Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: So? (Score 1) 275

by markdavis (#48943023) Attached to: VirtualBox Development At a Standstill

>"Phoronix notes how it has been a long time since last hearing of any major innovations or improvements to VirtualBox,Phoronix notes how it has been a long time since last hearing of any major innovations or improvements to VirtualBox"

And this surprises anyone? This is what happened with most everything Oracle acquired from Sun- they poisoned everything. It is what they do best. It is also why OpenOffice was forked.

Fortunately, VirtualBox still works very well... for now. And I, for one, like that it is stable.

Comment: Re:Native UI conventions...? (Score 1) 146

by markdavis (#48942943) Attached to: LibreOffice Gets a Streamlined Makeover With 4.4 Release

You may believe what you like. I have a computer degree (BS), am in charge of an I.T. department serving 500 employees, have been a computer professional for nearly 30 years, and have probably used more different types of machines and operating systems than you have even read about.

We support LO every single day, and it if looked different and acted differently on different machines, this would not help with support- it would hinder it. I am not saying this might be perfect for every organization, but saying that looking native makes support better is not necessarily true.

Comment: Re:Native UI conventions...? (Score 1, Troll) 146

by markdavis (#48937723) Attached to: LibreOffice Gets a Streamlined Makeover With 4.4 Release

Spoken like a MacOS user. I knew it reading just the first sentence.

It is more important to business that the UI look the same across platforms (I know, I am business, and we use LO) so I am not sure why you would use that as a reason for looking more native.

Comment: Re:Let me guess (Score 2) 146

by markdavis (#48936443) Attached to: LibreOffice Gets a Streamlined Makeover With 4.4 Release

> They added MS style ribbons, all in the name of UX

Thank God no. But they did add a somewhat strange "Sidebar" type thing a few versions ago and it has progressed enough that they turned it on by default. Unfortunately, it is riddled with lots of pretty major bugs (the sidebar; lots of unresolved bug reports but work is progressing).

At least you can turn it off... for now. I hope we can continue to do so....

Anyway, LO is a great program and there are lots of improvements with each release.

Comment: Stupid comparison (Score 1) 135

by markdavis (#48927979) Attached to: The American App Economy Is Now "Bigger Than Hollywood"

Deidu points out, is just about as much as Hollywood earned off U.S. box office revenues the same year." That means the American app industry is poised to eclipse the American film industry.

Um, except Hollywood doesn't earn as much from US box office as it does from these:

* NON-US box office
* Disc sales
* Rental fees
* Merchandising rights

So how is this comparison (and the headline) valid?

Comment: Re:Nope (Score 1) 332

by markdavis (#48896341) Attached to: UHD Spec Stomps on Current Blu-ray Spec, But Will Consumers Notice?

>"You lost all credibility when you said upscale. You just showed that you don't understand that you've been caught in a marketing gimmick.

Apparently you don't understand the technology at all, because upscaling is a real and useful feature, not a gimmick. And I said "upscale" because nearly ALL consumer equipment does it and you have to factor that in when comparing to something that is much higher resolution. It narrows the gap further.

>"And ... pretty much everyone can tell difference if you put them side by side"

Wrong. Perhaps if they are 1 foot from the screen, but that is not a "reasonable size or distance".

Comment: Re:Nope (Score 1) 332

by markdavis (#48896329) Attached to: UHD Spec Stomps on Current Blu-ray Spec, But Will Consumers Notice?

So you are assuming people always have, everywhere they need:

1) Access to the Internet
2) Reliable access to the Internet
3) High enough speed access to the Internet
4) Reasonably priced non/metered Internet
5) No problem with some entity knowing exactly what, where, when, and how they are watching everything.

Streaming is not a suitable replacement for physical media in all cases.

Comment: Re:Nope (Score 1) 332

by markdavis (#48894431) Attached to: UHD Spec Stomps on Current Blu-ray Spec, But Will Consumers Notice?

>"So by most you mean 51% of the 7 billion or so out there?"

Reasonable setup- 60" TV viewed at 8 feet:

No, by "most" I would estimate 75% of people off the street would not be able to tell you they were watching an upscaled DVD on that setup instead of 720P or 1080P (without showing them that) and be perfectly happy. Maybe 50% of those 75% would probably still not even notice a difference if you flipped between the upscaled DVD and a 1080P source in that same setup.

And I would estimate 99% of people off the street would not be able to tell any difference between 1080P and 4K in that same setup- even when flipping between the two. The number would be higher for really large TV's, or really close viewing, but it will still be an insignificant number.

Now, the results for the typical Slashdot demographic? The numbers would be much further along the "I can tell" scale, but I bet not as much as you might think.

Resolution is a rapidly diminishing return once you reach "very good". It is the same insanity of putting a 2K display on a 5 or 6" phone. It is WAY beyond the human eye resolution discrimination for any typical person held at any reasonable distance (like 12 to 14 inches). So rather than being a useful feature, it becomes more of a marketing gimmick- a spec just to sell devices to consumers that don't know any better. The net effect is it just pushes up the price and places more demand on the battery.

Comment: Nope (Score 4, Insightful) 332

by markdavis (#48893949) Attached to: UHD Spec Stomps on Current Blu-ray Spec, But Will Consumers Notice?

>"But, will consumers care, and will they be willing to upgrade their HDTV's, AV Receivers, and Blu-ray players to adopt a new format whose benefits may only be realized on ultra large displays or close viewing distances?"

Nope

4K is such a crazy marketing gimmick. Most of the population can already barely tell the difference between a quality DVD upscale and a Bluray at any reasonable size or distance. The manufacturers *want* to keep making everything obsolete so people "have" to keep buying new stuff, and re-buying their content over and over.

Comment: Re:Tabs on side?? How about tabs on BOTTOM. (Score 1) 117

by markdavis (#48850277) Attached to: With Community Help, Chrome Could Support Side Tabs Extension

Although I agree with a lot of what you said, the issue is that the code was already there to put the tabs on bottom. They removed it for no good reason except to enforce their vision of looking exactly like Chrome. First the changes to the URL bar, then the style, then the addition of the menu button, and now removal of tab location choice. It is a sucky thing to do. If we wanted Chrome, we would use Chrome.

If they want to remove crap and bloat and simplify the base browser (like it is SUPPOSED to be, that was the GOAL of Firefox), then made the damn "developer tools" an add-on. 99.9% of Firefox users have absolutely no need for them, so why is all that long and extremely complex code part of the native browser- making it complicated, and taking up lots of space?

Comment: Tabs on side?? How about tabs on BOTTOM. (Score 3, Insightful) 117

by markdavis (#48848077) Attached to: With Community Help, Chrome Could Support Side Tabs Extension

Meanwhile, Firefox takes away the choice for users to have tabs on bottom (below the menu bar and bookmark bar) , like many want. Since Mozilla now has SUCH a desire to be EXACTLY like Chrome, it should be no surprise they would remove user choice, and even add an annoying and identical menu button on the right.

Thankfully, for now, you can get sane behavior back with the "Classic Theme Restorer" add-on. Yet again, Add-on's save the day and show off one of Firefox's main strengths. Back to Chrome- who knows, maybe they will start adding user choice?

Considering how important browsers are to a user's computer experience, I fail to understand why Chrome is so hostile to customization and why Mozilla is following that same path now. Let users put things where they want them (at least without artificial limits), and don't take away existing customization options!

Friction is a drag.

Working...