Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Nobody took the Mac seriously back then (Score 1) 381

by Guspaz (#49764131) Attached to: 25 Years Today - Windows 3.0

You're overstating the capabilities of Windows 3.0 (Multi-tasking? Not with most apps) and understanding the capabilities of System 6 and 7 (Hierarchical filesystem? Yeah, but with much longer filenames). Windows 3.x was a usability nightmare, but it didn't really matter, because MacOS didn't see any real improvements for a full decade after that, letting Microsoft catch up and then surpass Apple in the operating system game.

Comment: It was all about the Mac back then (Score 3, Interesting) 381

by Guspaz (#49756553) Attached to: 25 Years Today - Windows 3.0

Windows was such a huge pain back in those days, while MacOS (which wasn't really called that at the time) blew it out of the water, particularly when it came to multitasking.

Of course, MacOS sat still for years, lacking protected memory or pre-emptive multitasking until they scrapped the whole thing and replaced it with NeXTSTEP to produce OS X, so Windows eventually caught up and then surpassed it. I had enough issues with Win95/98 and the DOS legacy to say that Windows probably didn't catch up (with a consumer OS) until Win2K, which surpassed MacOS, and that ruled the roost for a few years. OS X didn't come out until over a year later, and the early versions of that were super rough.

But once they all evolved to a certain point, I think that the operating system mattered a lot less. They all got good enough that the users don't have to care about the low-level features, and there are utilities to tweak them any way you like, so it's really just down to personal preference at this point. You're going to run most of the same software no matter what OS you pick, and operating systems are increasingly just "the software that runs your web browser".

Comment: Technology evolves. Move on. (Score 1) 308

by Guspaz (#49754277) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What's the Best Dumb Phone?

Wanting a feature phone makes about as much sense as wanting an old wooden phone with a separate earpiece and the cone that you have to shout into. Technology doesn't stand still, and most feature phones are going to have poor reception since they won't support any of the newer networks. For example, Bell Canada's network is HSPA+, and does not support 2G GSM at all.

With smartphones available for forty to fifty bucks (like the Lumia 530), feature phones just don't make sense.

Comment: Re:Questionable numbers (Score 4, Informative) 220

Neither Bell nor Rogers have throttled anything for years. Both abandoned their practices voluntarily after regulatory pressure, and more recent regulation (the ITMP framework) essentially forbids throttling as Bell and Rogers had originally implemented it.

Comment: Re: Compelling? (Score 1) 243

by Guspaz (#49730449) Attached to: Why Apple Ditched Its Plan To Build a Television

But that's the thing: in most home theatre setups, you're never even exposed to the UI of your television. It stays locked on one input permanently (the input from your AV receiver), you're not adjusting settings after the initial setup, you're not using it to change channels or volume or mute... The interfaces that you're going to interact with will be from your TV service box, your game consoles, your streaming box, etc.

So what is the TV other than a passive display to display the output of other devices?

Comment: Re:Compelling? (Score 4, Insightful) 243

by Guspaz (#49728287) Attached to: Why Apple Ditched Its Plan To Build a Television

But they couldn't have differentiated themselves. The television market is highly competitive, with intense pressure driving manufacturers to minimum margins. For Apple to justify a price premium, they would have needed some sort of compelling features to differentiate it from every other television, and it seems that they weren't confident that they could do that.

Many of the things that differentiate them with other products (excellent build quality/fit and finish and the benefits of their vertical integration) don't really apply to a TV. You don't tend to notice build quality on something like a TV that you never really handle directly, and there isn't a huge amount to be gained in terms of vertical integration with a television versus connecting an external device by HDMI.

"You're a creature of the night, Michael. Wait'll Mom hears about this." -- from the movie "The Lost Boys"