Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Start menu usage dropped in lieu of what? (Score 1) 238

by jkrise (#48027059) Attached to: Microsoft's Asimov System To Monitor Users' Machines In Real Time

I've been using a desktop for more than 15 years. It is not a good habit to pin apps to the task bar. Putting up the shortcuts for the browser and email client is good enough most of the time.

When rarely used apps need to be called up, the Start Menu is the best way to do it.

Using a keyboard instead of a mouse on the desktop is like using the mouth instead of the penis for sex. Some like you seem to like it that way but do not speak for the rest of us.

Comment: Re:This was the point (Score 1) 47

by jkrise (#48026343) Attached to: Microsoft Revives Its Hardware Conference

Why should MS decide what tablets and phones need as minimum hardware?

Not only minimum, but maximum as well. MS gets to decide the biggest screen size, the highest speed CPU that can run Windows - tablet edition, on a non-desktop form factor. MS does not want vendors selling full fledged Windows on tablet form factor devices even though it is technically feasible.

Hardware had to be compatible to sell bundled with Windows.

MS does not want to encourage vendors who also provide open source drivers with their hardware. In this day and age, if MS made a reference standard for writing drivers hat did not require any signing, many vendors would only be too happy to innovate.

MS's goal is not to promote innovation, but to restrict vendors from making PCs that can also run Linux flawlessly. Having lost the tablet and phone business to Linux and Android, MS wants to keep on stifling the Linux desktop for as long as they can. One way they do this is to give incentives to vendors that make only Windows compatible hardware. Also the driver signing and Windows Update gives them a lever to destroy any vendor who gets too cosy with the Linux world.

From Vista and up, the hardware can be designed to give out intentional error messages that are ignored by Windows, and thus the hardware becomes unusable in Linux.

Comment: Re:NASA bureaucracy at it again (Score 1) 51

by petsounds (#47856019) Attached to: NASA Panel Finds Fault WIth Curiosity Rover Project's Focus

I've seen this kind of argument here on slashdot since Curiosity landed. Talking about the weight of wheels is a misdirection. This is about weight, but the crux of this issue is about priorities: choosing to load up the rover with more scientific instruments instead of making the rover more durable. In effect, the committee that designed Curiosity chose to subvert the primary mission (traveling to Mt. Sharp) before was even built by choosing short-term scientific goals over a long-term exploration ability. They designed the wheels optimistically ("hmm, well surely we'll just find some loose rock and dirt there like we always have, so let's just design around that assumption") and put the primary mission in jeopardy.

Comment: How about making it more fun? (Score 4, Insightful) 170

by slux (#47814405) Attached to: Changing the Rules of a 15-Year-Old Game: Quake Live Update Causes Controversy
They're trying to keep this old game alive and with a community. I think the initial release of Quake Live, or this move, has little to do with cashing in and very much to do with love of the game.<br><br>Moreover, "making it more fun" is pretty much what they are attempting. It's been a known problem for a long time that a new player will get completely owned when they first try, it's just such a brutally skill-based game and a small pool of players makes large skill differences more likely in matchmaking. Few people enjoy total domination by their opponent.<br><br>Quake 3/Quake Live used to be a living esport, now most of the big tournaments are gone. The game is beautiful, especially when played at a professional level. I'm all for any attempts to revitalize this genre so that the FPS duel might still be a thing in esports in the future. Of course the risk here is that the game becomes unrecognizeable.

Comment: Renaming never worked to improve reputation (Score 4, Insightful) 426

Windows 7 was better received by the market because it was BETTER than Vista. Windows 8 was crap and got he reception it deserved. Merely releasing 9 without removing the crapstatic TIFKAM interface will result in poor reputation.

The reasons Internet Explorer got a bad reputation:

1. It was tied to the operating system, unnecessarily. The browser has exactly zilch to do with the operating system. ActiveX controls, tying versions of the browser with versions of the OS, varying behaviour of same browser version on different OS versions etc. If IE is renamed, it should be delinked from the OS like other browsers.

2. Intentional non-compatibility with standards, because of the arrogant assumption that with marketshare they can bully the World.

3. No sandboxing, no protection from ads, popups, malware downloads, sucking upto to the MAFIAA in proprietary standards and DRM.

Fix these issues in the browser FIRST, then call it Internet Shit-hole, but people will still buy it.

In any formula, constants (especially those obtained from handbooks) are to be treated as variables.