So you're saying that if I took this phone to some part of deepest Africa or Wyoming where there are no cellphone masts in the vicinity, and I turned it on, then although I wouldn't get a phone signal, the phone would still know exactly where I was in the world (subject to usual GPS accuracy limits)?
Or are you talking about cell triangulation systems?
After all, if I'd told you ten years ago that by 2005, all cell phones would have a mandatory GPS tracker broadcasting your location to the phone company as you move about, with a nominal abilty to be switched off (ha), would you have believed me?
That would probably be for the best, since you apparently didn't really read my comment to begin with. I wrote "if only the window could be made transparent". I didn't write, "if only it had a transparency option". To a person with more than two neurons to rub together, these are different statements.
I must have just the one neuron, because neither of those are statements, as far as I can tell.
There are a few utilities that came out around the time of Windows 2000 that let you set any app's window to be semi-transparent. Have a Google. I used to use one that let you set the transparency with Alt and a number key to set the percentage transparency.
Worked pretty well (but I forget what it's called, otherwise I'd give you a link)
Granted it's an almost completely unsubstantiated prediction from somebody outside of Apple, but it is what a lot of people have been asking for since the original Nanos came out.
There are rumours that God exists. Granted it's an almost completely unsubstantiated prediction from somebody outside of Heaven, but it is what a lot of people have been wanting since the original Homo Sapiens came out.
It seems Boot Camp includes a firmware update, so maybe the EFI virtualises the boot sector when emulating the BIOS that Windows uses to write to it? (e.g. EFI vetos the write operation, but pretends that it worked?)
Although I seem to remember that NT ignores the BIOS very soon after booting, so...hmm. Not sure:-)
I installed that a few weeks back, to try it out. The UI was clunky (partly due to Winamp, partly due to the plug-in), and the features didn't match what I wanted.
At no point did I attempt to sync my iPod or transfer songs with it, but about a week later I noticed that thousands of songs are missing from my iPod - basically, only songs specifically named on my playlists are on my iPod any more.
Coincidence, perhaps. But I don't think I'll be trying it again.
The last PC that I owned that ran Microsoft software had Windows 3.1 installed, but I just ran it in DOS mode.
I have a Linux PC, but I just turn up the monitor brightness really high, and use it as a lamp. What's your point?:-)
(To be fair, I do actually agree that it is possible for computer experts to not know Windows, unlike the original poster's assertion. They seem to think that the fact that someone has a blog is proof positive that they must have used Windows. Not sure I get that, really.)
You'd have a great point, that is if MS actually *was* the first one with a taskbar like this...
So don't leave us hanging, which GUI do you think had it first? Personally, I'm going with Acorn RISC OS, but would be interested if there's another contender.
Well, I'd say it means more than just searching now (although "google it" is still widespread usage obviously) - the products you mention such as mail, maps, etc mean that people are aware of Google as a 'tech company' now rather than just a search engine, which was all I meant really. Their brand means more than one product, and the name has no semantics in the traditional sense (other than a corruption of googol) and is a bit more nebulous now - i.e. as I said, similar to Sony, etc.
Well, compared to the example of Toyota, for instance. Toyota makes people think of cars (perhaps vehicles in general), but nothing else (as far as I know).
Of course, most brand names are chosen these days to be ciphers which the marketing people imbue with meaning via their l337 skillz, but not all names are. Microsoft is an obvious one (also relatively old, of course).
Windows uses WHQL signed drivers - which means that Microsoft have said that the driver is OK.
Sadly, there is a limit to what even Microsoft can test.
If the driver is not OK, WHQL means nothing (ie. MS don't care about stability).
If the driver is OK, and the hardware is OK (works under the other OS) that leaves only one option - that Windows isn't 100% perfect! Sorry fanboys, the truth hurts sometimes.
Your reasoning is so faulty it's hard to know where to start. But let's try this: have you considered the possibility that Linux's usage patterns of the particular bit of hardware happen to mask the hardware problem, whereas Windows' usage patterns cause the problem to surface? Or vice versa, in other situations. I've experienced both scenarios (and some others including OS X). Perhaps you have only experienced one?
Actually, that's precisely the sort of example that made me think the 'perfect brand' thing was rubbish.
Would people buy Google Chocolate? Google Motorbikes? Google Bookshelves? Google Hifi Speakers? Google shoes? Google clothes? Google perfume? Google food?
Outside of their 'cool tech things' bracket, they have just the same problem as other brands. People have heard of them, but I'm not sure that would help them all that much - not over and above the recognition any other brand gets. Sometimes that doesn't even help them - I know I wouldn't buy Google Orkut:-)
What they're probably really saying is that Google doesn't really mean anything, so it's a flexible brand name. Unlike Nike, Adobe, Sony, Apple...
So...it would sell like hotcakes because they can run this mainstream x86 version of OS X on their PC, only it forces them to upgrade their hardware (i.e. motherboard, i.e. basically the whole PC for 99.9% of the market) before they can run it?
Don't you think you've got something mixed up there?
I'm now an avid OS X user and since the intel switch I have to ask, what's so custom about mac hardware now? The plastic casing?
It's not particularly custom, but I can tell you think all motherboards work the same way with no issues. Let me assure you that this is not the case. At the unpleasant end of the spectrum, some motherboards are known to have, e.g. broken USB chipsets that don't really work properly.
If you want to laugh this off, take a little look at Intel's motherboard selector. Try asking it to show you ATX motherboards - it returns 765 motherboards to choose from. And that's just ATX form factor boards. We haven't even started on graphics/sound cards etc.
Also, when I custom built my own PCs back in the day all the drivers I needed to run windows came with the hardware I purchased, not from microsoft, not ever.
So Windows never had drivers for your motherboard, USB, serial port, keyboard, mouse, numerous video/sound cards etc?
Regardless, it's an irrelevant point - either MS writes the drivers or the manufacturers do. Hence my point that:
All Apple would need to do is to get all the hardware manufacturers to write OS X drivers for their hardware, or do it themselves.
I put in the part about testing because [a] MS test/certify a lot of drivers, and [b] Apple are big on user experience (i.e. they like the stuff they sell to work).
In fact, as a musician, this applies to audio peripherals I buy for OS X now. As an example: M-Audio' s support for updating drivers is total shit . Do I fault OS X? No. Just like I didn't when I custom built my own PCs.
Audio peripherals other than a fairly standard sound card don't really count. We're talking about stuff that the average person would have as a result of buying a PC. If Apple tried to sell OS X as a user-anywhere x86 OS, but didn't have wide driver coverage, their image would be in tatters (see my point about the number of motherboards out there).
Mmm... kool-aid.
Was there a particular point you were trying to make there, or just trying to fulfill a meme per post quota?
Slashdot Mirror
So you're saying that if I took this phone to some part of deepest Africa or Wyoming where there are no cellphone masts in the vicinity, and I turned it on, then although I wouldn't get a phone signal, the phone would still know exactly where I was in the world (subject to usual GPS accuracy limits)?
Or are you talking about cell triangulation systems?
I think you'll find that a better indicator is that 2-year olds are about the only people who actually expect technology to work.
No.
But then, they don't...do they?
I must have just the one neuron, because neither of those are statements, as far as I can tell.
Next time I feel like being helpful, I'll shut the fuck up, okay?
Worked pretty well (but I forget what it's called, otherwise I'd give you a link)
NO. THIS IS SOMEONE ELSE.
There are rumours that God exists. Granted it's an almost completely unsubstantiated prediction from somebody outside of Heaven, but it is what a lot of people have been wanting since the original Homo Sapiens came out.
Unless Vista refuses to play any mp3s, divx movies, avis, wmvs etc that don't have DRM (which is, at the last count, just about all of them).
If that were the case, I don't think even MS would be able to sell Vista.
It's a million to one shot. But as we know, they come up 9 times out of 10.
By not using it?
You must be new here.
Although I seem to remember that NT ignores the BIOS very soon after booting, so...hmm. Not sure :-)
I'll see if I can whip something up.
At no point did I attempt to sync my iPod or transfer songs with it, but about a week later I noticed that thousands of songs are missing from my iPod - basically, only songs specifically named on my playlists are on my iPod any more.
Coincidence, perhaps. But I don't think I'll be trying it again.
I have a Linux PC, but I just turn up the monitor brightness really high, and use it as a lamp. What's your point? :-)
(To be fair, I do actually agree that it is possible for computer experts to not know Windows, unlike the original poster's assertion. They seem to think that the fact that someone has a blog is proof positive that they must have used Windows. Not sure I get that, really.)
We'll stand a better chance against those StarOffice Destroyers!
So don't leave us hanging, which GUI do you think had it first? Personally, I'm going with Acorn RISC OS, but would be interested if there's another contender.
Well, compared to the example of Toyota, for instance. Toyota makes people think of cars (perhaps vehicles in general), but nothing else (as far as I know).
Of course, most brand names are chosen these days to be ciphers which the marketing people imbue with meaning via their l337 skillz, but not all names are. Microsoft is an obvious one (also relatively old, of course).
Sadly, there is a limit to what even Microsoft can test.
Your reasoning is so faulty it's hard to know where to start. But let's try this: have you considered the possibility that Linux's usage patterns of the particular bit of hardware happen to mask the hardware problem, whereas Windows' usage patterns cause the problem to surface? Or vice versa, in other situations. I've experienced both scenarios (and some others including OS X). Perhaps you have only experienced one?
This is slashdot. Please step away from the logic and reason.
Would people buy Google Chocolate? Google Motorbikes? Google Bookshelves? Google Hifi Speakers? Google shoes? Google clothes? Google perfume? Google food?
Outside of their 'cool tech things' bracket, they have just the same problem as other brands. People have heard of them, but I'm not sure that would help them all that much - not over and above the recognition any other brand gets. Sometimes that doesn't even help them - I know I wouldn't buy Google Orkut :-)
What they're probably really saying is that Google doesn't really mean anything, so it's a flexible brand name. Unlike Nike, Adobe, Sony, Apple...
Don't you think you've got something mixed up there?
It's not particularly custom, but I can tell you think all motherboards work the same way with no issues. Let me assure you that this is not the case. At the unpleasant end of the spectrum, some motherboards are known to have, e.g. broken USB chipsets that don't really work properly.
If you want to laugh this off, take a little look at Intel's motherboard selector. Try asking it to show you ATX motherboards - it returns 765 motherboards to choose from. And that's just ATX form factor boards. We haven't even started on graphics/sound cards etc.
So Windows never had drivers for your motherboard, USB, serial port, keyboard, mouse, numerous video/sound cards etc?
Regardless, it's an irrelevant point - either MS writes the drivers or the manufacturers do. Hence my point that:
I put in the part about testing because [a] MS test/certify a lot of drivers, and [b] Apple are big on user experience (i.e. they like the stuff they sell to work).
Audio peripherals other than a fairly standard sound card don't really count. We're talking about stuff that the average person would have as a result of buying a PC. If Apple tried to sell OS X as a user-anywhere x86 OS, but didn't have wide driver coverage, their image would be in tatters (see my point about the number of motherboards out there).
Was there a particular point you were trying to make there, or just trying to fulfill a meme per post quota?