Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Unified Experience Across Devices (Score 0) 637

by macs4all (#48042293) Attached to: Microsoft Announces Windows 10

Are you? Higher end Android devices can be hooked up to a USB keyboard and an HDMI equipped screen. If Windows 10 switches into desktop mode when docked with a screen, keyboard and mouse (or the phone screen becomes a glorified touchpad) then it will be the computing device I've been waiting for for over a decade. (But it probably won't, because that would cut into their sales figures.)

So, what you are saying is that the idea of One GUI To Rule Them All is a fucking joke; just like the "other side" is saying, right?

This just means your Mobile Device (which is always going to be more resource-starved than even the weakest Desktop) is going to be saddled with a bunch of Desktop GUI-cruft that it may never use, depending on the Application and User's Tastes. Because it ain't just a matter of Start Menu vs. Metro Tiles. It's a whole different paradigm.

And at least Apple is smart enough to know that. There have been some "leaks" from iOS into OS X; but if you look at them, it has been done in a very considered, and generally low-key way, largely to the benefit of the Desktop experience. Not what Redmond is foisting on the world. Simply no comparison. I'm not cheerleading Apple here; I am just saying that you simply cannot just shove a Mobile, Touch-Based UI down the Desktop-User's throat. And having a Mobile Device that has a schizoid UI that flips back and forth??? Yeah, Suzy Homemaker and Joe Sixpack are gonna dig that, yeahrightsure...

Comment: Re:Unified Experience Across Devices (Score 0) 637

by macs4all (#48042123) Attached to: Microsoft Announces Windows 10

Stepping stones. Windows 8 was a wobbly stepping stone but it was a stepping stone. Dev on MS is much easier to cross over platforms than it was in the past.

But seriously (and I'm not Trolling here) :

IMHO, Mobile Applications are, for the most part, very rarely directly translatable in either scope or purpose to Desktop or Server Applications; so what is to be gained by making the poor Developer have to be saddled with a Presentation Layer (GUI) that is an absolute Train-Wreck between Touch and Non-Touch paradigms?

I understand how they can share a common kernel and SOME Frameworks/APIs, and maybe even the (very) occasional GUI concept; but that's where it should end. But it doesn't.

Truth be told, I would bet that not one Application in 1,000 actually benefits more than 10% from a "Unified Codebase". The only product that looks to be designed with this in mind is the Surface Pro 3, And that is not the Game-Changer that Microsoft is touting it to be. Too heavy and expensive for a Tablet; and simply not good enough compared with other Laptops at the same price-point. They keep trying to compare it with Apple's entry-level ultraportable (the one that sacrifices many other things for the sake of "small"; but if you look at the pricing, it should be more-fairly compared with something like a 13 inch Macbook Pro, where these folks say that it loses hands-down.

Nope. I'll give MS some points for trying to rescue Windows 8; but they are suffering from the "Gone too far to go back." syndrome, and it's going to (continue to) bite them, bad. Really bad...

Comment: Re:that was fast (Score 0) 163

by macs4all (#48030569) Attached to: Apple Fixes Shellshock In OS X

I hope that's sarcasm. Every other distro had this fixed last week. Apple are only fixing one instance and leaving it broken elsewhere. They're not at risk anyway, no one uses OS X for hosting.

Speak for yourself. Maybe not too often on a commercial scale; but there are many OS X boxen that have one or more "listeners" a-listenin'.

And didn't I read something about CUPS being possibly an attack vector? That makes it only Every. Single. Mac.

And all it takes is someone not understanding how Port Forwarding works, and going "F-it." I'm just gonna put my machine in my Router's DMZ..."

Comment: Re: In other words... (Score 1) 302

by macs4all (#48013661) Attached to: Consumer Reports: New iPhones Not As Bendy As Believed

I'm a big iPhone fan (also, for what it's worth, an engineer) but I also carry an Android device -- a Sony Xperia Z Ultra along with my iPhone 6. I can tell you that when I buy a $900 device, "good enough" doesn't cut it.

You say you are "an engineer"; but are you an ME, a metallurgist, or do you drive a train?

If, by chance, you actually are an engineer that is on a team that produces consumer-level products, can you honestly sit there with a straight face and say that your products are regularly tested to the level demonstrated in the Verge article?

I have designed many products that were to survive in the supposedly much-harsher world of an "industrial environment", and I can tell you that not one of them was subjected to the destructive and non-destructive physical testing that the Verge article showed to which Apple products are being subjected. And I don't think the companies I worked for were the exception in the "lack" of testing. In fact, Apple's testing seems almost over-the-top. Probably why almost all of their products have a (deserved) reputation for being extremely rugged, relative to the competition.

Do I think that they have a minor issue with the strength of the case at the point at which the volume-button punch outs are made? Yeah, probably. Is it worth all the hand-wringing? Definitely not.

Comment: Re: In other words... (Score 0) 302

by macs4all (#48013605) Attached to: Consumer Reports: New iPhones Not As Bendy As Believed

1. Jobs wa never known for engineering products for form over function with disastrous results -- i.e. the Apple ///, the Lisa, the Cube, etc.

.

Let's take these one-at-a-time:

1. Apple ///. According to Woz (who should know), the Apple /// was a victim of the engineering directive (not Jobs', BTW, but a team-consensus) that it must have 100% compatibility with the Apple ][ (a laudable goal); but, the kicker was that it must not allow any of the Apple ///'s capabilities to be available when in "Apple ][ Emulation mode". That resulted in massive amounts of extra circuitry (remember, this was 1978 when the Apple /// was being developed) to accomplish that goal. The end result was a design that was beyond the PCB manufacturer's capabilities for the day. There was nothing wrong with the design,per se; it just out-stripped the manufacturing capacities of 1979-80. And by the time the Rev. 3 PCBs came around, it was actually a very solid machine (with an incredibly-advanced OS (AppleSOS)). Unfortunately, by then it was simply too late, market-wise. It is interesting to note that the trace-density that was impossible on the Apple /// PCBs is absolutely trivial these days.

2. The Lisa: Nothing at all wrong with the engineering of the Lisa. It's a damned tank!. Have you ever been inside of a Lisa? Probably the best-engineered computer ever. The only problem with the Lisa was the Price. That, and the fact that it was "too far ahead of its time." Seriously. Next! (no pun)

3. The G4 Cube. This one is all on Jobs. It was made impractical by Jobs' hatred of fans (and before they figured out that fans could be made quiet by making them bigger and turning them slower (duh!), and by doing stuff like uneven spacing of the fan-blades (not so "duh"). And secondarily, it was killed by Jobs' longstanding vision of a small-self-contained computer. But I guess he doesn't get credit for pulling that off again and again in the Mac mini, original G4 iMac (the "Sunflower" iMac), the flat-screen iMacs, the MacBook Air, and most recently, the incredible Mac Pro (which of course had to be well into final phases of design when Jobs died), right? No, no credit at all. And then, let's never forget that it was also Jobs and Apple who pretty-much single-handedly, completely revolutionized the phone and tablet. To deny that is to simply deny reality.

Bottom line: Every single company that produces as many "hi-tech" products, for as many applications, for as many years, as Apple, will have some products that are absolutely great, and some, not so much.

Comment: Re:In other words... (Score 1) 302

by macs4all (#48013455) Attached to: Consumer Reports: New iPhones Not As Bendy As Believed

The general consensus that Consumer Reports seems to be getting at here is that the results that they observed shows that while the iPhones do bend, the amount of force required to do so results in phones from other manufacturers simply breaking under the stresses involved.

Doesn't this statement pretty much say it all?

Looking back into the past, there have been great feats of engineering that have stood the tests of time and survived admirably, and a large part of that has been due to being "over engineered" than what was technically required, or from a simple lack of knowledge at the time of what really *needed* to be done to withstand the rigors of severe, gail force winds, earthquakes, or the like.

A friend of mine that was an ME for Delco, said something a long time a long time ago that has always stuck with me: "You can always tell when something is built by someone who doesn't know what they are doing, because it will always be 'over engineered'."

So, I guess it is an entire engineering discipline, not just Apple's engineers, that have "Fallen into the fallacy..."

Did you even read the Verge article, which specifically stated that Apple adds stiffeners, sometimes even made of steel or Titanium, when its destructive, and non-destructive, testing shows that is warranted?

Truth is, you can't fix stupid; nor can you design a series of tests that will duplicate every single scenario that a product will encounter in the "real world". That's not making excuses for Apple; it is just the way it is.

The Verge article clearly demonstrates that Apple has done its Due Diligence; but that it is pretty much impossible to make something that is indestructible.

Oh, and BTW: Where was your Righteous Outrage at the makers of the HTC One (M8), that apparently bends with approximately the same force as the new iPhone? Where was the hand-wringing then?

Comment: Re:Why are you in charge of the decision? (Score 1) 314

by macs4all (#48008455) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Swift Or Objective-C As New iOS Developer's 1st Language?

Tip: Before you start programming your super awesome iOS project, you should consult a style guide and review when words should be capitalized.

I capitalize to denote proper nouns, and sometimes just for emphasis.

So, how is that helpful for deciding which language I should use?

IOW, bite me.

Comment: Re:Dalvick? (Score 1) 314

by macs4all (#48007599) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Swift Or Objective-C As New iOS Developer's 1st Language?

FYI, Dalvik (no "c") and its successor, ART (Android RunTime) are a version of Java, so no matter what you do, you'll have to rewrite for Java. There is the option of writing "native" code, but you'll need to compile for ARM, MIPS, and Intel if you want the widest compatibility for your apps.

Hey, my article submission said "Dalvik". Slashdot editors put in the unwanted "c".

Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable.

Working...