In that case, why would the other high end mactops have higher resolution displays too? I think it's probably just a cost saving measure. Incidentally it's the only reason I didn't buy an MBA a few years ago too. I waited for Ultrabooks with better displays to come along.
His reasoning was that the display was larger because: "the Macbook Air is a specialist laptop specifically designed to be smaller, thinner and lighter". It made no sense.
The 11" Air has a 1366x768 display, while the 8" iPad mini has a 2048x1536 display. They're not really used for wildly "different things" either.
Well, exactly. Those would work okay as monitors, and just maybe playing movies with poor colour reproduction etc. But I'd rather spend £800 on a well-refined 1080p display.
the Macbook Air is a specialist laptop specifically designed to be smaller, thinner and lighter. Apple has lots of laptops with 2560x1600 resolution, you just chose one designed for a different purpose.
Why do so many tablets have a higher resolution (and probably higher quality) display than the Air then? Even the iPad Mini has a higher resolution.
I'll start to be interested in 4K when there are cheap devices, displays and content worthy of driving a 4K display.
Until home consoles are rendering 4K@60 frames per second comfortably across all games, or super-mega-ultra-duper-bluray is becomes mainstream, I doubt your average joe will really care. Current generation consoles can't even do 1080p at decent framerates across all games. Though blu-ray is pretty nice.
What is described in the summary isn't "impossible" at all. It doesn't say it has to delivery 100% security. This system itself will probably introduce some nice new vectors of attack too.
If I thought it was okay, would I be letting everyone know about software to make things usable again? IMO it's the best option for anyone who doesn't have a spare copy of Windows 7.
Just saying "you should not have to do that" doesn't solve the immediate problem.
Actually I kind of liked NT/2000/XP. 7 is pretty good too. I did prefer Mac OS and Amiga Workbench back in '98. These days I'm not sure I care anymore. Windows, OSX, various Linux distros, mobile interfaces etc are all "good enough".
If this process ever reaches critical mass, schools will no longer have teachers, and corporations will have complete control over education.
You mean like how the paper industry has control over everything that is ever written anywhere? Or how companies that manufacture motherboards are controlling the video games industry?
Actually not that close.. the majority of my friends do Parkour, which is a sport that requires basically no equipment, and so is a good choice for people who don't have much money. They either are students working part time, or doing arts/creative type work that doesn't pay that well either. I may have been exaggerating slightly with the "everyone" bit, but I'm surprised sometimes at the people who have expensive smartphones.
A few years ago these same types of people all seemed to have iPhones (this time it's not an exaggeration). At that point it seemed more of a status symbol to me than anything else. Back then I was using Windows Mobile.
I think if they decided on some minimum requirements such as Android 4, then they'd only really have to deal with differing screen sizes, since there are already APIs to handle finding your current location for example. There probably still are a lot of Android 2 devices out there, but you have to draw the line somewhere. They could start off making a decent Android 4 app, and then port it back to older versions if they're worried about compatibility issues.
I didn't say anything about apps, I was just talking about Android adoption.
I don't think most people are leaving their phones away in cupboards. They use them every day. Licensed Android devices already have most of the stuff you need built-in, and then most of the apps that people like to use are free. Think Kindle, Instagram, FB Messenger, Spotify, Chrome, that kind of thing.
I'm not sure why app adoption matters so much to you, unless you're a developer. The "real winner" is the person who gets to use a phone that they enjoy using, whether they are buying apps or not.
It's not about installing different operating sytems, it's about being locked into a single provider, so that when you upgrade, you have to stick with them.
I was thinking that Google do provide Books, Movies, etc on Android, but I've just had a look and you can actually watch your Google movies on the YouTube app on iPhones for example, while you can't watch any iTunes movies or TV on Android. You can listen to Google/iTunes music on both iOS and Android. I'm not sure where Windows Phone stands with all of that.
Well, that's pretty much what I said. If someone really wanted someone else, it obviously wouldn't be all that hard to do it (though it's harder to do it without suspicion). The difference is that if everyone is carrying guns around (like the pro-gun crowd seem to be advocating), then the potential for bad situations to escalate way out of proportion is definitely increased. If you even suspect that someone is going to pull a gun on you, you're going to try to get there first.
That depends what you mean by "low price phone". Real low priced phones don't even run smartphone OSes. A lot of budget smartphones will be running on Android though, yes.
For me personally getting a new phone, I care primarily about OS version and potential support for updates, then screen size/resolution.
It was the most recent global stats I could find. I don't see how it's misleading. People like Android. It's not like they're even locked in in any way, as people are with Windows.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't imagine anything less interesting to me that playing those games on my television.
Have you imagined sitting in front of your TV with it turned off?
In that case, why would the other high end mactops have higher resolution displays too? I think it's probably just a cost saving measure. Incidentally it's the only reason I didn't buy an MBA a few years ago too. I waited for Ultrabooks with better displays to come along.
resolution was lower* (not display was larger, oops)
His reasoning was that the display was larger because: "the Macbook Air is a specialist laptop specifically designed to be smaller, thinner and lighter". It made no sense.
The 11" Air has a 1366x768 display, while the 8" iPad mini has a 2048x1536 display. They're not really used for wildly "different things" either.
Well, exactly. Those would work okay as monitors, and just maybe playing movies with poor colour reproduction etc. But I'd rather spend £800 on a well-refined 1080p display.
the Macbook Air is a specialist laptop specifically designed to be smaller, thinner and lighter. Apple has lots of laptops with 2560x1600 resolution, you just chose one designed for a different purpose.
Why do so many tablets have a higher resolution (and probably higher quality) display than the Air then? Even the iPad Mini has a higher resolution.
I'll start to be interested in 4K when there are cheap devices, displays and content worthy of driving a 4K display.
Until home consoles are rendering 4K@60 frames per second comfortably across all games, or super-mega-ultra-duper-bluray is becomes mainstream, I doubt your average joe will really care. Current generation consoles can't even do 1080p at decent framerates across all games. Though blu-ray is pretty nice.
Troll levels: off the charts.
The "English speaking world" is not the internet. Nor is it anywhere close to being the actual world.
Maybe the Slashdot moderation system is meant to inspire people who have realised that their votes were "wrong" to speak out? :p
What is described in the summary isn't "impossible" at all. It doesn't say it has to delivery 100% security. This system itself will probably introduce some nice new vectors of attack too.
Tegra 2 and 3 were pretty popular. Tegra 4 seems less so. Maybe Tegra 5 will be more popular. Whatever - competition is always good!
Devices that used Tegra
If I thought it was okay, would I be letting everyone know about software to make things usable again? IMO it's the best option for anyone who doesn't have a spare copy of Windows 7.
Just saying "you should not have to do that" doesn't solve the immediate problem.
Actually I kind of liked NT/2000/XP. 7 is pretty good too. I did prefer Mac OS and Amiga Workbench back in '98. These days I'm not sure I care anymore. Windows, OSX, various Linux distros, mobile interfaces etc are all "good enough".
Here is the free (as in beer) software you are looking for.
Shame it doesn't completely eradicate Metro, but at least it means you can avoid it most of the time.
If this process ever reaches critical mass, schools will no longer have teachers, and corporations will have complete control over education.
You mean like how the paper industry has control over everything that is ever written anywhere? Or how companies that manufacture motherboards are controlling the video games industry?
It can only get better.
Godsdamnit AC :/ Journalists the world over are saying "challenge accepted".
Actually not that close.. the majority of my friends do Parkour, which is a sport that requires basically no equipment, and so is a good choice for people who don't have much money. They either are students working part time, or doing arts/creative type work that doesn't pay that well either. I may have been exaggerating slightly with the "everyone" bit, but I'm surprised sometimes at the people who have expensive smartphones.
A few years ago these same types of people all seemed to have iPhones (this time it's not an exaggeration). At that point it seemed more of a status symbol to me than anything else. Back then I was using Windows Mobile.
Gb*
*sorry
What counted as a different configurations?
I think if they decided on some minimum requirements such as Android 4, then they'd only really have to deal with differing screen sizes, since there are already APIs to handle finding your current location for example. There probably still are a lot of Android 2 devices out there, but you have to draw the line somewhere. They could start off making a decent Android 4 app, and then port it back to older versions if they're worried about compatibility issues.
I didn't say anything about apps, I was just talking about Android adoption.
I don't think most people are leaving their phones away in cupboards. They use them every day. Licensed Android devices already have most of the stuff you need built-in, and then most of the apps that people like to use are free. Think Kindle, Instagram, FB Messenger, Spotify, Chrome, that kind of thing.
I'm not sure why app adoption matters so much to you, unless you're a developer. The "real winner" is the person who gets to use a phone that they enjoy using, whether they are buying apps or not.
It's not about installing different operating sytems, it's about being locked into a single provider, so that when you upgrade, you have to stick with them.
I was thinking that Google do provide Books, Movies, etc on Android, but I've just had a look and you can actually watch your Google movies on the YouTube app on iPhones for example, while you can't watch any iTunes movies or TV on Android. You can listen to Google/iTunes music on both iOS and Android. I'm not sure where Windows Phone stands with all of that.
If that were true, why does everyone (even people I know don't make much money) seem to have an S3/S4? They're in the same price bracket as iPhones.
Well, that's pretty much what I said. If someone really wanted someone else, it obviously wouldn't be all that hard to do it (though it's harder to do it without suspicion). The difference is that if everyone is carrying guns around (like the pro-gun crowd seem to be advocating), then the potential for bad situations to escalate way out of proportion is definitely increased. If you even suspect that someone is going to pull a gun on you, you're going to try to get there first.
That depends what you mean by "low price phone". Real low priced phones don't even run smartphone OSes. A lot of budget smartphones will be running on Android though, yes.
For me personally getting a new phone, I care primarily about OS version and potential support for updates, then screen size/resolution.
It was the most recent global stats I could find. I don't see how it's misleading. People like Android. It's not like they're even locked in in any way, as people are with Windows.