Look, while anyone can grab a dictionary and find out the most commonly used letters in the English language, and then create an "optimal" keyboard layout, the problem is that this doesn't take into consideration trends in product branding or advertizing.
Few would consider the letter X to be a popular character in the english language. Words containing the letter X are more rare then with the letter E or T, but look at the prevalence of X in products.
Xbox OSX XP Matrox,
etc, etc, etc. Any keyboard layout using ONLY character frequency as its data for keyboard layout will fail as it can never take into consideration trends in society to suddenly focus on a specific letter or symbol.
Look at the @ symbol. Until email, few people would ever consider using @, in fact, I can't even remember why the symbol existed before email.
As a programmer, I really could care less what keyboard layout it used, none will ever truely cater to the specific needs of software developers. With a variety of both symbols and characters used with no such idea of character frequency (unless you start including;.-> in the set), you pretty much have to learn how to make your keyboard layout more efficient. Mostly by breaking the "rules" introduced by touch typist.
In the long run, I am actually quite surpised how many people are adept at figuring out how to hunt and peck at a keyboard without adopting any kind of typing style. In my office, probably only about 1/4 of the programming staff are actually touch typists, the rest hunt and peck, using 4 - 6 fingers at a time. Most people could care less about a formal approach to using a keyboard, so again, regardless of how the keyboard is layed out, it won't matter to a large number of computer users.
Finally, its the keyboard itself rather then the layout that causes the most grief. Laying out keys in straight rows without taking into consideration finger position and just plain biology. Your fingers form an arc, your middle fingers are longer then the outside ones, yet most keyboards are not optimise with this in mind, in terms of the physical placement. The only ergonmoic keyboard I have seen is one that bows into the desktop, keeping keys used by outside fingers shallow while those by middle fingers deeper. I would place more emphasis on ergonomic design rather then keyboard layout. Changing the layout on existing keyboards would do little to truely solve the problem of stress.
I have been wating to get my hands on some flexible ePaper type display. While I think this proposed technology won't be as high resolution or colourful as what we saw in Minority Report, the idea of a flexible digital display is pretty intriguing.
I do worry about the increased exposure to advertising it may imposed. Rather then walking down a grocery isle looking at static box images, now all the boxes are vying for your attention with captivating animations, and possibly even sound effects. Hey, with RFID tags, cereal boxes can be aware of their competitors nearby and start displaying smear campaigns against Captain Crunch or that silly rabit from Trix.
It could cause sensory overload, which actually might be good in a way. If an increased abundance of motion advertising causes people to start tuning them out, advertisers may have scale back tactics and reduce our exposure to advertising to make it more effective in general. I think we will be inidated with an increase in pervasive advertising for a little while before utlimately it is severly scaled back.
I would really like to combination of flexible ePaper with the ability of touch sensitive input. Buy one last sheet of paper to last you the rest of your life.
With a recent announcment of a flexible LCD screens, and the fact there isn't really any expensive materials used in these processes (plastic and some metal), I think we will be seeing thin and flexible displays sooner rather then later for both permanent and disposible displays.
Yahoo reports their competitor Google is entering into a partnership with Microsoft and Sun (two companies that have been feuding for the last decade). Microsoft cooperating with Google (or any company that isn't paying them licensing cheques)?
PS2 was first and dominated that last gen market, but then, Sony had taken over the market with the PSOne long before MS decides to enter the fray.
Its about games, pure and simple. Xbox failed simply because there were not enough exclusive titles, and not any gaming franchises established to help drive console sales. I never bought an Xbox because I could get the same titles for my PS2. What few exclusive titles for the Xbox, like Halo, eventually made it to PC.
Micosoft is setting up the XBox360 for the same fall. The problem know is that many "new" Xbox360 games will also see Xbox and PS2 versions. Not just are there no exclusive titles, but these titles are not even respecting console generations, being downgraded to sell on previous generation consoles.
Again, why would I buy an Xbox360 when, for the time being, many of the popular titles will be released for the PS2 as well.
I am a gamer that prefers gameplay over style and graphics. If a game is fun to play and entertaining for a long time, I could care less if the 3D graphics are not cinematic quality. I won't pay $400 to play a $40 game I could get for a system I already own.
If MS thinks that by getting there first is going to make the Xbox360 shine, then they will loose once again to gain market share. Without exclusive titles, and allowing game developers to release games for other platforms AND older generations, Microsoft is doing nothing to spur sales of Xbox360 hardware.
Sony has a number of platform specific titles that don't exist on any other platform, and I am sure when the PS3 is released, they won't be releasing the same games for the PS2. This is still why the PS3 will outsell the Xbox360, because MS inisist on whoring themselves and their game developers to anyone willing to buy a license, rather then forcing stronger commitments from game developers for exclusive titles.
Linux would boot on a toaster if someone put their mind to it. This is probably the one saving grace of Linux is its ease of being embedded in just about anything with a micro-controller in it.
The problem is that while there is usually a huge drive to get something to boot linux, once it finally does there is less enthusiasm and patience into turning into a viable comercial product.
Its the hobby like nature of Linux which is also its Achillies Heel. A lot of enthusiasm can be generated pretty quickly, but also be deflated just as easily. Making something boot with Linux is far easier then making it stable and supporting it fully. For instance, take the idea of booting the iPod with Linux. It's a great idea, especially considering you can then support ANY file format on the cool iPod, but after about 2 years they still are not any closer to making it a usuable product. As each new generation of iPod comes out with new features, the idea of a linux distro for the iPod platform drifts further and further away as less people focus on trying to support new features with the iPod linux build.
So, in the end, getting Linux to boot a Treo isn't ground breaking or earth shattering. I doubt any real product will arise from this and offer an alternative to the retail OS that ships with it. Eventually they will find it difficult to support all the features of the Treo and more and more people will drift away from the project in favour of booting linux on the next gimmick or fad product that hits the market.
Buy a $50 UPS Battery backup power supply. Some now come in the form of a surge protection power bar. When a power outage occurs, they force your computer to shut down gracefully thus preventing system crashes.
But in reality, there is little you can do to prevent Windows, or ANY other OS out there from becoming corrupted after a power outage, this isn't an XP only situation. If your hard drive was in the process of writing data, especially if it was transfering cached data from virtual memory, then there is not much you can do to prevent an OS from becoming corrupted after a power outage. I have to day thought that I have never had any significant OS problems with Windows after blackouts on my home computer.
By getting an uninteruptable power supply, you can aleviate the nightmares that can occur if a computer loses power unexpectedly. Or, get into the habit of shutting down your computer when not in use, so that when power outages occur, there is less chance for your computer to become corrupted simply because you didn't want to shutdown the computer when you were done using it.
Tech support is a whole different ball of wax, and I am afraid many of you are confusing what the top 10 list was implying.
Sys admins are internel tech support, for users within an office. We are not talking about technical support in general, calling outside of the office.
The difference is that external tech support staff are truely idiots (sorry, its true), reading knowledge base screens you could access yourself online and doing very little to actually resolve your problems. These people are not highly educated, trained, or knowledgable about the products they are supporting. How else could a call center in India deal with a product made and sold entirely in North America? Most call center staff in India have neverever seen a computer outside of work. You would be better off discussing what spices to use in your favourite curry over how to get a Dell computer up and running after installing a corrupted Windows XP DLL driver. Same goes true if the Dell call center is in Texas, just talk about chili instead of curry.
Sys admins dealing with internal support calls have to deal with unruly and ignorant staff. They are actually skilled computer users trying to deal with computer lliterates that think they know more then the poor sys admins that are generally overworked and underpaid. Or even worse, sys admins trying to deal with know-it-at engineering geeks that can't believe they did anything that might cause their computer to stop working properly.
Anyways, the NUMBER 1 RULE for office staff is to TREAT YOUR SYS ADMIN like a GOD, and you will find your computer is ALWAYS working, ALWAYS up-to-date, and if you treat them really good, you might find yourself with a computer far better then even your boss's computer.
The one that comes out on top is the one where you go to a Best Buy or Circuit City and buy or go to Blockbuster and rent a movie, and don't care what media its on. It will also be the one that costs $15 per movie, not sold for some $40 premium price tag.
It will also be the first player to hit the sub $100 range. Anyone releasing a next-gen DVD player for more then $500 will fail to capture the market. Why should next-gen DVD players, with mostly the same components as a $50 DVD player cost 10 times more?
In any regard, I will wait a few years before rushing out and getting any next-gen DVD player, perhaps by then they will open up Digital Cable standards and build HDTV tuners into every television (rotflol!).
It would be different if the entire written works of history was condensed to fit on cell phones, and then DRM and licensing forced businesses to put a time limit on how long this content would last, thus causing the potential loss of all written works.
But we ARE talking about text messaging here. Do we really need to store "C U L8r" for ubiquity? I would say most text messages are inane and don't require to be stored for more then 40 seconds.
I think important works of literature will continue to be hard copied for a long time coming. Even if we adopt an all digital model for literature, it will only be once we can establish a form of digital storage that is impervious to loss, such as from the inability to access legacy data file formats, or by sabotage like by an electro-magnetic pulse in a war. But then, the digital era has the benefit of being able to store more copies of written work, thus protecting it from loss simply because of the number of copies that can be made and perpetuated, unlike a library of rare books where the contents get destroyed by fire and they are gone forever.
I actually think your completely wrong that this will un-invent writing. Considering that the original purpose of a phone was to TALK in order to communicate, cell phones have become devices to encourage written word, if in a hyper-condensed format that forgoes correct grammar and spelling.
Do I even have to mention the atrocities Microsoft has inflicted on the world? The only choice is Nintendo, at least they only exploit young children in China!
Sell the Dreamcast with 20 of its top games hard coded in it for about $20 and put it in a smaller redesigned system that makes it easier to connect to a home theater without being a permanent fixture.
Wait a minute, isn't that what they are doing with all those Atari/Activision retro joysticks that run on a couple of AA bateries and embed 20 classic games in a joystick that simply plugs into your aux video?
HDTV has been caught in a catch 22 for the last decade. Content providers don't want to invest the money converting their broadcasts to HD because the market of HDTV owners is small.
Consumers avoided buying HDTV's because there wasn't enough content.
So, who needs to initiate the HDTV revolution? Consumers or Content Providers?
Content providers should have taken the reins and initiated the HDTV revolution like 10 years ago. They should have started making all their content available in HD broadcasts, it is easy enough to down grade the HD content to standard def and put them on two different channels. Digital Cable has been around for over a decade allowing dual HD and standard def content. With content immediately available, consumers would have adopted HDTV sets more quickly and thus this technology would, by now, have been well underway to becoming a mature and successful implementation.
Instead, content providers are slowly rolling out content, and I have really only seen this year cable channels promoting their content in HDTV.
Also, why are HDTV's so expensive? LCD's and Plasma's are luxury items, but not the only technologies capaple of HD digital content. Anyone with a CRT computer monitor has been able to display HD content for over a decade, and CRT monitor resolutions exceed HD resolutions. There is no reason for CRT HDTV's to have been $5000 when they were first introduced, and still these televisions are over $600, when an equivalent sized standard television could be bought for $300.
Finally, its the greed of cable and satelite companies that has stagnated HDTV adoption. The requirement to buy or rent a digital cable terminal in order to view HDTV content is one reason why few people are adopting this technology. I don't want to buy a $4000 television and then another $150 - $500 for the "convertor" box. Cable companies need to OPEN UP digital cable broadcasts and allow ALL HDTV and SDTV's to be able to decipher cable content and HDTV content built-in, WITHOUT PAYING A PREMIUM. I know that many HDTV's are being built with ATSC tuners capable of over-the-air HDTV broadcasts, but cable companies do not allow 3rd party television makers to decipher the program guides and other features that made digital cable easy to use. Also, digital cable companies don't allow 3rd party PVR's to read HDTV and digital cable content, allowing for quicker adoption of HDTV technology by buying 3rd party devices with recording capabilities.
It is greed which is preventing HDTV from becoming a "must have" technology. Greed by the content providers by not investing in the conversion to HDTV broadcasts until there is a well established consumer base, and greed by the cable/satellite companies for not allowing ubiquitous HDTV technology adoption by allowing 3rd party companies from decoding and using digital cable and HDTV broadcasts. And ultimately, it is greed which is stagnating rollout because all companies involved CANNOT find an easy to implement solution that will prevent people from recording digital content and distributing it for free online.
I for one will continue to wait, patiently, until such a time where I can buy a HDTV set with built-in digital cable and ATSC tuners without the requirment of having a cable company box attached to my tv as well, and pay extra for HDTV content. I want a PVR that can use the same digital program guide that the cable boxes display to be able to select which shows I want to record WITHOUT having to buy the feature limited box from the cable companies. I want CHOICE in this industry, not force fed content and products at the discretion of greedy corporation who have been stalling adoption simply because can't find an easy way to protect content from being copied.
If your not getting software from big companies, then what software is he talking about?
Open source software? I mean, if he thinks things are left out of big company software, has he actually used open source software? Software developed by a bunch of independent people in a community environment isn't all that great. I find them to be adequate replacements of expensive proprietary software, but there is ALWAYS something lacking, some feature not yet implemented, or some functionatlity that doesn't quite work right, or just novel approaches to a solution that doesn't always seem well thought out. There is nothing wrong with Open source software, just that there isn't a more streamlined and obvious goal, it is perpetually developed on and so I find them to be in perpetual beta states. Open source software also suffers from the, "If I don't like it, I will write my own variant", so one product is split into multiple varients with difference in opinion of how things should be done. You can't solidify and industry when it is constantly evolveing apart from each other. If he doesn't like software from big companies where a team of 100 are working to the SAME goal, how can he like open source software where thousands are adding to it without direction?
What is left then? Shareware products or retail products by an individual or small company? While I will agree that software written by smaller teams of people tend to be more focused, this focus could have detrimental effects on the final product. Too often software by small companies focus on a few great features, but the other features, those taken for granted are lacking in skill or direction. Software from small companies do a few things very well, but generally lack in areas simply because they don't have enough manpower to consolidate the entire application into one great product. The reason why few shareware or small company software products seldom make a big impact in the industry simply is because of the fact they do a few things well, but are generally not great products in themselves. Generally these companies are absorbed by bigger companies, eventually, I have found few people want to struggle to work with a team of 10 people producing an underdog application when they are tossed millions to integrate their few good features into a larger retail product.
As for his dismissing Apple's products, from ALL of the big company software products out their, Apple is consistently good. There is a focus on consistency between product lines, and Apple has always focused on ease of use and streamlined operation. Sure, there are always a number of issues I have to scratch my head over and wonder why Apple either ignored some obvious solution, or is still offering a buggy feature that hasn't been fixed in 2 or 3 versions, but in general, from iTunes to OSX, I prever to use Apple products over Microsoft of Linux. When it comes to hardware, I think Apple needs to refocus on what PC users want so they can gain more marketshare in computer hardware, but from a software standpoing, Apple is rock solid.
But I also won't dismiss Microsoft's products either. Security issues asside, MS still creates software where features are always immediately available, they have perfected the task orientated methdology of software, when you perform an operation, the tools and UI widgets are immediately available streamlined for that operation. Windows Vista will introduce a new level of task based software interation that is unsurpassed by any other OS, which is why Windows consistenly remains the number one OS. If Windows wasn't making it braindead to use a PC, consumers would have revolted ages ago.
So, what has Woz done for us lately? Other then bitch about every software product and company out there, is he gearing up to offer us some new innovative application that is great? Or is he just worried that the industry is staring to forget about him and he needed to say something controversial comment to remain in the headlines. If big software doesn't work, then why is this industry so strong?
AJAX is NOT a Microsoft technology, in fact, AJAX isn't a specific technology, it's using a bunch of web technologies together (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AJAX).
It gets pretty funny when people jump on the bandwagon and flog Microsoft, without doing their homework first. Someone really wanted to criticize Microsoft, and just comes off as being ignorant of the technology they are criticizing.
I mean, this is rediculous, governments forcing companies to amend their products.
I am getting tired of the constand MS bashing. They are trying to create a product that is easy to use, and has all the features users need in today's OS. Security, media playback, and email/messaging are all features most users want in an OS. Most of MS's competitors don't offer as easy to use or feature rich products as MS has in the box, but even then, there are countless free and retail products that compete against MS OS features, all people have to do is look for them. This whole idea that customers are being tied down and forced to use MS products is rediculous and unfounded. MS has always supported competition, it IS and OS where you can install whatever software you like.
I am also tired of the double standard against MS. Apple installs iChat, iTunes, iPhoto, iMac, iDVD, Safari, Front Row, and a slew of other built-in features. Why isn't Apple being targeted by the EU and South Korea as well for anti-competitive behaviour. In the OSX market, few users are generally looking for solutions outside the many Apple offers pre-installed on every Mac computer, Apple at least has the benefit of creating OS add-ins that people want. Look at Linux and the fact countless gigabytes of GNU shareware is installed automatically by most distributions. It is actually confusing and difficult NOT to install a slew of utilities through most Linux installs.
I don't understand why MS simply doesn't tell the EU and South Korea to F*ck off. I mean, MS should at least make them aware that other competitor products like OSX and Linux don't have the same restrictions, and that if they insist on suing MS, then ALL OS'es sold in South Korea or the EU should have NO built-in functionality other then a file system.
In any regard, make a product that excels past what MS build into their OS, and people will get it and install it, government forcing consumers to buy a product devoid of features imposes on the rights of consumers to make their own choice about the products they can and can't buy.
Google's top rule "Don't Be Evil" only applies if its not in their best interest to be evil.
Look at the whole searching printed material fiasco they have gotten themselves into. They just went ahead and started making pages of printed material available online, without regard for the authors and publishers of those works. If Google truely WASN'T EVIL, then they would have sat down with the publishing industry, conveyed what they were trying to do, and work with the industry to create a solution that all would be happy with.
Communicate effectively? Only if you make them millions. My website was suddenly blocked from using Google's Ads. I was simply experimenting with them, figuring out how to get them into my webpage before it went live. Google claims that I was creating invalid click counts and barred my website from their program. When I tried to contact them to ask them to verify their decision and to explain how they felt I was violating their policy, they simply responded by sending me a link to their policy. When I felt I did not violate their policy, I was basically ignored from that point forward.\
Hire by committee. I know exactly how this works. First step, write a test to see if you know your stuff. While this may sound like a great concept in hiring practices, in truth their are many brilliant programmers out their that may not know exactly how to write a template C++ class or other trivial menial programming concepts. But, in reality, they have created astounding and well conceived application solutions from an almost intrinsic and intuitive knowledge of programming. Score badly on that test and you won't be talking to anyone else at Google, period. On the flip side, hiring people that score well on those tests mean they studied just before the test, or have enough book smarts to remember countless meaningless trivial tidbits, and then wonder why they can't program themselves out of a box or have one ounce of creativity.
Strive to reach consensus. The "many are smarter then the individual" myth. I don't know, its been my experience that the collective IQ of all society is 0. The larger the group of people involved in making the decision, the dumber the outcome. Look at US politics. George Bush elected a second time? Look at Candian Politics. Jean Cretien Liberal's lasted 13 years? This is because humans can't communicate effectively in a group and any important decision making gets lots in endless meetings, debates and discussions which starts to cloud the obvious decision. If this is how Google is doing business, then it explains why projects like GMail have been in a perpetual beta for over 2 years and they are falling behind other more innovative web mail solutions.
I don't like Google, period. They are quickly becoming a jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none company creating knee jerk reactionary services and spreading themselves out too thin. The bubble will burst once Google can no longer higher enough staff to work in each of the many many projects they have on the go. Eventually, as I said with Gmail falling behind Yahoo and other more innovative web email server solutions, Google will start to see the quality of those services suffer as users strive to find other more focused solutions by companies not interested in dominating the entire web experience.
Google is out to ensure that you have to pass through them to get anything done on the web. Anybody not realizing how monopolistic and dominating their goals are probably thinks Microsoft is a nice benevolent company creating good products. The only people that believe this tripe are Wall Street investors throwing billions at a company that really isn't doing anything other then organizing data other people have created.
Face it, developers only have a few months to really get a title ready for a new game console's release.
Even though they may have had development kits long before the actual hardware is ready, generally you have to be very conservative when releasing a new title for new hardware. You never know if specs will change, and if you focus too much on optimizing on the development platform, you may find the game unstable or unplayable on the release hardware. Developers were probably only given 3 - 6 months tops to actually test and tweak their games on the actual Xbox360 hardware, this is not enough time to truely create a game that takes advantage of everything the new console can offer.
2nd gen games for any new console are the ones developed entirely with the new hardware. These games are designed from the ground up to be optimized to run on actual release hardware. Game developers can then take months and even years to perfect a game on the system hardware, thus not cutting corners by trying to release a game in time of the game console release. 2nd gen games also benefit from the experience (and mistakes) made while developing the first round of games.
It isn't surprising that release titles are generally ports of previous-generation games, albeit with improved graphics and some showy features. But then, many release games are typically sports, 3rd person shooters and racing games because they are easy to develop quickly and generally never really need a lot of system specs to look good.
I would wait about 6 months for truely amazing games to be released for the Xbox360, I think the pre-holiday release was rushed, and game developers probably would have enjoyed at least 2 - 4 months of extra time to make their games really shine (instead of crashing).
Basically, unless you can hook up an oil drum full of ink beside an inkjet printer, these printers will never be business class.
Toners have like 5000 page output counts, inkjets are measured in 100's. Also, toners are easy to replace relative to inkjet cartridges.
Also consider that color laser printers have dropped to sub $400 range, and you can also buy B/W laser printers for the same price as this inkjet, laser printer no longer have the price premium associated with them.
There is a place for a "business" class inkjet, primarily if your a graphics designer looking to proof work quickly without setting up larger poster sized inkjet printers that use both expensive ink and media, but as a general office use printer, it is very hard pressed to recommend an inkjet.
I grow tired of these kinds of "studies", those that say drinking beer, wine, tea, coffee, coke, or even smoking have some benefits. Especially when they start saying that 1 or 2 cups or servings of someting will prevent something else.
These studies are generally aimed at foods or products that are generally considered to be unhealthy or otherwise, the people making these products are in a defensive position to try and validate their existence.
The problem is that there are those people just waiting for an excuse to over-indulge in these products. If drinking 2 cups of beer a day prevents cancer, then by drinking 12 I will live to 100, right?
Often people just read the caption without reading the entire article, or in many cases, the finer points of the study are excluded to a terse clipping of the conclusion without preventing the facts, those facts usually explaining how overindulgence could cause adverse medical problems. This is the case here in Slashdot where many people simply read the blurb without delving into the hyperlinked article.
Also, these studies are usually contradictory to other studies. Recently it was reported on Slashdot that drinking even one cup of coffee was linked to some kind of adverse health issue. The studies conflict each other, meaning that the truth of the matter is never effectively conveyed by both parties. People that love coffee will be quicker to believe that it is more beneficial to them then those that don't drink it, who would quote coffee is harmful to you.
Lastely, these studdies generally ignore other serious health issues that might go along with the consumption. Like the fact that most people take cream and sugar in their coffee. Many people in Canada love their double/doubles (2 creams and 2 sugars). This study suggests that drinking two cups of coffee a day has positive health effects, but for those that like cream and sugar in their coffee, this means drinking in addition to the coffee, one will consume 4 servings of high fat cream and 4 teaspoons of suger. The high fat in cream and excessive calories of the sugar are sure to be more harmful to your health then whatever positive effects the coffee may have on your health. Those that feel more is better will consume more high fat cream and high calorie sugars which will exponentially have a negative effect on their health, in addition to ignoring disclaimers by the study that too much coffee could have a detrimental effect.
Finally, there are those people who consider themselves well learned and so propose that its the caffine in coffee that is beneficial, so drinking a couple cups of cola should also be beneficial, or popping a couple of caffine pills or those high-caf beverages. The study mentions that drinking 2 cups of coffee or tea a day is beneficial, but the Slashdot article only says that Caffeine prevents liver disease, a discrepancy in the facts presented.
In any case, one should never blindly use these articles as an excuse to continue or start a bad habit. There are MANY healthy ways to prevent Liver Disease, drinking two cups of coffee a days to cure a hangover after consuming an excess of alcohol the previous night probably won't have a positive effect on your liver.
Teaching a person how to create an application WITHOUT programming skills is edging on insanity. Its like teaching a person how to gut the fish, without learning how to get the fish in the first place.
I found that an uncle of mine going through a VB course focused on this kind of approach, learning how to write an application without learning how to program. The problem is, anytime he came across a programming problem he had to solve, he phoned me up and asked me how the code should look. Without understanding the fundamentals of conditional statements, loops, and functions, few can really start to develop a useable application.
The fact is, if you want to do anything NOT mentioned in the book (i.e. anything the examples don't cover), your out of luck, because you will not have learned the necessary skills to find out how to do more then what the book mentions.
I would think this books sounds best for those familiar with programming, but NOT with the VB.Net 2005, for instance, those that are wondering what that new ToolStrip object does. It's designed as a refresher for those looking to understand what new features are and how to use them.
In any regard, VB is a good tool to be able to develop an application with MINIMAL programming skills, but I would be hard pressed to find someone actually wanting to design an application without some desire to understand how to do some basic programming. Anyone earning a paycheck by writing application swithout understanding how to program should seriously consider the morality of cashing his paycheck.
Most Apple consumers are those in the photography, video, and graphic artists fields. They REQUIRE function over form because they are paid to use these products. Its their livelyhood. What good is an application that looks good if it doesn't do as advertised or lacks features necessary to copmlete the job?
Apple messed up by trying to create a professional package that utilizes oversimplification to make it easy to use. Pro users are not the type of people that are impressed by a dumbing down of their profession. Aperture is iPhoto with RAW image support trying to mask itself as a pro-level tool.
Look, Adobe prefers function over form, if you have never used Photoshop good luck even trying to draw a square in the application and do simple things. Photoshop isn't designed for computer dummies, its designed as a professional tool for people that earn a living manipulating images and graphics. If Adobe turned Photoshop into MS Paint, there would be a professional boycott and outrage of their product.
True, graphic and design professionals want an easy to use computer, but NOT dumbed down applications. Apple appeals to them because they don't have to worry about how to setup and use their computer, they just install the tools they need and worry about getting the job done. If Apple insists on dumbing down their pro apps, they will lose their bread and butter market, those professionals that buy the expensive G5's who are largely the only reason why Apple exists today.
Mostly, Apple never really succeeds with first releases of their applications, hopefully they will realize that if professionals want to use Aperature as a pro-tool, in the next version they will focus on rock solid RAW support along with more robust and feature rich tools rather then superfluous fancy eye candy.
For now, Aperature is an expensive solution for those prosumers that dabble in photography as a passtime and don't want to learn how to use complicated solutions like Photoshop. But then, these people really don't need to delve into a photo and fix even the most minute details, so I fail to see what market Apple was targetting here.
Why there is no ubiquitous antispyware solution?
on
Antispyware Shootout
·
· Score: 1
Simply because there is no ubiquitous definition of what actually is spyware.
After playing around with a few of these products, particularily with MS Antispyware, it found a number of files that are NOT spyware on my computer. Our company writes software that uses an open source version of a VNC application to allow our tech support team to be able to see what a customer is doing on their desktop. It has proven to be a very effective support tool allowing us to quickly resolve customer calls. This IS NOT spyware, but MS decided that a competitive and free alternative to Remote Desktop may impose a security risk on other people's computers.
Likewise, our software uses an open-source version of a compression library to allow us to use compressed zip files in our software. Again, this library was reported as spyware by several products, mostly because it is believed that this library could be used to deliver trojan content by expanding a file after delivery. Again, this ISN'T spyware, its a valid tool.
Most people think ANY cookie used on their computer is spyware. They don't want any website storing information on their computer, even when this info is in no way harmful. Many people think that cookies on their computer store vital financial data and other private information, this is unfounded.
So, as a spyware removal tool, how do you treat these variations and grades of supposed spyware? Either you are too restrictive and annoying by announcing EVERYTHING is spyware, or your too liberal and don't catch ANYTHING.
Anti-spyware tools are a lot like politicians, you can be too left or too right, or even right down the middle, but the bottom line is that it takes a lot of them to inefficiently run a country.
I mean, throw the word Open in front of any technology or concept, and suddenly it becomes the buzz word of the year.
Open Document, Open Source, OpenGl, etc, etc, etc.
Open is associated with a kind of grassroots mentality that it is supposed to be good, beneficial, and highly desireably. In the business community, Wall Street suddenly throws money at any company that uses Open along with their technology.
While I agree that better interactivity with operating systems and software is beneficial, when it comes to document formats, I think people are being deluded into thinking that open documents are better.
WHY?
I mean, out of the dozen or so different word processors I have used over the years I have never had a problem openning up documents from one version to another. Most ALWAYS come with convertors of some sort, either converting old formats of the same application, or converting between different applications. It never seemed to me that there was a big problem converting different formats of documents between different applications, except back in the days when Apple documents had to be dramatically different then the PC equivalents for the same application.
I also didn't think it was that difficult to reverse engineer a Word or WordPerfect document to support it in your software. I mean, these docs are simply binary and un-encrypted in a highly structured format, it would take any average programmer a few days to figure out the document structure and come up with a convertor. There will ALWAYS be little incompatibilites between software, you can't include a feature of a document in your software from another application if you don't support the same feature set. Even Open documents will not resolve these issues.
I think the real issue is that those "open" office products no longer want to hassle with having to reverse engineer the next Word document version, or any other proprietary document format. I mean, companies really don't make money off of "open" products (they get their money for those Wall Street dolts deluded into thinking free software is the next big step in the software industry). So, why would someone developing an Open office want to waste time and money they will never recouperate programming support for proprietary formats?
Anyways, with MS going to an XML document base, it is moot to believe their is a need for an open document format. XML IS OPEN, I mean, its a text document in a highly structured standardized format. The tags might mean something different from document to document, but XML is inherently an even easier document format to reverse engineer. By MS going with XML, they are almost implicating that they don't care about proprietary documents anymore.
In any regard, I think we will see TWO Open document standards emerging, one from MS and one from the rest. So has anything really changed? No. Ten years from now, word processors will still happily and easily convert documents from one format to another with a minimum of hassle. It may not be a nice and ubiquitous why-can't-we-all-just-get-along document format, but then, 10 years from now I think the whole "Open" software initiative will be a fad that has either morphed into some new buzz word all encompassing concept, or is killed off once Wall Street realizes Open != profits.
CNN is too busy with doom and gloom to have realized that Front Row was released with thet last iMac update, a little over a month ago.
Second, Front Row is so far away from a media center computer, it isn't even funny. Pretty much its just a front end to iTunes, iDVD and iPhoto. Where is the PVR functionality? Where is the HomeTheater support (i.e. a computer that can output 5.1 Dolby Digital or DTS).
The 6 button remote is a joke too. What does Steve have against buttons? I mean, he dissed Microsoft's Media Center remote for having 43 buttons, but at least it actually WORKS like a home theater remote, allowing me to control DVD menus, access chapters quickly, as well as PVR buttons like record and such, and shortcut keys to get to different apps quickly.
This is classic Apple. They are slow to realize a market trend, quick to criticize others in the industry that beat them too the punch, and then finally introduce a product where their customers are screaming for so much more, and Apple ignores them yet touts it as the most innovative product on earth! Eventually Apple will succumb to customer demand and offer a more feature rich product and claim they thought about it first.
Apple should have realized a few years ago they are in a novel position to create the ultimate set top box. They have the ability to innovate new enclosures shrinking traditional computers to small form factors as well as combine state-of-the-art hardware and software with an eye for simplicity. After the success of the iPod, Apple really should have started focusing on consumer electronics rather then trying to remain a computer company. They will never capture more then 5 - 10% of the computer market. But they could easily become the next Sony (the Sony that USED to offer state-of-the-art well designed consumer electronic components that don't suck) and TIVO combined, as well as a hub for their iPod products. They should have had a network capable HTPC set-top box that is the hub of anyeverything media centric in the home that would blow Media Center out of the water.
But why don't they? Because of Steve Jobs. He believes that TV/PC integration is a fad that will never last. The idea of integrating home theater into a computer based component is just a pipe dream vision OTHER people are deluding themselves with. Yeah, just like PDA's and digital video players. I credit Steve for turning Apple around and making them the buzz word of the 21st centruy with the iPod, but he can (and I believe will) just as easily ruin this company.
Apple's few forays into media based products, outside the iPod, have failed. AirTunes is so feature lacking and unusable it isn't even funny. The fact you need an entire computer to change between songs smacks of a poorly conceived and a rushed product. People only buy these to extend their wireless coverage in their homes. The iPod, while wildly successful, lack WiFi or bluetooth connectivity, even though EVERY Apple computer integrates these features. More simplistic iPod connectivity would be welcomed, but obviously Apple is unaware of the need for it. Now Front Row is a knee jerk reaction to a realization that Media Center PC's are starting to become hot items. Steve is realizing that computers with HTPC functionallity can be sold at a premium without offering much more then the conventional computer, so rather then trying to undercut the market with cheaper computers, people are selling more feature rich computers at a premium price, and consumers are latching on to that concept. I could have developed Front Row in a month, by myself. Why Front Row wasn't offer with the original Mac Mini is beyond me. Again, Front Row seems to be a poorly conceived and rushed product that doesn't offer much.
Anyways, I would be the first in line if I could be if Apple came up with a REAL Media Center HTPC concept. I think they could really make a winner by integrating High Definition PVR support AND simple, clean GUI in a small wunder-PC box. Put an iPod do
Slashdot Mirror
Look, while anyone can grab a dictionary and find out the most commonly used letters in the English language, and then create an "optimal" keyboard layout, the problem is that this doesn't take into consideration trends in product branding or advertizing.
;.-> in the set), you pretty much have to learn how to make your keyboard layout more efficient. Mostly by breaking the "rules" introduced by touch typist.
Few would consider the letter X to be a popular character in the english language. Words containing the letter X are more rare then with the letter E or T, but look at the prevalence of X in products.
Xbox
OSX
XP
Matrox,
etc, etc, etc. Any keyboard layout using ONLY character frequency as its data for keyboard layout will fail as it can never take into consideration trends in society to suddenly focus on a specific letter or symbol.
Look at the @ symbol. Until email, few people would ever consider using @, in fact, I can't even remember why the symbol existed before email.
As a programmer, I really could care less what keyboard layout it used, none will ever truely cater to the specific needs of software developers. With a variety of both symbols and characters used with no such idea of character frequency (unless you start including
In the long run, I am actually quite surpised how many people are adept at figuring out how to hunt and peck at a keyboard without adopting any kind of typing style. In my office, probably only about 1/4 of the programming staff are actually touch typists, the rest hunt and peck, using 4 - 6 fingers at a time. Most people could care less about a formal approach to using a keyboard, so again, regardless of how the keyboard is layed out, it won't matter to a large number of computer users.
Finally, its the keyboard itself rather then the layout that causes the most grief. Laying out keys in straight rows without taking into consideration finger position and just plain biology. Your fingers form an arc, your middle fingers are longer then the outside ones, yet most keyboards are not optimise with this in mind, in terms of the physical placement. The only ergonmoic keyboard I have seen is one that bows into the desktop, keeping keys used by outside fingers shallow while those by middle fingers deeper. I would place more emphasis on ergonomic design rather then keyboard layout. Changing the layout on existing keyboards would do little to truely solve the problem of stress.
I have been wating to get my hands on some flexible ePaper type display. While I think this proposed technology won't be as high resolution or colourful as what we saw in Minority Report, the idea of a flexible digital display is pretty intriguing.
I do worry about the increased exposure to advertising it may imposed. Rather then walking down a grocery isle looking at static box images, now all the boxes are vying for your attention with captivating animations, and possibly even sound effects. Hey, with RFID tags, cereal boxes can be aware of their competitors nearby and start displaying smear campaigns against Captain Crunch or that silly rabit from Trix.
It could cause sensory overload, which actually might be good in a way. If an increased abundance of motion advertising causes people to start tuning them out, advertisers may have scale back tactics and reduce our exposure to advertising to make it more effective in general. I think we will be inidated with an increase in pervasive advertising for a little while before utlimately it is severly scaled back.
I would really like to combination of flexible ePaper with the ability of touch sensitive input. Buy one last sheet of paper to last you the rest of your life.
With a recent announcment of a flexible LCD screens, and the fact there isn't really any expensive materials used in these processes (plastic and some metal), I think we will be seeing thin and flexible displays sooner rather then later for both permanent and disposible displays.
I mean, this whole article reads as a joke?
Yahoo reports their competitor Google is entering into a partnership with Microsoft and Sun (two companies that have been feuding for the last decade). Microsoft cooperating with Google (or any company that isn't paying them licensing cheques)?
I'd check the credentials on this one.
PS2 was first and dominated that last gen market, but then, Sony had taken over the market with the PSOne long before MS decides to enter the fray.
Its about games, pure and simple. Xbox failed simply because there were not enough exclusive titles, and not any gaming franchises established to help drive console sales. I never bought an Xbox because I could get the same titles for my PS2. What few exclusive titles for the Xbox, like Halo, eventually made it to PC.
Micosoft is setting up the XBox360 for the same fall. The problem know is that many "new" Xbox360 games will also see Xbox and PS2 versions. Not just are there no exclusive titles, but these titles are not even respecting console generations, being downgraded to sell on previous generation consoles.
Again, why would I buy an Xbox360 when, for the time being, many of the popular titles will be released for the PS2 as well.
I am a gamer that prefers gameplay over style and graphics. If a game is fun to play and entertaining for a long time, I could care less if the 3D graphics are not cinematic quality. I won't pay $400 to play a $40 game I could get for a system I already own.
If MS thinks that by getting there first is going to make the Xbox360 shine, then they will loose once again to gain market share. Without exclusive titles, and allowing game developers to release games for other platforms AND older generations, Microsoft is doing nothing to spur sales of Xbox360 hardware.
Sony has a number of platform specific titles that don't exist on any other platform, and I am sure when the PS3 is released, they won't be releasing the same games for the PS2. This is still why the PS3 will outsell the Xbox360, because MS inisist on whoring themselves and their game developers to anyone willing to buy a license, rather then forcing stronger commitments from game developers for exclusive titles.
Linux would boot on a toaster if someone put their mind to it. This is probably the one saving grace of Linux is its ease of being embedded in just about anything with a micro-controller in it.
The problem is that while there is usually a huge drive to get something to boot linux, once it finally does there is less enthusiasm and patience into turning into a viable comercial product.
Its the hobby like nature of Linux which is also its Achillies Heel. A lot of enthusiasm can be generated pretty quickly, but also be deflated just as easily. Making something boot with Linux is far easier then making it stable and supporting it fully. For instance, take the idea of booting the iPod with Linux. It's a great idea, especially considering you can then support ANY file format on the cool iPod, but after about 2 years they still are not any closer to making it a usuable product. As each new generation of iPod comes out with new features, the idea of a linux distro for the iPod platform drifts further and further away as less people focus on trying to support new features with the iPod linux build.
So, in the end, getting Linux to boot a Treo isn't ground breaking or earth shattering. I doubt any real product will arise from this and offer an alternative to the retail OS that ships with it. Eventually they will find it difficult to support all the features of the Treo and more and more people will drift away from the project in favour of booting linux on the next gimmick or fad product that hits the market.
Buy a $50 UPS Battery backup power supply. Some now come in the form of a surge protection power bar. When a power outage occurs, they force your computer to shut down gracefully thus preventing system crashes.
But in reality, there is little you can do to prevent Windows, or ANY other OS out there from becoming corrupted after a power outage, this isn't an XP only situation. If your hard drive was in the process of writing data, especially if it was transfering cached data from virtual memory, then there is not much you can do to prevent an OS from becoming corrupted after a power outage. I have to day thought that I have never had any significant OS problems with Windows after blackouts on my home computer.
By getting an uninteruptable power supply, you can aleviate the nightmares that can occur if a computer loses power unexpectedly. Or, get into the habit of shutting down your computer when not in use, so that when power outages occur, there is less chance for your computer to become corrupted simply because you didn't want to shutdown the computer when you were done using it.
Tech support is a whole different ball of wax, and I am afraid many of you are confusing what the top 10 list was implying.
Sys admins are internel tech support, for users within an office. We are not talking about technical support in general, calling outside of the office.
The difference is that external tech support staff are truely idiots (sorry, its true), reading knowledge base screens you could access yourself online and doing very little to actually resolve your problems. These people are not highly educated, trained, or knowledgable about the products they are supporting. How else could a call center in India deal with a product made and sold entirely in North America? Most call center staff in India have neverever seen a computer outside of work. You would be better off discussing what spices to use in your favourite curry over how to get a Dell computer up and running after installing a corrupted Windows XP DLL driver. Same goes true if the Dell call center is in Texas, just talk about chili instead of curry.
Sys admins dealing with internal support calls have to deal with unruly and ignorant staff. They are actually skilled computer users trying to deal with computer lliterates that think they know more then the poor sys admins that are generally overworked and underpaid. Or even worse, sys admins trying to deal with know-it-at engineering geeks that can't believe they did anything that might cause their computer to stop working properly.
Anyways, the NUMBER 1 RULE for office staff is to TREAT YOUR SYS ADMIN like a GOD, and you will find your computer is ALWAYS working, ALWAYS up-to-date, and if you treat them really good, you might find yourself with a computer far better then even your boss's computer.
The one that comes out on top is the one where you go to a Best Buy or Circuit City and buy or go to Blockbuster and rent a movie, and don't care what media its on. It will also be the one that costs $15 per movie, not sold for some $40 premium price tag.
It will also be the first player to hit the sub $100 range. Anyone releasing a next-gen DVD player for more then $500 will fail to capture the market. Why should next-gen DVD players, with mostly the same components as a $50 DVD player cost 10 times more?
In any regard, I will wait a few years before rushing out and getting any next-gen DVD player, perhaps by then they will open up Digital Cable standards and build HDTV tuners into every television (rotflol!).
Um, relax!
It would be different if the entire written works of history was condensed to fit on cell phones, and then DRM and licensing forced businesses to put a time limit on how long this content would last, thus causing the potential loss of all written works.
But we ARE talking about text messaging here. Do we really need to store "C U L8r" for ubiquity? I would say most text messages are inane and don't require to be stored for more then 40 seconds.
I think important works of literature will continue to be hard copied for a long time coming. Even if we adopt an all digital model for literature, it will only be once we can establish a form of digital storage that is impervious to loss, such as from the inability to access legacy data file formats, or by sabotage like by an electro-magnetic pulse in a war. But then, the digital era has the benefit of being able to store more copies of written work, thus protecting it from loss simply because of the number of copies that can be made and perpetuated, unlike a library of rare books where the contents get destroyed by fire and they are gone forever.
I actually think your completely wrong that this will un-invent writing. Considering that the original purpose of a phone was to TALK in order to communicate, cell phones have become devices to encourage written word, if in a hyper-condensed format that forgoes correct grammar and spelling.
Do I even have to mention the atrocities Microsoft has inflicted on the world? The only choice is Nintendo, at least they only exploit young children in China!
Sell the Dreamcast with 20 of its top games hard coded in it for about $20 and put it in a smaller redesigned system that makes it easier to connect to a home theater without being a permanent fixture.
Wait a minute, isn't that what they are doing with all those Atari/Activision retro joysticks that run on a couple of AA bateries and embed 20 classic games in a joystick that simply plugs into your aux video?
. . . Yeah, I don't see the point either.
HDTV has been caught in a catch 22 for the last decade. Content providers don't want to invest the money converting their broadcasts to HD because the market of HDTV owners is small.
Consumers avoided buying HDTV's because there wasn't enough content.
So, who needs to initiate the HDTV revolution? Consumers or Content Providers?
Content providers should have taken the reins and initiated the HDTV revolution like 10 years ago. They should have started making all their content available in HD broadcasts, it is easy enough to down grade the HD content to standard def and put them on two different channels. Digital Cable has been around for over a decade allowing dual HD and standard def content. With content immediately available, consumers would have adopted HDTV sets more quickly and thus this technology would, by now, have been well underway to becoming a mature and successful implementation.
Instead, content providers are slowly rolling out content, and I have really only seen this year cable channels promoting their content in HDTV.
Also, why are HDTV's so expensive? LCD's and Plasma's are luxury items, but not the only technologies capaple of HD digital content. Anyone with a CRT computer monitor has been able to display HD content for over a decade, and CRT monitor resolutions exceed HD resolutions. There is no reason for CRT HDTV's to have been $5000 when they were first introduced, and still these televisions are over $600, when an equivalent sized standard television could be bought for $300.
Finally, its the greed of cable and satelite companies that has stagnated HDTV adoption. The requirement to buy or rent a digital cable terminal in order to view HDTV content is one reason why few people are adopting this technology. I don't want to buy a $4000 television and then another $150 - $500 for the "convertor" box. Cable companies need to OPEN UP digital cable broadcasts and allow ALL HDTV and SDTV's to be able to decipher cable content and HDTV content built-in, WITHOUT PAYING A PREMIUM. I know that many HDTV's are being built with ATSC tuners capable of over-the-air HDTV broadcasts, but cable companies do not allow 3rd party television makers to decipher the program guides and other features that made digital cable easy to use. Also, digital cable companies don't allow 3rd party PVR's to read HDTV and digital cable content, allowing for quicker adoption of HDTV technology by buying 3rd party devices with recording capabilities.
It is greed which is preventing HDTV from becoming a "must have" technology. Greed by the content providers by not investing in the conversion to HDTV broadcasts until there is a well established consumer base, and greed by the cable/satellite companies for not allowing ubiquitous HDTV technology adoption by allowing 3rd party companies from decoding and using digital cable and HDTV broadcasts. And ultimately, it is greed which is stagnating rollout because all companies involved CANNOT find an easy to implement solution that will prevent people from recording digital content and distributing it for free online.
I for one will continue to wait, patiently, until such a time where I can buy a HDTV set with built-in digital cable and ATSC tuners without the requirment of having a cable company box attached to my tv as well, and pay extra for HDTV content. I want a PVR that can use the same digital program guide that the cable boxes display to be able to select which shows I want to record WITHOUT having to buy the feature limited box from the cable companies. I want CHOICE in this industry, not force fed content and products at the discretion of greedy corporation who have been stalling adoption simply because can't find an easy way to protect content from being copied.
If your not getting software from big companies, then what software is he talking about?
Open source software? I mean, if he thinks things are left out of big company software, has he actually used open source software? Software developed by a bunch of independent people in a community environment isn't all that great. I find them to be adequate replacements of expensive proprietary software, but there is ALWAYS something lacking, some feature not yet implemented, or some functionatlity that doesn't quite work right, or just novel approaches to a solution that doesn't always seem well thought out. There is nothing wrong with Open source software, just that there isn't a more streamlined and obvious goal, it is perpetually developed on and so I find them to be in perpetual beta states. Open source software also suffers from the, "If I don't like it, I will write my own variant", so one product is split into multiple varients with difference in opinion of how things should be done. You can't solidify and industry when it is constantly evolveing apart from each other. If he doesn't like software from big companies where a team of 100 are working to the SAME goal, how can he like open source software where thousands are adding to it without direction?
What is left then? Shareware products or retail products by an individual or small company? While I will agree that software written by smaller teams of people tend to be more focused, this focus could have detrimental effects on the final product. Too often software by small companies focus on a few great features, but the other features, those taken for granted are lacking in skill or direction. Software from small companies do a few things very well, but generally lack in areas simply because they don't have enough manpower to consolidate the entire application into one great product. The reason why few shareware or small company software products seldom make a big impact in the industry simply is because of the fact they do a few things well, but are generally not great products in themselves. Generally these companies are absorbed by bigger companies, eventually, I have found few people want to struggle to work with a team of 10 people producing an underdog application when they are tossed millions to integrate their few good features into a larger retail product.
As for his dismissing Apple's products, from ALL of the big company software products out their, Apple is consistently good. There is a focus on consistency between product lines, and Apple has always focused on ease of use and streamlined operation. Sure, there are always a number of issues I have to scratch my head over and wonder why Apple either ignored some obvious solution, or is still offering a buggy feature that hasn't been fixed in 2 or 3 versions, but in general, from iTunes to OSX, I prever to use Apple products over Microsoft of Linux. When it comes to hardware, I think Apple needs to refocus on what PC users want so they can gain more marketshare in computer hardware, but from a software standpoing, Apple is rock solid.
But I also won't dismiss Microsoft's products either. Security issues asside, MS still creates software where features are always immediately available, they have perfected the task orientated methdology of software, when you perform an operation, the tools and UI widgets are immediately available streamlined for that operation. Windows Vista will introduce a new level of task based software interation that is unsurpassed by any other OS, which is why Windows consistenly remains the number one OS. If Windows wasn't making it braindead to use a PC, consumers would have revolted ages ago.
So, what has Woz done for us lately? Other then bitch about every software product and company out there, is he gearing up to offer us some new innovative application that is great? Or is he just worried that the industry is staring to forget about him and he needed to say something controversial comment to remain in the headlines. If big software doesn't work, then why is this industry so strong?
In Microsoft's labs working out the kinks they should have solved before shipping it in the first place.
I.e. don't be sad you can't get the Xbox360, chances are by the time you get one, it will be version 2.0 of the device that actually works.
AJAX is NOT a Microsoft technology, in fact, AJAX isn't a specific technology, it's using a bunch of web technologies together (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AJAX).
It gets pretty funny when people jump on the bandwagon and flog Microsoft, without doing their homework first. Someone really wanted to criticize Microsoft, and just comes off as being ignorant of the technology they are criticizing.
I mean, this is rediculous, governments forcing companies to amend their products.
I am getting tired of the constand MS bashing. They are trying to create a product that is easy to use, and has all the features users need in today's OS. Security, media playback, and email/messaging are all features most users want in an OS. Most of MS's competitors don't offer as easy to use or feature rich products as MS has in the box, but even then, there are countless free and retail products that compete against MS OS features, all people have to do is look for them. This whole idea that customers are being tied down and forced to use MS products is rediculous and unfounded. MS has always supported competition, it IS and OS where you can install whatever software you like.
I am also tired of the double standard against MS. Apple installs iChat, iTunes, iPhoto, iMac, iDVD, Safari, Front Row, and a slew of other built-in features. Why isn't Apple being targeted by the EU and South Korea as well for anti-competitive behaviour. In the OSX market, few users are generally looking for solutions outside the many Apple offers pre-installed on every Mac computer, Apple at least has the benefit of creating OS add-ins that people want. Look at Linux and the fact countless gigabytes of GNU shareware is installed automatically by most distributions. It is actually confusing and difficult NOT to install a slew of utilities through most Linux installs.
I don't understand why MS simply doesn't tell the EU and South Korea to F*ck off. I mean, MS should at least make them aware that other competitor products like OSX and Linux don't have the same restrictions, and that if they insist on suing MS, then ALL OS'es sold in South Korea or the EU should have NO built-in functionality other then a file system.
In any regard, make a product that excels past what MS build into their OS, and people will get it and install it, government forcing consumers to buy a product devoid of features imposes on the rights of consumers to make their own choice about the products they can and can't buy.
Governments should keep their noses out of it.
Google's top rule "Don't Be Evil" only applies if its not in their best interest to be evil.
Look at the whole searching printed material fiasco they have gotten themselves into. They just went ahead and started making pages of printed material available online, without regard for the authors and publishers of those works. If Google truely WASN'T EVIL, then they would have sat down with the publishing industry, conveyed what they were trying to do, and work with the industry to create a solution that all would be happy with.
Communicate effectively? Only if you make them millions. My website was suddenly blocked from using Google's Ads. I was simply experimenting with them, figuring out how to get them into my webpage before it went live. Google claims that I was creating invalid click counts and barred my website from their program. When I tried to contact them to ask them to verify their decision and to explain how they felt I was violating their policy, they simply responded by sending me a link to their policy. When I felt I did not violate their policy, I was basically ignored from that point forward.\
Hire by committee. I know exactly how this works. First step, write a test to see if you know your stuff. While this may sound like a great concept in hiring practices, in truth their are many brilliant programmers out their that may not know exactly how to write a template C++ class or other trivial menial programming concepts. But, in reality, they have created astounding and well conceived application solutions from an almost intrinsic and intuitive knowledge of programming. Score badly on that test and you won't be talking to anyone else at Google, period. On the flip side, hiring people that score well on those tests mean they studied just before the test, or have enough book smarts to remember countless meaningless trivial tidbits, and then wonder why they can't program themselves out of a box or have one ounce of creativity.
Strive to reach consensus. The "many are smarter then the individual" myth. I don't know, its been my experience that the collective IQ of all society is 0. The larger the group of people involved in making the decision, the dumber the outcome. Look at US politics. George Bush elected a second time? Look at Candian Politics. Jean Cretien Liberal's lasted 13 years? This is because humans can't communicate effectively in a group and any important decision making gets lots in endless meetings, debates and discussions which starts to cloud the obvious decision. If this is how Google is doing business, then it explains why projects like GMail have been in a perpetual beta for over 2 years and they are falling behind other more innovative web mail solutions.
I don't like Google, period. They are quickly becoming a jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none company creating knee jerk reactionary services and spreading themselves out too thin. The bubble will burst once Google can no longer higher enough staff to work in each of the many many projects they have on the go. Eventually, as I said with Gmail falling behind Yahoo and other more innovative web email server solutions, Google will start to see the quality of those services suffer as users strive to find other more focused solutions by companies not interested in dominating the entire web experience.
Google is out to ensure that you have to pass through them to get anything done on the web. Anybody not realizing how monopolistic and dominating their goals are probably thinks Microsoft is a nice benevolent company creating good products. The only people that believe this tripe are Wall Street investors throwing billions at a company that really isn't doing anything other then organizing data other people have created.
Face it, developers only have a few months to really get a title ready for a new game console's release.
Even though they may have had development kits long before the actual hardware is ready, generally you have to be very conservative when releasing a new title for new hardware. You never know if specs will change, and if you focus too much on optimizing on the development platform, you may find the game unstable or unplayable on the release hardware. Developers were probably only given 3 - 6 months tops to actually test and tweak their games on the actual Xbox360 hardware, this is not enough time to truely create a game that takes advantage of everything the new console can offer.
2nd gen games for any new console are the ones developed entirely with the new hardware. These games are designed from the ground up to be optimized to run on actual release hardware. Game developers can then take months and even years to perfect a game on the system hardware, thus not cutting corners by trying to release a game in time of the game console release. 2nd gen games also benefit from the experience (and mistakes) made while developing the first round of games.
It isn't surprising that release titles are generally ports of previous-generation games, albeit with improved graphics and some showy features. But then, many release games are typically sports, 3rd person shooters and racing games because they are easy to develop quickly and generally never really need a lot of system specs to look good.
I would wait about 6 months for truely amazing games to be released for the Xbox360, I think the pre-holiday release was rushed, and game developers probably would have enjoyed at least 2 - 4 months of extra time to make their games really shine (instead of crashing).
Basically, unless you can hook up an oil drum full of ink beside an inkjet printer, these printers will never be business class.
Toners have like 5000 page output counts, inkjets are measured in 100's. Also, toners are easy to replace relative to inkjet cartridges.
Also consider that color laser printers have dropped to sub $400 range, and you can also buy B/W laser printers for the same price as this inkjet, laser printer no longer have the price premium associated with them.
There is a place for a "business" class inkjet, primarily if your a graphics designer looking to proof work quickly without setting up larger poster sized inkjet printers that use both expensive ink and media, but as a general office use printer, it is very hard pressed to recommend an inkjet.
I grow tired of these kinds of "studies", those that say drinking beer, wine, tea, coffee, coke, or even smoking have some benefits. Especially when they start saying that 1 or 2 cups or servings of someting will prevent something else.
These studies are generally aimed at foods or products that are generally considered to be unhealthy or otherwise, the people making these products are in a defensive position to try and validate their existence.
The problem is that there are those people just waiting for an excuse to over-indulge in these products. If drinking 2 cups of beer a day prevents cancer, then by drinking 12 I will live to 100, right?
Often people just read the caption without reading the entire article, or in many cases, the finer points of the study are excluded to a terse clipping of the conclusion without preventing the facts, those facts usually explaining how overindulgence could cause adverse medical problems. This is the case here in Slashdot where many people simply read the blurb without delving into the hyperlinked article.
Also, these studies are usually contradictory to other studies. Recently it was reported on Slashdot that drinking even one cup of coffee was linked to some kind of adverse health issue. The studies conflict each other, meaning that the truth of the matter is never effectively conveyed by both parties. People that love coffee will be quicker to believe that it is more beneficial to them then those that don't drink it, who would quote coffee is harmful to you.
Lastely, these studdies generally ignore other serious health issues that might go along with the consumption. Like the fact that most people take cream and sugar in their coffee. Many people in Canada love their double/doubles (2 creams and 2 sugars). This study suggests that drinking two cups of coffee a day has positive health effects, but for those that like cream and sugar in their coffee, this means drinking in addition to the coffee, one will consume 4 servings of high fat cream and 4 teaspoons of suger. The high fat in cream and excessive calories of the sugar are sure to be more harmful to your health then whatever positive effects the coffee may have on your health. Those that feel more is better will consume more high fat cream and high calorie sugars which will exponentially have a negative effect on their health, in addition to ignoring disclaimers by the study that too much coffee could have a detrimental effect.
Finally, there are those people who consider themselves well learned and so propose that its the caffine in coffee that is beneficial, so drinking a couple cups of cola should also be beneficial, or popping a couple of caffine pills or those high-caf beverages. The study mentions that drinking 2 cups of coffee or tea a day is beneficial, but the Slashdot article only says that Caffeine prevents liver disease, a discrepancy in the facts presented.
In any case, one should never blindly use these articles as an excuse to continue or start a bad habit. There are MANY healthy ways to prevent Liver Disease, drinking two cups of coffee a days to cure a hangover after consuming an excess of alcohol the previous night probably won't have a positive effect on your liver.
Teaching a person how to create an application WITHOUT programming skills is edging on insanity. Its like teaching a person how to gut the fish, without learning how to get the fish in the first place.
I found that an uncle of mine going through a VB course focused on this kind of approach, learning how to write an application without learning how to program. The problem is, anytime he came across a programming problem he had to solve, he phoned me up and asked me how the code should look. Without understanding the fundamentals of conditional statements, loops, and functions, few can really start to develop a useable application.
The fact is, if you want to do anything NOT mentioned in the book (i.e. anything the examples don't cover), your out of luck, because you will not have learned the necessary skills to find out how to do more then what the book mentions.
I would think this books sounds best for those familiar with programming, but NOT with the VB.Net 2005, for instance, those that are wondering what that new ToolStrip object does. It's designed as a refresher for those looking to understand what new features are and how to use them.
In any regard, VB is a good tool to be able to develop an application with MINIMAL programming skills, but I would be hard pressed to find someone actually wanting to design an application without some desire to understand how to do some basic programming. Anyone earning a paycheck by writing application swithout understanding how to program should seriously consider the morality of cashing his paycheck.
Most Apple consumers are those in the photography, video, and graphic artists fields. They REQUIRE function over form because they are paid to use these products. Its their livelyhood. What good is an application that looks good if it doesn't do as advertised or lacks features necessary to copmlete the job?
Apple messed up by trying to create a professional package that utilizes oversimplification to make it easy to use. Pro users are not the type of people that are impressed by a dumbing down of their profession. Aperture is iPhoto with RAW image support trying to mask itself as a pro-level tool.
Look, Adobe prefers function over form, if you have never used Photoshop good luck even trying to draw a square in the application and do simple things. Photoshop isn't designed for computer dummies, its designed as a professional tool for people that earn a living manipulating images and graphics. If Adobe turned Photoshop into MS Paint, there would be a professional boycott and outrage of their product.
True, graphic and design professionals want an easy to use computer, but NOT dumbed down applications. Apple appeals to them because they don't have to worry about how to setup and use their computer, they just install the tools they need and worry about getting the job done. If Apple insists on dumbing down their pro apps, they will lose their bread and butter market, those professionals that buy the expensive G5's who are largely the only reason why Apple exists today.
Mostly, Apple never really succeeds with first releases of their applications, hopefully they will realize that if professionals want to use Aperature as a pro-tool, in the next version they will focus on rock solid RAW support along with more robust and feature rich tools rather then superfluous fancy eye candy.
For now, Aperature is an expensive solution for those prosumers that dabble in photography as a passtime and don't want to learn how to use complicated solutions like Photoshop. But then, these people really don't need to delve into a photo and fix even the most minute details, so I fail to see what market Apple was targetting here.
Simply because there is no ubiquitous definition of what actually is spyware.
After playing around with a few of these products, particularily with MS Antispyware, it found a number of files that are NOT spyware on my computer. Our company writes software that uses an open source version of a VNC application to allow our tech support team to be able to see what a customer is doing on their desktop. It has proven to be a very effective support tool allowing us to quickly resolve customer calls. This IS NOT spyware, but MS decided that a competitive and free alternative to Remote Desktop may impose a security risk on other people's computers.
Likewise, our software uses an open-source version of a compression library to allow us to use compressed zip files in our software. Again, this library was reported as spyware by several products, mostly because it is believed that this library could be used to deliver trojan content by expanding a file after delivery. Again, this ISN'T spyware, its a valid tool.
Most people think ANY cookie used on their computer is spyware. They don't want any website storing information on their computer, even when this info is in no way harmful. Many people think that cookies on their computer store vital financial data and other private information, this is unfounded.
So, as a spyware removal tool, how do you treat these variations and grades of supposed spyware? Either you are too restrictive and annoying by announcing EVERYTHING is spyware, or your too liberal and don't catch ANYTHING.
Anti-spyware tools are a lot like politicians, you can be too left or too right, or even right down the middle, but the bottom line is that it takes a lot of them to inefficiently run a country.
I mean, throw the word Open in front of any technology or concept, and suddenly it becomes the buzz word of the year.
Open Document, Open Source, OpenGl, etc, etc, etc.
Open is associated with a kind of grassroots mentality that it is supposed to be good, beneficial, and highly desireably. In the business community, Wall Street suddenly throws money at any company that uses Open along with their technology.
While I agree that better interactivity with operating systems and software is beneficial, when it comes to document formats, I think people are being deluded into thinking that open documents are better.
WHY?
I mean, out of the dozen or so different word processors I have used over the years I have never had a problem openning up documents from one version to another. Most ALWAYS come with convertors of some sort, either converting old formats of the same application, or converting between different applications. It never seemed to me that there was a big problem converting different formats of documents between different applications, except back in the days when Apple documents had to be dramatically different then the PC equivalents for the same application.
I also didn't think it was that difficult to reverse engineer a Word or WordPerfect document to support it in your software. I mean, these docs are simply binary and un-encrypted in a highly structured format, it would take any average programmer a few days to figure out the document structure and come up with a convertor. There will ALWAYS be little incompatibilites between software, you can't include a feature of a document in your software from another application if you don't support the same feature set. Even Open documents will not resolve these issues.
I think the real issue is that those "open" office products no longer want to hassle with having to reverse engineer the next Word document version, or any other proprietary document format. I mean, companies really don't make money off of "open" products (they get their money for those Wall Street dolts deluded into thinking free software is the next big step in the software industry). So, why would someone developing an Open office want to waste time and money they will never recouperate programming support for proprietary formats?
Anyways, with MS going to an XML document base, it is moot to believe their is a need for an open document format. XML IS OPEN, I mean, its a text document in a highly structured standardized format. The tags might mean something different from document to document, but XML is inherently an even easier document format to reverse engineer. By MS going with XML, they are almost implicating that they don't care about proprietary documents anymore.
In any regard, I think we will see TWO Open document standards emerging, one from MS and one from the rest. So has anything really changed? No. Ten years from now, word processors will still happily and easily convert documents from one format to another with a minimum of hassle. It may not be a nice and ubiquitous why-can't-we-all-just-get-along document format, but then, 10 years from now I think the whole "Open" software initiative will be a fad that has either morphed into some new buzz word all encompassing concept, or is killed off once Wall Street realizes Open != profits.
CNN is too busy with doom and gloom to have realized that Front Row was released with thet last iMac update, a little over a month ago.
Second, Front Row is so far away from a media center computer, it isn't even funny. Pretty much its just a front end to iTunes, iDVD and iPhoto. Where is the PVR functionality? Where is the HomeTheater support (i.e. a computer that can output 5.1 Dolby Digital or DTS).
The 6 button remote is a joke too. What does Steve have against buttons? I mean, he dissed Microsoft's Media Center remote for having 43 buttons, but at least it actually WORKS like a home theater remote, allowing me to control DVD menus, access chapters quickly, as well as PVR buttons like record and such, and shortcut keys to get to different apps quickly.
This is classic Apple. They are slow to realize a market trend, quick to criticize others in the industry that beat them too the punch, and then finally introduce a product where their customers are screaming for so much more, and Apple ignores them yet touts it as the most innovative product on earth! Eventually Apple will succumb to customer demand and offer a more feature rich product and claim they thought about it first.
Apple should have realized a few years ago they are in a novel position to create the ultimate set top box. They have the ability to innovate new enclosures shrinking traditional computers to small form factors as well as combine state-of-the-art hardware and software with an eye for simplicity. After the success of the iPod, Apple really should have started focusing on consumer electronics rather then trying to remain a computer company. They will never capture more then 5 - 10% of the computer market. But they could easily become the next Sony (the Sony that USED to offer state-of-the-art well designed consumer electronic components that don't suck) and TIVO combined, as well as a hub for their iPod products. They should have had a network capable HTPC set-top box that is the hub of anyeverything media centric in the home that would blow Media Center out of the water.
But why don't they? Because of Steve Jobs. He believes that TV/PC integration is a fad that will never last. The idea of integrating home theater into a computer based component is just a pipe dream vision OTHER people are deluding themselves with. Yeah, just like PDA's and digital video players. I credit Steve for turning Apple around and making them the buzz word of the 21st centruy with the iPod, but he can (and I believe will) just as easily ruin this company.
Apple's few forays into media based products, outside the iPod, have failed. AirTunes is so feature lacking and unusable it isn't even funny. The fact you need an entire computer to change between songs smacks of a poorly conceived and a rushed product. People only buy these to extend their wireless coverage in their homes. The iPod, while wildly successful, lack WiFi or bluetooth connectivity, even though EVERY Apple computer integrates these features. More simplistic iPod connectivity would be welcomed, but obviously Apple is unaware of the need for it. Now Front Row is a knee jerk reaction to a realization that Media Center PC's are starting to become hot items. Steve is realizing that computers with HTPC functionallity can be sold at a premium without offering much more then the conventional computer, so rather then trying to undercut the market with cheaper computers, people are selling more feature rich computers at a premium price, and consumers are latching on to that concept. I could have developed Front Row in a month, by myself. Why Front Row wasn't offer with the original Mac Mini is beyond me. Again, Front Row seems to be a poorly conceived and rushed product that doesn't offer much.
Anyways, I would be the first in line if I could be if Apple came up with a REAL Media Center HTPC concept. I think they could really make a winner by integrating High Definition PVR support AND simple, clean GUI in a small wunder-PC box. Put an iPod do