I Can't Believe It's Not Chicken
Grease 'n' Gristle
Cluck 'til you Chuck
1747 posts • joined 20 Nov 2008
If I had to buy a brand new phone right now, it'd be the Pixel 4a. And I'm not enamoured with any of the currently available devices. But for me, it's a decent choice out of a mediocre bunch.
If it was a bit shorter (<140mm), didn't have a cut-out camera in the screen, had a larger battery and a wireless charging coil, then it'd pretty much be ideal. Wait, does it have dual-sim? If not, forget it...
It's also a requirement for me that a phone be easy to root. I'm just not buying the latest devices, because if there's no way to root, it's not acceptable.
It's rather simple.. anything that's called "smart $productname" is definitely the opposite. It's simply something that's going to be obsolete extremely quickly.
People may scoff at the fact I kicked my "smart TV" off the network and only use a normal PC hooked up to it, but I'm happy that way, it works for me, and I never need to worry about arbitrary support dates.
I agree with you. I don't suffer a reduction in screen space though, seeing as I have a 43" 3840x2160 monitor.
I personally have been really enjoying it. I don't miss commuting at all, and it's nice to be able to catch up on a bit of house work in my break, so I have even more free time after I'm actually done with work.
Then again, I'm not alone, as I sit next to my wife who's also working from home, so I have company. It'd probably be different with a total lack of face to face contact throughout the day.
I also live in a house with a garden, which also very much helps. I don't think I could get much done if I lived in a city with constant noise, and I appreciate being able to step outside for a bit and stretch one's legs during the day.
There's no way you can say in blanket terms, that a PC you buy today will be faster than the one you bought 3 years ago.
Maybe you've forgotten that laptops exist, or budget products exist?
The work laptop I received at my new job was slower than the work desktop PC I had 3 years before it.
If it's not internet-connected, and access to the network is well controlled, it will probably work better than newer versions of Windows, and it will save them money on hardware costs. Hardware that can run XP fine is plentiful and dirt cheap. Just go on ebay and snatch a stack of ex-corporate Core 2 desktops, and you'll have machines that'll probably work away on small tasks like a display screen until the heat death of the universe.
Eh, I was no fan of the way Windows 2000 decided to hide things you hadn't clicked on recently in the start menu. Yes, you could turn it off.
I'd honestly say the way you can instantly search in Vista and 7 means for me, it's simply better than the Windows 2000 start menu. If you're in love with the cascading menus, Classic Shell allows you to have that back.
Also, now they're trying to put lipstick on a pig? Now? They've been doing that for some time.
You're right of course. There are very useful scenarios for certain things (I'd never go back to lights I have to manually turn on in the morning.. having the house bright when I wake up at 6am in the dead of winter is something that basically necessary to even have a chance of getting my going), but there's never any good reason to have built in kit that is reliant on external connections.
I'm not investing in kit that I'll build in to my home that will die and fall over if my internet connection is down - that's simply stupidity.
He's not saying large phones shouldn't exist. Also, small phones don't really exist at all now, try looking for yourself. It's pretty much impossible to find a new phone that isn't a chonker. The new iPhone SE 2 is about the closest you can get, but it's not *that* small. The Sony Xperia Compact line seems to have been pretty much abandoned, which is a shame.
It is genuinely annoying, and it is a part of the market that seems to be entirely ignored.
I can tell you, living in a country apart from my family, that Whatsapp has proven to be a simple and easy method (for all) to keep in touch, for free, without any logins, sign-ups, social media pages, or any other such complications. No usernames to be shared, just the phone number they already know.
Would I prefer an open-source piece of software instead? Yup, but introducing any hurdles, or an unfamiliar piece of software can be confusing for some. Whatsapp fills a simple need, and actually does it surprisingly well. I also pushed back against it for some time, but for me, the benefits have outweighed any negatives so far.
I'm no fan of Facebook, and personally don't have an account, but there's very much value for me in being able to conduct a group chat with my family, overseas, for free. Fact is, life isn't black and white. Sticking to dead-end principles just leads to you looking like Stallman.
I'm not the biggest fan of Skype, either, which is why it's frustrating that Microsoft have put out a product that makes some features of Skype look good.
Oh, and I should be able to dial external, normal phone numbers from the search bar. Skype had that function too.
I do believe that one day Teams will be half-decent. Just in time for Microsoft to replace it again with something half-baked.
There are a lot of things wrong with Teams, but could we at least start with some basics?
Many video feeds at once. Not just 4. Even Skype could do more than that. It looks ridiculous on a huge monitor to have 4 feeds.
Pop-out chat windows. This is a big one for me. I miss messages all the time in Teams because they don't generate new pop-up windows. I never missed messages in Skype.
Status indicators in the listbox result when you search for people, not just on the person's page.
Search arbitrary fields in AD in the search box like Skype does. I could search for a department name in Skype's search field, and it would return results. Teams does not do this. It is a worse tool for collaborative communication.
Reply with message when people call, like Skype, instead of just accept or deny.
Slim that bloated pile down.. seriously, it consumes and consumes. While they're at at, they should make the controls and window standard. I hate the fact every application these days needs to have its own controls and window chrome. I have a lot more complaints too, but it's late, and I'm tired.
FM radio works well, and it's not buffered, giving cheap, low power access to instant broadcasts.
DAB fills a need that doesn't exist, and never did exist.
If we want varied broadcasts that lag behind real-time, head to the internet. Most people have a smartphone.
DAB is the technology that needs to be phased out, not FM.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020