with strong companies like Apple there, not as much.
There is some positive strong growth occurring once again, but when you see some the HUGE facilities that Nortel and JDS Uniphase once had packed full that are now largely empty now and being leased off and subdivided, it is a shame that we couldn't keep that status. Ottawa is just full of photonics start ups and other fledgling technology firms that largely exists because of government research grants (Ottawa is the capital of Canada for those that don't know).
Currently Silicon Valley North has shifted over to Alberta which is the darling province of Canada. Buoyed by their oil industry, tech and software has grown considerably and both Calgary and Edmonton has strong growth in the technology market.
I think the answer is that while you can find hot spots where technology firms concentrate and have a "gold rush" of sorts, you can't duplicate the true Silicon Valley. You will see them shift around in different countries but not become a permanent fixture on the landscape. Ottawa might once again show potential for becoming another Silicon hot spot, but it will be a few years before we have the same kind of growth we had in the 90's.
Of course, the real question is whether or not Silicon Valley's will be duplicated in Asia where they have the concentration of people with enough skills to make it possible.
None, Vista uses GPU aceleration and video memory for their UI.
Also, even though Apple came out with a better looking 3D looking OS, you can't patent/trademark the idea of making something look like glass in an interface. If you started that, then Linux, Apple, and Microsoft would simply get into a circular cycle of suing the hell out of each other because each has HEAVILY borrowed UI concepts from each other quite liberally. And honestly, Vista does a better job because they are actually making a glass like transparency which slightly diffuses the underling graphics whereas Apple just uses an alpha blend. Also, Aqua has been reduced to glass buttons and scroll bars in Apple, Microsoft doesn't use glass buttons, just a glass frame which surrounds a window, Apple doesn't even do this. So technically, there is no copyright/trademark/patent conflicts. Only people completely ignorant of Vista assumes it looks like OSX.
But honestly, when do you fully need to utilize 100% CPU cycles with a 4ghz CPU? For the most part, even compiling software all day, I rarely hit 100% CPU utilization for more then a few moments. If my windows borders take a few percentage of my CPU cycles, you won't notice it. By the time you enter a game, your running it full screen so the Vista UI isn't around to consume any clock cycles.
Still 2.5 pounds? and only 25 - 50% faster booting Windows? Anyways, its a step in the right direction and I applaud any attempt to bring solid state into mainstream. But at $3700 for a celeron based laptop with 32gb storage, there is a long way to go before I will want one.
Funny though is that they show Windows Vista installed.
Thinking that reading a book and using the HCI (Human Computer Interface) buzzword will improve the user experience of your software.
Few software development managers give developers enough time to hone their user interface. In my firm, software developers are often involved in the back end code, writing complex algorithms or process functions. This is the meat and potatoes of the software, without it, there is no reason for the software to exists. When they need some UI associated with the back end code, it truly is a last minute implementation and an afterthought, but only because they are pressed to get the product released on some arbitrary deadline management and sales arrived at. What happens tends to be sloppy and poorly written UI for the sake of brevity.
Good UI just takes time to develop, and until your firm realizes that it should account for at least 40% of the development time, then reading a book isn't going to help you. Also, I have read those books, and its just a bunch of blowhards telling you what they think is good UI, its not necessarily what is going to be good UI for your applications.
You also should find and take the time to hire or cultivate at least one developer that is skilled in UI design. Having at least one good UI developer on your team frees up the other developers to focus on the internals and lets a dedicated developer focus on the UI. This also prevents the idea of "too many cooks in the kitchen" problem that many firms have, the idea that numerous developers are writing UI code and each have their own personal idea of what the UI should look like. You can create a UI guideline that is supposed to force developers to write UI a certain way, but in the end, they are going to do what they think is right, and your application will have a mismatched look and feel to it. Having one or two dedicated UI developers will ensure a consistency across the entire application.
It is a talent, its one of the few areas where creativity and talent comes into play when developing software. The talent is in understanding and putting yourself in the place of an end user. Its understanding your target audience and catering to their needs. This varies with every software project you work on and no book is going to cover all the bases.
In the end, if your a single developer responsible for both front and back end code, then take the time to USE your software. Most software developers only use their software in so much as to test their back end code. But using your software just as your end users would is the best way to ensure you UI works and flows well. Try to imagine all the stupid things your end users will do with the software, or all the different ways an end user will interact with the software. For instance, I don't use keyboard shortcuts, so I tend to overlook them when I develop a UI. Learning to realize that end users might exclusively use keyboard shortcuts instead of the mouse means that when I test my UI, I will notice the weakness before I release the software.
But it takes time to both learn what makes good UI and to develop good UI. You could read a book and it could offer a few insights, but the best way to learn to code and to learn how to write good UI is to do it, use it, and allow enough time to properly develop it. In the end, if you write software you hate or wouldn't want to use, then your not writting good UI.
If this is true, its another nail in Sony's coffin. I mean, from their entirely too expensive system, to their overhyped Blu-ray support, console delays, and problems with their "new" game controllers (which look shockingly like every other game controller they offered), if Sony is hoping to prevent resales of their games, then I would firmly have to refuse to buy the PS3.
Sony's problem is, and will continue to be, the fact they are both a hardware manufacture that also publishes game titles, movies and music. Sony keeps insiting that they need to protect their IP in games, movies and music with their hardware, so they have never done things right.
From their first Digital Music players that used proprietary music formats and software, rootkit fiasco, to their overly portected PSP and now the PS3, Sony is doing everything in their power to enusre that customers will never really enjoy the Sony experience, just tolerate all their DRM and protections schemes enough for a few minutes of diversion. The problem is, will people keep tolerating this?
The PS3 will be Sony's make it or break it entry into the video game consoles. The original PS and PS2 were hugely successful simply because they didn't try to force DRM and other copyright protection schemes on people (or, at least, they were easy to circumvent). The wild lack of success of the PSP and the backlash people are having over the PS3 might cause Sony to lose their grip on the video game market.
While I would never have guessed that a company like Sony could fail in their efforts after 2 big game console successes, I will have to admit that the PS3 might be their biggest mistake yet if they keep going forward with ideas and plans like this.
This could be just speculation or unfounded rumours designed to bring more discreditation to Sony, but if there is a smidgen of truth, Nintendo's Wii looks like it might be the ONLY next generation console I will put my money into.
I really don't think that Sony's Gamepad with motion detection is the same as Nintendo's Remote Controller.
First, the entire premise behind Nintendo's Wii controller is that you NEED to move it in 3D in order to control on screen content. Sony's concept is to give you a traditional gamepad that has the ability to offer 3D game control.
Second, Nintendo is shunning conventional gameplay with their next generation console. Expect lots of novelty and gimmicky game titles that rely on waving their remote controller in the air. I mean, they are adding fishing to Zelda simply for the sake of having the gimmick of kids bobbing and dipping their remote controller to mimic fishing. Sony is not shunning conventional game control, only offering a new unique way to control games for those wishing to incorporate the concepts. Nintendo is FORCING innovation, Sony is evolving it.
Sure, I do think that Sony saw Nintendo's efforts and obviously came out with a game control that has 3D positional feedback. Had Microsoft not jumped the gun and just had to get their Xbox360 out the door before Christmas 2005, then I am sure Microsoft would have added 3D positional gameplay to the Xbox360.
But in the long run, I really don't think Sony is copying Nintendo. The bottom line is that Sony realizes this is a gimmick, not something to base an entire generation of games on. Their ability to quickly add 3D positional control to their existing joystick smacks of the fact this is just a gimmick, hardly something requiring years of engineering. Nintendo might find their gimmicky new feature falls flat and customers WILL DEMAND from Nintendo a conventional gamepad where as Sony customers will find it a pleasant diversion to traditional gameplay.
In the end, just get the friggin consoles out the door! We can speculate about which will be a better system all we want, but until I can play some games on both platforms, arguing about it is just moot.
How exactly do you mean Microsoft is falling behind?
I mean, this statement is repeated often, along with the idea that Linux will take over, but I really don't think people know what they are talking about.
First, if Microsoft losing sales because of the development of Vista? No. Profits rose 16% in the last quarter. So, from a financial standpoint, Microsoft isn't hurting.
Second, despite OSX and Linux being techincally superior operating systems, why is Microsoft still maintaining 95% world dominance? It can't just be because 95% of the worlds computer users are dumbasses right? If these operating systems offeres users the same experience and yet maintains better security and stability of Windows, I am sure they would take off and really give MS a run for their money. But in the 6 years that OSX existed and the 10+ years Linux has been kicking around, neither has made a dent in Windows installations.
I am not pro-Microsoft, just a realist. Microsoft has a lot of ground to catch up to in terms of OS technology, but Vista could take 12 - 24 months longer to be released, and it won't hurt MS one bit. It won't ruin them as a company, won't make them go bankrupt, and definitely isn't going to change the playing field with regards to the percentage of desktops running Linux or OSX of Windows. In the 3 years that Vista has been in development, what NEW feature has Linux offered that makes it a must have OS? A kernel update? A change in the flavour of the month ( Fedora to Ubuntuu to SUSE to whatever ). I can pretty much guarantee that if the article author tried to install Linux on his laptop he would find problems with driver support, and this is in a RELEASE OS, not a beta OS.
Sorry, I WANT features in an OS. Stability and security are important, but I want and OS that connects easily to my devices, has ample software support, game support and works with the latest technology right away. For whatever reason, Linux has never fit for me in those aspects, and neither has OSX. People come back to Windows because in the end, the other OS'es fail them in some way. Rock solid stability and security does not sell an OS, features do, and until Linux meets Windows on features and ease of use, Microsoft won't be hurt by Vista taking so long to develop.
If Microsoft's existence is less compelling year after year, then why are their profits rising year after year? Your statement would be valid if Microsoft was taking billion dollar hits on profit every quarter for a few years. I agree that MS still has a lot to learn in making a decent OS, but crappy operating systems hasn't hurt them yet.
Sorry, but I think MIT is hoping Fisher Price will call and label this "My First Laptop".
So the big question is, does it cost $100 to make? Of did they just make it look like a $100 laptop?
Hopefully Leap Frog is looking at this and might come out with their own version before Christmas for $50.
In all honestly, I still don't see the reason for this laptop, especially since they are gearing it towards 3rd world countries. I have always said, and I stand by it, that these people need access to clean drinking watter, food, and medicine before they need the luxury of internet access. Even as an educational tool, this laptop is pointless as I am sure any kid or parent would hawk this thing in the local flea market in order to get enough money to pay the rent and/or just pay for food.
I can see this being ideal in G8 countries. Kids living below the poverty line still should be able to access the top rate schools in those countries, but without being able to afford a computer and thus the tools and technologies that could give them an edge, they fail to be recognized or qualify for scholarships and grants that could allow them to turn their life around.
But I just don't see some child in Ethiopia ever having the same access to education that even the poorest in America has. A laptop isn't going to turn this child in Ethiopia into a doctor or a MIT engineer. There are easier and more ideal ways to ensure this child will be able to read and write and have enough understanding of life in order to hopefully get a decent job to provide for his/her family, but a computer isn't one of those ways.
This is a pipe-dream (most likely literally) by some university students that have this rosy idealistic view of the world that maturity and experience eventually dashes. Its still a novel concept and something that will make computer more ubiquitous and offer more people a chance to gain technological skills, but this isn't going to change the state of affairs in most 3rd world countries. Without the basic infrastructure in place in these countries to provide basics like food, medicine and water, how can one expect to target a luxury device like a computer with internet access?
In the end, this will become a novelty item branded by Fisher Price or Leap Frog and sold at Walmart in the toy section.
Windows isn't Unix, so it is laughable when people assume that buy not running Windows as an admin, it is safer.
Windows simply doesn't have the security layering that Unix has, there is really NO distinction between a non-admin user and an admin user, except for a few Windows-centric tasks, like making new users or a few other networking/server like features. Even the idea you can't install software if your not in admin mode is laughable. You can. You may not be able to install an application (if that application uses an "installer"), but you can still run things like virus and trojans just as easily in Windows in non-admin mode.
Vista does introduce the idea of having two distinct levels of users in Windows, they introduce the idea that you can't run or install software unless your in admin or type in the admin password, but I can tell you from experience that this is friggin annoying and most Microsoft customers WON'T want to be forced to type in passwords every time they want to install a program or access the Internet.
Running XP in non-admin mode will give you a false sense of security, and it is no better a practice then running in admin mode. Even in non-admin mode, if your users are opening up email attachments, browsing to phishing websites, or downloading Trojan/spyware software from questionable sources, it won't matter, it's insecure by design.
Unlike Unix and its derivatives, Windows wasn't designed with security in mind, and it is no more or less secure to run in admin mode as any other mode. Microsoft hasn't made a clear distinction between these two user modes and until Vista is released, I would say that its of no consequence to run XP in admin mode and its a pointless discussion not to do so.
With computers are dropping in price so quickly, computer companies like the idea of an all-in-one computer kit that they sell you, and after a few years, you buy a whole new kit. They don't want to sell you a $500 computer that you upgrade in perpetuity. They want you to buy a $500 computer every year or two.
With laptops, this is almost a give in. Dell and Apple and all the rest don't want you to upgrade your video card or networking cards, or find ways of upgrading the CPU or ram, etc, they want you to buy a whole new computer in a year or two.
Sure, mini-PCI might sound like computer makers are giving you the flexibility of choice of components and upgrade paths, but lets be realistic here. You can't go to Best Buy and find a mini-PCI video card, and you won't be able to. Laptop makers came up with the mini-PCI standard to make components cheaper for your laptop (so they can earn more profit by reducing costs, but keeping the price tag the same). If every notebook maker had a proprietary interface for video cards and networking then nVidia would charge $1000 per unit for a mobile video card because they would have to make dozens of different versions of the same cards to fit in different laptops. Instead, nVidia makes ONE cheap video card that can be used in all laptops.
Don't fool yourself into thinking that laptop makers are starting to offer you modular components that have upgrade paths. They do so simply because it is cheaper for them to make one box and offer 6 versions of the same product, by adding faster CPU's, bigger hard drives, more ram, etc. It is cheaper for them to give their assembly lines easy access to these modular components to "customize" a computer per order.
Once you buy that laptop, know that notebook hard drives are typically 200%+ more expensive then an equivalent sized desktop hard drive, simply because there isn't the quantity of sales in notebook hard drives as there are in desktop hard drives. Same with upgrading notebook RAM and optical drives, etc. Sure you can upgrade your laptop, but it will cost you. The bottom line is there is no market for upgrade notebook parts. People "i.e. the business community" don't buy laptops for upgradeability. They buy them, use them for a year or two, and then buy a whole new kit.
In the end, don't think that there will ever be a laptop solution that will give you 5 - 6 years of upgrade paths allowing you to upgrade CPU's and video cards, etc. There are a few "desktop replacement" notebook boxes that allow you to use desktop components in a "mobile" case, but these tend to be monstrosities that have 1 hour battery life, run hot, and weigh 12 pounds.
In the end, if you want upgrade potential, invest in a desktop, but if you want mobility in a small form factor, you have to bite the bullet and realize you can't make an investment that will last more then a few years before you have to replace the whole unit. The laptop market does not want you to hang on to your laptop for 5 years and upgrade individual components, it will ruin their market and profits.
Is this any dumber then what Microsoft came up with? I mean, Xbox360? Microsoft blatantly didn't want to call it the Xbox2 because they felt that when people heard of the PlayStation 3, they would think 3 is better then 2. So, some genius in Microsoft's marketing department, with a basic understanding of math, decided that 360 was way bigger then 3, so Xbox360 became its name.
I thinks its more like the Xbox360 is a boomerang, always returning back to its origin (i.e. defective units returned back to Microsoft).
And, lets not forget the complete inventiveness of Sony for just appending an incremental number after the PlayStation trademark.
So, Wii. Yeah, it sounds silly. But if you watch the cute little video on Nintendo.com, at least it makes a little sense.
Is this going to make or break the system? If your the type of person that won't buy something because of its name, well, your sad, period. Buying something on the merit of its quality or innovation is what you should be focusing on.
So, whats in a name? Nintendo just scored a big hit because all you people that can't stand the name won't leave it alone. Your going to go to your friends, family and co-workers and say things like "Hey, guess what Nintendo just called their new game console?" thus promoting the new console and giving Nintendo all the hype and publicity they could hope for, just by using 3 little characters. They could have kept it the revolution, or named it Go or RS or whatever, but that would have generated little hype or buzz or commentary.
Wii is brilliant. Like Google, its a stupid, dumb enough name that nobody will ever forget it. Its saved Nintendo millions in advertising simply because all you geeks, dweebs and nerds won't drop it and will keep obsessing about the name for months.
Yes, for years I have been calling Windows XP, Whinedows.
I do agree there are too many annoying pop ups and messages, but then, because of the installed marketshare that Windows has, they have to cater to the lowest common denominator, i.e. people that wouldn't realize their USB could work faster because they have no clue what the difference is between 1.1 and 2.0.
On the other hand, you could model an OS like OSX, which tells you nothing. You never know when something doesn't work because Apple doesn't see fit that you should now. Apple thinks they know everything you are going to do, and so anticipates the problems you might have by just not allowing you to do it or by not supporting that feature. For instance, I had a printer that could support borderless printing, except Apple never allowed borderless printing because they thought it was too complicated for Mac users (I assume).
Of course, we are talking about people using pirated copies of Windows, so I don't have any compassion for someone that has an annoying popup that says they are thieves and should buy the software. They have two options. Struggle in the world of Linux where you would be ecstatic for a popup telling you how to install a printer driver, or just buy Windows.
I have been programming software for over 10 years, and was avidly using a computer years before that, and I don't have CTS or any tingling sensation after 8, 9, 10+ hour days.
People that experience CTS because of typing seriously need to figure out what they are doing wrong, and they ARE doing something wrong.
People I know that have CTS tend to pound on the keyboard, they put so much tension and force in order to hit the keys with their fingers, there is no need to pound on the keyboard. Light quick presses of your fingers is enough to register the key press. If your keyboard forces you to pound on the keys, get a new keyboard. The moment even ONE of my keys because sticky or requires more force to press then normal, I toss it and get a new keyboard, period.
People that I know who also have CTS tend to try and type as quickly as possible. Their fingers are a flurry of activity for 2 - 5 minutes, and then they have to stop and rub their fingers and wrists because they are sore. I watch them tense up and basically spas out on the keyboard in short intervals. You will find greater productivity and no pain if you learn to type slower, aiming for long sessions of moderate speed typing rather then spazzing out on the keyboard for short stints.
Put it this way. You move your fingers and wrists in thousands of directions thousands of times a day in with normal activity. Your fingers, hands, and wrists are designed to handle it. Where you get problems is when you strain your tendons and force movement while in a strained position. This is where repetitive STRAIN syndrome occurs.
By relaxing your fingers, typing with a lighter touch, and slowing your typing speed, you can type for hours, days, weeks and years without pain or any CTS symptoms.
It work, believe me. With the MS natural keyboard and keeping the above statement in mind, I don't have sore wrists at the end of the day.
The bottom line is, your company doesn't force you to use the equipment you use. If they won't buy you a natural or other ergonomic keyboard, or a force you to use a keyboard that has sticky or hard to press keys, then buy your own keyboard. Take steps to ensure your work environment is safe. If you don't like your chair, or your desk, get it replaced. Remind any employer that a few hundred dollars to improve the ergonomics of your workstation, or even a few thousand to improve everyone in the office pales in comparison to the millions they will be sued for for not providing a safe working environment that causes you pain or forces you to have to stop working. NO employer should refuse to let you bring in your own keyboard, mouse, even chair, if they do, find other employment.
I tire of hearing about people getting CTS. They are simply doing it all wrong, but blaming everything else but themselves. If you are using a straight rectangular keyboard that isn't at the proper height, pounding on it with your fingers and strained wrists, and feel you need to type 100 wpm in order to be productive, then its your own damn fault!
While it might say it supports DVB-T (which to my knowledge is only used in Europe and some Asian countries), without full native support for digital cable, any kind of DIY PVR or MCE PC is just a gimmick. They are glorified VCR's where the only way you can record digital cable or HDTV is to connect the cable box to your video in, and hit play and record on two remotes.
What I want is fully digital and fully automated PVR support, like I get with my cable box. Looking through an interactive guide for up to a weeks worth of programming and then picking and choosing the content I want recorded, and then forgetting about it.
Open Digital cable standards are still not finalized, and despite lots of things supporting CableCards, few markets actually offer CableCard support for allowing 3rd party tuners and televisions to decode digital cable.
Until digital cable standards are open, or at least some solution that allows the proliferation of 3rd party and DIY PVR's and PC's, I will hold of on wasting any money on concepts like MythTV. The Myth is that is can record television, but the fact is that cable companies are moving to all digital distribution, which means that analogue PVR's like this won't work, period.
Until I can sit back and fire up a PC that displays the same interactive guide data I am currently getting in a proprietary cable box, I don't think these things will find any success.
I mean, yes, it will be hard to enforce and probably won't stop minors from playing or viewing violent games, but at least the law is there to protect minors, and for people that grossly neglect this law, there will be penalties.
I mean, making it illegal to sell cigarettes or liquor doesn't stop underage teenagers from getting drunk or smoking. But when stores blatantly overlook this law then they will be penalize, either revoking their license to sell these items, or forcing the store to close.
Stores like Wall-Mart will ensure this law is enforced. Everyone is talking about how Wall-Mart influences retail sales and game development, so I am sure this is another way that game companies will ensure their games are not overly-violent or inappropriate for minors.
Sorry, I don't believe we need more games filled with whore bashing and cop killing. This is a fad I am very happy to see waining, and I applaud any state or country or franchise that attempts to curb the proliferation of this kind of crap. Games can be fun and exciting without being derogatory, racists, sexist, or promoting behaviour that many minors in fact mimicking in real life.
If your against this bill, then you are probably 12 years old. Nobody over the age of majority should have to worry or complain about this bill. If you feel you need games of senseless violence to make your life complete, you will still be able to buy those games at will, it isn't affecting you, so why complain about it?
But I mean, like with camera phones, are people really going to want to use these phones in place of dedicated digital cameras and camcorders?
90 minutes of digital video on a cell phone. Come on, I mean, my high end Digital-8 camcorder can only store 60 minutes of video on its tapes. And when I transfer that to a computer, its about 30gb of data. New camcorders with hard drives have about the same capacity per 30gb of storage space. I could use a 1gb memory stick in my camcorder, and get about 300 minutes of video, but that is at 320 - 240 resolution and only about 12 fps. I mean, I have a Carl Zeis lens and 3 megapixel CCD and everything, but the digital video looks like crap, period! So, what kind of quality are you going to get out of your cell phone?
It will happen one day, you will get excellent digital video and still pictures from a simple device like a camcorder, but these phones currently are novelties for people that are more about style then substance. They want to claim that their overly expensive cellphone can take videos and still shots, as well as play TV and music, etc, etc, etc, but in reality they will seldom use these features except to show off.
I am not adverse to an all-in-on device, and I look forward to the day I can ditch my separate components and simply use on small component, but only at such a time when that small single component EXCEEDS the quality and performance of all my separate gear. I want 8 megapixel still photos with up to 100 times optical zoom, I want HD video in 16:9 with surround sound. I want the ability to store 6000 songs. These are all features I get from separate components, and while it might be cumbersome, it just means I carry a small camera bag with me when I go out on trips.
We are no where near there yet, not by a long shot.
I would save my money, and invest it in better quality individual components. I doubt there many people out their that require this much functionality in their cellphone, and those that buy it will only buy into the novelty of having a phone that does it all, even if its poorly.
Funny, when I made the mistake of leaving my cellphone in a hot car for more then a few hours, the heat essentially ruined the battery, so know I only get like 10 minutes of charge. Same goes when I left my laptop in a hot car, only 8 minutes of charge.
Despite Li batteries not having the memory effect of other forms of rechargeable batteries, I am very careful not to leave them in the heat or in the extreme cold because these two factors have the effect of dramatically reducing the charge time these batteries can hold.
I am more then skeptical about using Li batteries in a car, where internal temperatures can reach over 150 F. Even if the battery is exposed to cooler outside air, if you live in California or Arizona or some other hot climate, are you going to have to deal with a battery that quickly diminishes in performance over a short period of time because of the heat?
While Li batteries might be a quick fix for battery powered cars, I doubt they will offer any long term solutions, and once consumers realize they might have to replace a $5,000 - $10,000 battery once every year or two, their popularity will diminish quicker then the batteries charge.
Games are really vapid fair. I wouldn't even go so far as to say their are a series of scripted scenarios. Most games center around one singular plot point. Doom, go to mars and find out why everybody died. Tomb Raider, get a busty brunette spelunking through a cave with a couple of large caliber guns. Then your expected to make a movie out of? Even in a supposedly well scripted game like a D&D RPG, what are you ending up doing repeatedly? Find the object and give it to this person to get a the +1 Bobby Pin of Endurance. Go to this castle and kill the lord there, this is the reason why ( followed by 12 lines of trite D&D rhetoric ). Take all the unique plot elements of a typical RPG and you still only end up with about 2 pages of story.
The problem is that even a movie like Doom grosses over 20 million, and will double that from DVD sales and rentals. There will always be a market for teenage boys looking for some action flick that doesn't require their blood to rush to their brains for more then a few minutes.
What Hollywood needs to do is to take the premise of a game, write an actual plot that incorporates the style and characters that the game has created, and then make a movie as if it wasn't based on a game. But that is aparantly too hard for Hollywood. Instead they want to take the plot elements out of a game, and make a cookie cutter movie without putting much money or effort into it.
You also need to get away from the producers and directors that tend to fixate on making video game movies. I am sure Shyamalan, Speilberg or Jackson could make a video game movie work, but they are big high priced names in Hollywood. Instead, Hollywood finds the people that direct MTV videos and commercials to pilot these vapid movies, you know, those Gen-X'ers with a 5 minute attention span that feel an entire movie has to be filmed as a series of spastic steady cam sequences with loud explosions and scantily clad female characters with cheesy one liners.
But, as I have said, there is always a market for these movies. As long as these movies make money, whether its 1 million or 10 million, and become top rentals and DVD sellers, as well as ensure some form of syndication rights, Hollywood will always find ways of taking quick fad based concepts and turning them into quick, poorly thought up movies. The only thing wrong with this is people expecting these movies to actually be good, which is sad as they can't understand that Hollywood's goal is NOT to make a good video game movie, its to make money.
What people like Ebert have to realize is that Hollywood isn't an artform, its a way to make money, period. 90% of Hollywood movies made are specifically to make money, not for the love or art of telling a story. Video game movies are a perfect fit for Hollywood because they are cheap enough to make and almost guaranteed to make enough money for it to be worthwhile.
Slashdot Mirror
No offense to the design winner, but too often CSS styles websites just end up a bunch of gradient filled rounded corner boxes. Its like the CSS community thinks with one brain cell. The collapsing side menu is a nice touch though. I would hope that the state of the menu will persist between sessions. Having something collapse or expand is annoying if it resets on every visit to the page (i.e. no point in offering it then). Also, I hope you bring back the running tape of the last few article icons at the top of the page. At a glance I can decide if I should bother to read slashdot or wait for an interesting icon to appear first.
Overall though, it is only a cosmetic change to Slashdot, and I don't think there is any reason why Slashdot cannot start adding theme support to their website. Why fixate on one theme? Why not take the top 5 designs and offer them in the preferences. That IS of course the beauty of designing a website with CSS. With one change of the CSS link, you can have your website easily look completely different.
"Limited Release" means they will make dozens of millions of copies available for 5 years before they stop making them just to ensure people like you will pay full price for it in the first week. Its a marketing gimmick designed to make you feel you need to rush out and buy it for whatever price they slap on it.
The Star Wars DVD box set was limited edition, did you have troubles finding it? Are you still able to buy it today? What exactly is limiting about this edition?
I bought a limited edition box set for E.T. on it's 20th anniversary for $80. A couple of years later I could have bought the original sealed box for $15 on a discount rack at some dive video store. Go to amazon and there is 50 new and used to buy right now.
-
- A sucker is born every second, and marketing knows it.
Or, you can get three 750gb hard drives and RAID them for security. Put it this way, 3 drives will fit in your box, 7 won't.
Sorry, I am not 5 anymore. My love of Fisher Price ended with the Weebles.
I don't understand how PC case makers constantly get it wrong when designing their cases. I just want a sleek metal box that has much attention to details like thumb screws and no sharp edges along with a pleasing design.
Instead, half of the computer stores in town sell garish plastic monstrosities with see-thru side panels so you can attach all kinds of bling and neon lights to your computer.
Honestly, custom computers have become almost as bad as those Honda Civic drivers with the fart cannons and the neon license plate frames. Completely useless and I never understand how these people think they are cool when they look like a joke. The same people that think its cool to make their civic sound like a Ferrari with loud booming exhaust tips (honestly, your diving a friggin civic hatchback) probably think its cool to put neon spinner fans and stickers all over their cases.
The problem is, the moment I find a case that I like, its $300.
PC cases are truly like cars, you can buy cheap ass models and dress them up to look like BMWs and Mercs, but in the end you can't hide the fact its a Civic hatchback. I prefer the Bimmers and Mercs myself, and will pay extra so I don't have to be a poser.
If you have a Batman PC case and are older then 5 years old, move out of your Mother's basement and get a life.
-
- Don't mod me down for speaking the truth.
To get it right the first time?
We know that will never happen. I mean, to get it right the first time requires months or even years of beta testing using a very LARGE user base in order to get all the quirks and holes and issues out of the system.
It is arrogant to assume that ANY group of programmers can get it right the first time while developing software, and its not to discredit the quality of programming they are offering. Management is largely at fault for why software products fail to work right out of the box. Management decides when a product is shipped, what features go into the product, and ultimately, at what point does a product have few enough bugs to be shipped.
I think it is laughable that an Executive at some company thinks patching is wrong. Most likely, she has been responsible for some problems and boners at Oracle that have required patches or updates.
Software has become too complicated to ensure you have the perfect build being shipped for sale. You can't take a multi-million line application and expect it to work perfectly in the dynamic environment that is an end-user's computer. You can't anticipate that the end user might install some other software that might enable a security hole in your own, you can't anticipate that hackers might find a way into your meticulously crafted security protocols. You simply cannot anticipate what will happen to your software the moment it leaves you build box. A GOOD company will release stable and secure software, but ensure that ANY unanticipated issues are patched quickly. This is SIMPLY the NATURE of the game.
Adding regulation to software development will destroy the industry, period. If it requires a 3rd party to review the software and test it before it gets a stamp of approval this will unnecessarily add months or even years more to the development cycle. Any government regulatory board will be swamped with numerous pending software releases, and they won't be able to handle the sheer amount of quantity of software being released. Also, a regulatory board, even made of highly trained software engineers, will not be able to fully understand every piece of software they are given to test. Unlike a Civil Engineer whose building techniques were literally set in stone thousands of years ago, software engineering is forever changing and adapting, a single person cannot keep up with all the new concepts implemented in software design. In the end, a software regulatory board will be even less effective then the current mentality of software patching, because in the end, the regulatory board will put their seal of approval on a faulty product giving end users a false sense of security. Patching that product will take months because the patches will have to go through the same regulatory process.
It is arrogant for CSO Mary Ann Davidson to make wide sweeping comments about the state of security and quality in the software industry. Oracle isn't standing a the head of the field with perfect software. Look for Oracle Security Patches in Google and you will find pages and pages of links patching Oracle's products. If you are frustrated with patching mentality, clean up your own house. ANY company offering better quality and more secure software right out of the box will be recognized quickly and will quickly rise to the top in success. But you can't yell from the gutters that things need to improve without looking around you and realising where you are.
Despite all the naysayers, most of you will run out and pirate a copy of Vista just to play Halo 2. I mean, you bought the Xbox and Xbox360 simply to play Halo, at least you will be able to pirate a copy of Vista to play it as well.
...for this Linux flavour of the year to go out of style. Don't Enterprise versions of a Linux distro seal its fate? RedHat, Mandrake, now Ubuntu
-
-
Don't mod me down for speaking the truth.
Ottawa was consider Silicon Valley North (Ottawa is even in a "valley" technically). For most of the 90's, it was the darling city for Nortel, Alcatel/Newbridge and JDS Uniphase along with Corel's headquarters and Adobe offices and a slew of high tech hardware and software firms. Ottawa's population has nearly doubled in the last 2 decades, and this is due to the influx of technology and software firms into the area.
However, with the recent downturn in the tech market, Nortel laying off over 60% of their workforce, same with Alcatel and JDS Uniphase, its become more like Silicon Valley Ghost Town. I think this was mirrored in the original Silicon Valley, but with strong companies like Apple there, not as much.
There is some positive strong growth occurring once again, but when you see some the HUGE facilities that Nortel and JDS Uniphase once had packed full that are now largely empty now and being leased off and subdivided, it is a shame that we couldn't keep that status. Ottawa is just full of photonics start ups and other fledgling technology firms that largely exists because of government research grants (Ottawa is the capital of Canada for those that don't know).
Currently Silicon Valley North has shifted over to Alberta which is the darling province of Canada. Buoyed by their oil industry, tech and software has grown considerably and both Calgary and Edmonton has strong growth in the technology market.
I think the answer is that while you can find hot spots where technology firms concentrate and have a "gold rush" of sorts, you can't duplicate the true Silicon Valley. You will see them shift around in different countries but not become a permanent fixture on the landscape. Ottawa might once again show potential for becoming another Silicon hot spot, but it will be a few years before we have the same kind of growth we had in the 90's.
Of course, the real question is whether or not Silicon Valley's will be duplicated in Asia where they have the concentration of people with enough skills to make it possible.
None, Vista uses GPU aceleration and video memory for their UI.
Also, even though Apple came out with a better looking 3D looking OS, you can't patent/trademark the idea of making something look like glass in an interface. If you started that, then Linux, Apple, and Microsoft would simply get into a circular cycle of suing the hell out of each other because each has HEAVILY borrowed UI concepts from each other quite liberally. And honestly, Vista does a better job because they are actually making a glass like transparency which slightly diffuses the underling graphics whereas Apple just uses an alpha blend. Also, Aqua has been reduced to glass buttons and scroll bars in Apple, Microsoft doesn't use glass buttons, just a glass frame which surrounds a window, Apple doesn't even do this. So technically, there is no copyright/trademark/patent conflicts. Only people completely ignorant of Vista assumes it looks like OSX.
But honestly, when do you fully need to utilize 100% CPU cycles with a 4ghz CPU? For the most part, even compiling software all day, I rarely hit 100% CPU utilization for more then a few moments. If my windows borders take a few percentage of my CPU cycles, you won't notice it. By the time you enter a game, your running it full screen so the Vista UI isn't around to consume any clock cycles.
Still 2.5 pounds? and only 25 - 50% faster booting Windows? Anyways, its a step in the right direction and I applaud any attempt to bring solid state into mainstream. But at $3700 for a celeron based laptop with 32gb storage, there is a long way to go before I will want one.
Funny though is that they show Windows Vista installed.
Thinking that reading a book and using the HCI (Human Computer Interface) buzzword will improve the user experience of your software.
Few software development managers give developers enough time to hone their user interface. In my firm, software developers are often involved in the back end code, writing complex algorithms or process functions. This is the meat and potatoes of the software, without it, there is no reason for the software to exists. When they need some UI associated with the back end code, it truly is a last minute implementation and an afterthought, but only because they are pressed to get the product released on some arbitrary deadline management and sales arrived at. What happens tends to be sloppy and poorly written UI for the sake of brevity.
Good UI just takes time to develop, and until your firm realizes that it should account for at least 40% of the development time, then reading a book isn't going to help you. Also, I have read those books, and its just a bunch of blowhards telling you what they think is good UI, its not necessarily what is going to be good UI for your applications.
You also should find and take the time to hire or cultivate at least one developer that is skilled in UI design. Having at least one good UI developer on your team frees up the other developers to focus on the internals and lets a dedicated developer focus on the UI. This also prevents the idea of "too many cooks in the kitchen" problem that many firms have, the idea that numerous developers are writing UI code and each have their own personal idea of what the UI should look like. You can create a UI guideline that is supposed to force developers to write UI a certain way, but in the end, they are going to do what they think is right, and your application will have a mismatched look and feel to it. Having one or two dedicated UI developers will ensure a consistency across the entire application.
It is a talent, its one of the few areas where creativity and talent comes into play when developing software. The talent is in understanding and putting yourself in the place of an end user. Its understanding your target audience and catering to their needs. This varies with every software project you work on and no book is going to cover all the bases.
In the end, if your a single developer responsible for both front and back end code, then take the time to USE your software. Most software developers only use their software in so much as to test their back end code. But using your software just as your end users would is the best way to ensure you UI works and flows well. Try to imagine all the stupid things your end users will do with the software, or all the different ways an end user will interact with the software. For instance, I don't use keyboard shortcuts, so I tend to overlook them when I develop a UI. Learning to realize that end users might exclusively use keyboard shortcuts instead of the mouse means that when I test my UI, I will notice the weakness before I release the software.
But it takes time to both learn what makes good UI and to develop good UI. You could read a book and it could offer a few insights, but the best way to learn to code and to learn how to write good UI is to do it, use it, and allow enough time to properly develop it. In the end, if you write software you hate or wouldn't want to use, then your not writting good UI.
If this is true, its another nail in Sony's coffin. I mean, from their entirely too expensive system, to their overhyped Blu-ray support, console delays, and problems with their "new" game controllers (which look shockingly like every other game controller they offered), if Sony is hoping to prevent resales of their games, then I would firmly have to refuse to buy the PS3.
Sony's problem is, and will continue to be, the fact they are both a hardware manufacture that also publishes game titles, movies and music. Sony keeps insiting that they need to protect their IP in games, movies and music with their hardware, so they have never done things right.
From their first Digital Music players that used proprietary music formats and software, rootkit fiasco, to their overly portected PSP and now the PS3, Sony is doing everything in their power to enusre that customers will never really enjoy the Sony experience, just tolerate all their DRM and protections schemes enough for a few minutes of diversion. The problem is, will people keep tolerating this?
The PS3 will be Sony's make it or break it entry into the video game consoles. The original PS and PS2 were hugely successful simply because they didn't try to force DRM and other copyright protection schemes on people (or, at least, they were easy to circumvent). The wild lack of success of the PSP and the backlash people are having over the PS3 might cause Sony to lose their grip on the video game market.
While I would never have guessed that a company like Sony could fail in their efforts after 2 big game console successes, I will have to admit that the PS3 might be their biggest mistake yet if they keep going forward with ideas and plans like this.
This could be just speculation or unfounded rumours designed to bring more discreditation to Sony, but if there is a smidgen of truth, Nintendo's Wii looks like it might be the ONLY next generation console I will put my money into.
I really don't think that Sony's Gamepad with motion detection is the same as Nintendo's Remote Controller.
First, the entire premise behind Nintendo's Wii controller is that you NEED to move it in 3D in order to control on screen content. Sony's concept is to give you a traditional gamepad that has the ability to offer 3D game control.
Second, Nintendo is shunning conventional gameplay with their next generation console. Expect lots of novelty and gimmicky game titles that rely on waving their remote controller in the air. I mean, they are adding fishing to Zelda simply for the sake of having the gimmick of kids bobbing and dipping their remote controller to mimic fishing. Sony is not shunning conventional game control, only offering a new unique way to control games for those wishing to incorporate the concepts. Nintendo is FORCING innovation, Sony is evolving it.
Sure, I do think that Sony saw Nintendo's efforts and obviously came out with a game control that has 3D positional feedback. Had Microsoft not jumped the gun and just had to get their Xbox360 out the door before Christmas 2005, then I am sure Microsoft would have added 3D positional gameplay to the Xbox360.
But in the long run, I really don't think Sony is copying Nintendo. The bottom line is that Sony realizes this is a gimmick, not something to base an entire generation of games on. Their ability to quickly add 3D positional control to their existing joystick smacks of the fact this is just a gimmick, hardly something requiring years of engineering. Nintendo might find their gimmicky new feature falls flat and customers WILL DEMAND from Nintendo a conventional gamepad where as Sony customers will find it a pleasant diversion to traditional gameplay.
In the end, just get the friggin consoles out the door! We can speculate about which will be a better system all we want, but until I can play some games on both platforms, arguing about it is just moot.
How exactly do you mean Microsoft is falling behind?
I mean, this statement is repeated often, along with the idea that Linux will take over, but I really don't think people know what they are talking about.
First, if Microsoft losing sales because of the development of Vista? No. Profits rose 16% in the last quarter. So, from a financial standpoint, Microsoft isn't hurting.
Second, despite OSX and Linux being techincally superior operating systems, why is Microsoft still maintaining 95% world dominance? It can't just be because 95% of the worlds computer users are dumbasses right? If these operating systems offeres users the same experience and yet maintains better security and stability of Windows, I am sure they would take off and really give MS a run for their money. But in the 6 years that OSX existed and the 10+ years Linux has been kicking around, neither has made a dent in Windows installations.
I am not pro-Microsoft, just a realist. Microsoft has a lot of ground to catch up to in terms of OS technology, but Vista could take 12 - 24 months longer to be released, and it won't hurt MS one bit. It won't ruin them as a company, won't make them go bankrupt, and definitely isn't going to change the playing field with regards to the percentage of desktops running Linux or OSX of Windows. In the 3 years that Vista has been in development, what NEW feature has Linux offered that makes it a must have OS? A kernel update? A change in the flavour of the month ( Fedora to Ubuntuu to SUSE to whatever ). I can pretty much guarantee that if the article author tried to install Linux on his laptop he would find problems with driver support, and this is in a RELEASE OS, not a beta OS.
Sorry, I WANT features in an OS. Stability and security are important, but I want and OS that connects easily to my devices, has ample software support, game support and works with the latest technology right away. For whatever reason, Linux has never fit for me in those aspects, and neither has OSX. People come back to Windows because in the end, the other OS'es fail them in some way. Rock solid stability and security does not sell an OS, features do, and until Linux meets Windows on features and ease of use, Microsoft won't be hurt by Vista taking so long to develop.
If Microsoft's existence is less compelling year after year, then why are their profits rising year after year? Your statement would be valid if Microsoft was taking billion dollar hits on profit every quarter for a few years. I agree that MS still has a lot to learn in making a decent OS, but crappy operating systems hasn't hurt them yet.
Sorry, but I think MIT is hoping Fisher Price will call and label this "My First Laptop".
So the big question is, does it cost $100 to make? Of did they just make it look like a $100 laptop?
Hopefully Leap Frog is looking at this and might come out with their own version before Christmas for $50.
In all honestly, I still don't see the reason for this laptop, especially since they are gearing it towards 3rd world countries. I have always said, and I stand by it, that these people need access to clean drinking watter, food, and medicine before they need the luxury of internet access. Even as an educational tool, this laptop is pointless as I am sure any kid or parent would hawk this thing in the local flea market in order to get enough money to pay the rent and/or just pay for food.
I can see this being ideal in G8 countries. Kids living below the poverty line still should be able to access the top rate schools in those countries, but without being able to afford a computer and thus the tools and technologies that could give them an edge, they fail to be recognized or qualify for scholarships and grants that could allow them to turn their life around.
But I just don't see some child in Ethiopia ever having the same access to education that even the poorest in America has. A laptop isn't going to turn this child in Ethiopia into a doctor or a MIT engineer. There are easier and more ideal ways to ensure this child will be able to read and write and have enough understanding of life in order to hopefully get a decent job to provide for his/her family, but a computer isn't one of those ways.
This is a pipe-dream (most likely literally) by some university students that have this rosy idealistic view of the world that maturity and experience eventually dashes. Its still a novel concept and something that will make computer more ubiquitous and offer more people a chance to gain technological skills, but this isn't going to change the state of affairs in most 3rd world countries. Without the basic infrastructure in place in these countries to provide basics like food, medicine and water, how can one expect to target a luxury device like a computer with internet access?
In the end, this will become a novelty item branded by Fisher Price or Leap Frog and sold at Walmart in the toy section.
Windows isn't Unix, so it is laughable when people assume that buy not running Windows as an admin, it is safer.
Windows simply doesn't have the security layering that Unix has, there is really NO distinction between a non-admin user and an admin user, except for a few Windows-centric tasks, like making new users or a few other networking/server like features. Even the idea you can't install software if your not in admin mode is laughable. You can. You may not be able to install an application (if that application uses an "installer"), but you can still run things like virus and trojans just as easily in Windows in non-admin mode.
Vista does introduce the idea of having two distinct levels of users in Windows, they introduce the idea that you can't run or install software unless your in admin or type in the admin password, but I can tell you from experience that this is friggin annoying and most Microsoft customers WON'T want to be forced to type in passwords every time they want to install a program or access the Internet.
Running XP in non-admin mode will give you a false sense of security, and it is no better a practice then running in admin mode. Even in non-admin mode, if your users are opening up email attachments, browsing to phishing websites, or downloading Trojan/spyware software from questionable sources, it won't matter, it's insecure by design.
Unlike Unix and its derivatives, Windows wasn't designed with security in mind, and it is no more or less secure to run in admin mode as any other mode. Microsoft hasn't made a clear distinction between these two user modes and until Vista is released, I would say that its of no consequence to run XP in admin mode and its a pointless discussion not to do so.
With computers are dropping in price so quickly, computer companies like the idea of an all-in-one computer kit that they sell you, and after a few years, you buy a whole new kit. They don't want to sell you a $500 computer that you upgrade in perpetuity. They want you to buy a $500 computer every year or two.
With laptops, this is almost a give in. Dell and Apple and all the rest don't want you to upgrade your video card or networking cards, or find ways of upgrading the CPU or ram, etc, they want you to buy a whole new computer in a year or two.
Sure, mini-PCI might sound like computer makers are giving you the flexibility of choice of components and upgrade paths, but lets be realistic here. You can't go to Best Buy and find a mini-PCI video card, and you won't be able to. Laptop makers came up with the mini-PCI standard to make components cheaper for your laptop (so they can earn more profit by reducing costs, but keeping the price tag the same). If every notebook maker had a proprietary interface for video cards and networking then nVidia would charge $1000 per unit for a mobile video card because they would have to make dozens of different versions of the same cards to fit in different laptops. Instead, nVidia makes ONE cheap video card that can be used in all laptops.
Don't fool yourself into thinking that laptop makers are starting to offer you modular components that have upgrade paths. They do so simply because it is cheaper for them to make one box and offer 6 versions of the same product, by adding faster CPU's, bigger hard drives, more ram, etc. It is cheaper for them to give their assembly lines easy access to these modular components to "customize" a computer per order.
Once you buy that laptop, know that notebook hard drives are typically 200%+ more expensive then an equivalent sized desktop hard drive, simply because there isn't the quantity of sales in notebook hard drives as there are in desktop hard drives. Same with upgrading notebook RAM and optical drives, etc. Sure you can upgrade your laptop, but it will cost you. The bottom line is there is no market for upgrade notebook parts. People "i.e. the business community" don't buy laptops for upgradeability. They buy them, use them for a year or two, and then buy a whole new kit.
In the end, don't think that there will ever be a laptop solution that will give you 5 - 6 years of upgrade paths allowing you to upgrade CPU's and video cards, etc. There are a few "desktop replacement" notebook boxes that allow you to use desktop components in a "mobile" case, but these tend to be monstrosities that have 1 hour battery life, run hot, and weigh 12 pounds.
In the end, if you want upgrade potential, invest in a desktop, but if you want mobility in a small form factor, you have to bite the bullet and realize you can't make an investment that will last more then a few years before you have to replace the whole unit. The laptop market does not want you to hang on to your laptop for 5 years and upgrade individual components, it will ruin their market and profits.
Is this any dumber then what Microsoft came up with? I mean, Xbox360? Microsoft blatantly didn't want to call it the Xbox2 because they felt that when people heard of the PlayStation 3, they would think 3 is better then 2. So, some genius in Microsoft's marketing department, with a basic understanding of math, decided that 360 was way bigger then 3, so Xbox360 became its name.
I thinks its more like the Xbox360 is a boomerang, always returning back to its origin (i.e. defective units returned back to Microsoft).
And, lets not forget the complete inventiveness of Sony for just appending an incremental number after the PlayStation trademark.
So, Wii. Yeah, it sounds silly. But if you watch the cute little video on Nintendo.com, at least it makes a little sense.
Is this going to make or break the system? If your the type of person that won't buy something because of its name, well, your sad, period. Buying something on the merit of its quality or innovation is what you should be focusing on.
So, whats in a name? Nintendo just scored a big hit because all you people that can't stand the name won't leave it alone. Your going to go to your friends, family and co-workers and say things like "Hey, guess what Nintendo just called their new game console?" thus promoting the new console and giving Nintendo all the hype and publicity they could hope for, just by using 3 little characters. They could have kept it the revolution, or named it Go or RS or whatever, but that would have generated little hype or buzz or commentary.
Wii is brilliant. Like Google, its a stupid, dumb enough name that nobody will ever forget it. Its saved Nintendo millions in advertising simply because all you geeks, dweebs and nerds won't drop it and will keep obsessing about the name for months.
Yes, for years I have been calling Windows XP, Whinedows.
I do agree there are too many annoying pop ups and messages, but then, because of the installed marketshare that Windows has, they have to cater to the lowest common denominator, i.e. people that wouldn't realize their USB could work faster because they have no clue what the difference is between 1.1 and 2.0.
On the other hand, you could model an OS like OSX, which tells you nothing. You never know when something doesn't work because Apple doesn't see fit that you should now. Apple thinks they know everything you are going to do, and so anticipates the problems you might have by just not allowing you to do it or by not supporting that feature. For instance, I had a printer that could support borderless printing, except Apple never allowed borderless printing because they thought it was too complicated for Mac users (I assume).
Of course, we are talking about people using pirated copies of Windows, so I don't have any compassion for someone that has an annoying popup that says they are thieves and should buy the software. They have two options. Struggle in the world of Linux where you would be ecstatic for a popup telling you how to install a printer driver, or just buy Windows.
I have been programming software for over 10 years, and was avidly using a computer years before that, and I don't have CTS or any tingling sensation after 8, 9, 10+ hour days.
People that experience CTS because of typing seriously need to figure out what they are doing wrong, and they ARE doing something wrong.
People I know that have CTS tend to pound on the keyboard, they put so much tension and force in order to hit the keys with their fingers, there is no need to pound on the keyboard. Light quick presses of your fingers is enough to register the key press. If your keyboard forces you to pound on the keys, get a new keyboard. The moment even ONE of my keys because sticky or requires more force to press then normal, I toss it and get a new keyboard, period.
People that I know who also have CTS tend to try and type as quickly as possible. Their fingers are a flurry of activity for 2 - 5 minutes, and then they have to stop and rub their fingers and wrists because they are sore. I watch them tense up and basically spas out on the keyboard in short intervals. You will find greater productivity and no pain if you learn to type slower, aiming for long sessions of moderate speed typing rather then spazzing out on the keyboard for short stints.
Put it this way. You move your fingers and wrists in thousands of directions thousands of times a day in with normal activity. Your fingers, hands, and wrists are designed to handle it. Where you get problems is when you strain your tendons and force movement while in a strained position. This is where repetitive STRAIN syndrome occurs.
By relaxing your fingers, typing with a lighter touch, and slowing your typing speed, you can type for hours, days, weeks and years without pain or any CTS symptoms.
It work, believe me. With the MS natural keyboard and keeping the above statement in mind, I don't have sore wrists at the end of the day.
The bottom line is, your company doesn't force you to use the equipment you use. If they won't buy you a natural or other ergonomic keyboard, or a force you to use a keyboard that has sticky or hard to press keys, then buy your own keyboard. Take steps to ensure your work environment is safe. If you don't like your chair, or your desk, get it replaced. Remind any employer that a few hundred dollars to improve the ergonomics of your workstation, or even a few thousand to improve everyone in the office pales in comparison to the millions they will be sued for for not providing a safe working environment that causes you pain or forces you to have to stop working. NO employer should refuse to let you bring in your own keyboard, mouse, even chair, if they do, find other employment.
I tire of hearing about people getting CTS. They are simply doing it all wrong, but blaming everything else but themselves. If you are using a straight rectangular keyboard that isn't at the proper height, pounding on it with your fingers and strained wrists, and feel you need to type 100 wpm in order to be productive, then its your own damn fault!
While it might say it supports DVB-T (which to my knowledge is only used in Europe and some Asian countries), without full native support for digital cable, any kind of DIY PVR or MCE PC is just a gimmick. They are glorified VCR's where the only way you can record digital cable or HDTV is to connect the cable box to your video in, and hit play and record on two remotes.
What I want is fully digital and fully automated PVR support, like I get with my cable box. Looking through an interactive guide for up to a weeks worth of programming and then picking and choosing the content I want recorded, and then forgetting about it.
Open Digital cable standards are still not finalized, and despite lots of things supporting CableCards, few markets actually offer CableCard support for allowing 3rd party tuners and televisions to decode digital cable.
Until digital cable standards are open, or at least some solution that allows the proliferation of 3rd party and DIY PVR's and PC's, I will hold of on wasting any money on concepts like MythTV. The Myth is that is can record television, but the fact is that cable companies are moving to all digital distribution, which means that analogue PVR's like this won't work, period.
Until I can sit back and fire up a PC that displays the same interactive guide data I am currently getting in a proprietary cable box, I don't think these things will find any success.
I mean, yes, it will be hard to enforce and probably won't stop minors from playing or viewing violent games, but at least the law is there to protect minors, and for people that grossly neglect this law, there will be penalties.
I mean, making it illegal to sell cigarettes or liquor doesn't stop underage teenagers from getting drunk or smoking. But when stores blatantly overlook this law then they will be penalize, either revoking their license to sell these items, or forcing the store to close.
Stores like Wall-Mart will ensure this law is enforced. Everyone is talking about how Wall-Mart influences retail sales and game development, so I am sure this is another way that game companies will ensure their games are not overly-violent or inappropriate for minors.
Sorry, I don't believe we need more games filled with whore bashing and cop killing. This is a fad I am very happy to see waining, and I applaud any state or country or franchise that attempts to curb the proliferation of this kind of crap. Games can be fun and exciting without being derogatory, racists, sexist, or promoting behaviour that many minors in fact mimicking in real life.
If your against this bill, then you are probably 12 years old. Nobody over the age of majority should have to worry or complain about this bill. If you feel you need games of senseless violence to make your life complete, you will still be able to buy those games at will, it isn't affecting you, so why complain about it?
But I mean, like with camera phones, are people really going to want to use these phones in place of dedicated digital cameras and camcorders?
90 minutes of digital video on a cell phone. Come on, I mean, my high end Digital-8 camcorder can only store 60 minutes of video on its tapes. And when I transfer that to a computer, its about 30gb of data. New camcorders with hard drives have about the same capacity per 30gb of storage space. I could use a 1gb memory stick in my camcorder, and get about 300 minutes of video, but that is at 320 - 240 resolution and only about 12 fps. I mean, I have a Carl Zeis lens and 3 megapixel CCD and everything, but the digital video looks like crap, period! So, what kind of quality are you going to get out of your cell phone?
It will happen one day, you will get excellent digital video and still pictures from a simple device like a camcorder, but these phones currently are novelties for people that are more about style then substance. They want to claim that their overly expensive cellphone can take videos and still shots, as well as play TV and music, etc, etc, etc, but in reality they will seldom use these features except to show off.
I am not adverse to an all-in-on device, and I look forward to the day I can ditch my separate components and simply use on small component, but only at such a time when that small single component EXCEEDS the quality and performance of all my separate gear. I want 8 megapixel still photos with up to 100 times optical zoom, I want HD video in 16:9 with surround sound. I want the ability to store 6000 songs. These are all features I get from separate components, and while it might be cumbersome, it just means I carry a small camera bag with me when I go out on trips.
We are no where near there yet, not by a long shot.
I would save my money, and invest it in better quality individual components. I doubt there many people out their that require this much functionality in their cellphone, and those that buy it will only buy into the novelty of having a phone that does it all, even if its poorly.
Funny, when I made the mistake of leaving my cellphone in a hot car for more then a few hours, the heat essentially ruined the battery, so know I only get like 10 minutes of charge. Same goes when I left my laptop in a hot car, only 8 minutes of charge.
Despite Li batteries not having the memory effect of other forms of rechargeable batteries, I am very careful not to leave them in the heat or in the extreme cold because these two factors have the effect of dramatically reducing the charge time these batteries can hold.
I am more then skeptical about using Li batteries in a car, where internal temperatures can reach over 150 F. Even if the battery is exposed to cooler outside air, if you live in California or Arizona or some other hot climate, are you going to have to deal with a battery that quickly diminishes in performance over a short period of time because of the heat?
While Li batteries might be a quick fix for battery powered cars, I doubt they will offer any long term solutions, and once consumers realize they might have to replace a $5,000 - $10,000 battery once every year or two, their popularity will diminish quicker then the batteries charge.
Games are really vapid fair. I wouldn't even go so far as to say their are a series of scripted scenarios. Most games center around one singular plot point. Doom, go to mars and find out why everybody died. Tomb Raider, get a busty brunette spelunking through a cave with a couple of large caliber guns. Then your expected to make a movie out of? Even in a supposedly well scripted game like a D&D RPG, what are you ending up doing repeatedly? Find the object and give it to this person to get a the +1 Bobby Pin of Endurance. Go to this castle and kill the lord there, this is the reason why ( followed by 12 lines of trite D&D rhetoric ). Take all the unique plot elements of a typical RPG and you still only end up with about 2 pages of story.
The problem is that even a movie like Doom grosses over 20 million, and will double that from DVD sales and rentals. There will always be a market for teenage boys looking for some action flick that doesn't require their blood to rush to their brains for more then a few minutes.
What Hollywood needs to do is to take the premise of a game, write an actual plot that incorporates the style and characters that the game has created, and then make a movie as if it wasn't based on a game. But that is aparantly too hard for Hollywood. Instead they want to take the plot elements out of a game, and make a cookie cutter movie without putting much money or effort into it.
You also need to get away from the producers and directors that tend to fixate on making video game movies. I am sure Shyamalan, Speilberg or Jackson could make a video game movie work, but they are big high priced names in Hollywood. Instead, Hollywood finds the people that direct MTV videos and commercials to pilot these vapid movies, you know, those Gen-X'ers with a 5 minute attention span that feel an entire movie has to be filmed as a series of spastic steady cam sequences with loud explosions and scantily clad female characters with cheesy one liners.
But, as I have said, there is always a market for these movies. As long as these movies make money, whether its 1 million or 10 million, and become top rentals and DVD sellers, as well as ensure some form of syndication rights, Hollywood will always find ways of taking quick fad based concepts and turning them into quick, poorly thought up movies. The only thing wrong with this is people expecting these movies to actually be good, which is sad as they can't understand that Hollywood's goal is NOT to make a good video game movie, its to make money.
What people like Ebert have to realize is that Hollywood isn't an artform, its a way to make money, period. 90% of Hollywood movies made are specifically to make money, not for the love or art of telling a story. Video game movies are a perfect fit for Hollywood because they are cheap enough to make and almost guaranteed to make enough money for it to be worthwhile.