Quite so. It has a better form factor than any of the subsequent models and infinitely more clever and elegant security system than any of the modern ones. Of course they had to cut it loose.
16 posts • joined 28 Oct 2009
So what you're saying is that were given a computer for free? After all, the cost of the computer here is $0, and you claim you paid half of that, which makes no sense whatsoever.
So you didn't really buy it, now did you? Someone gave you a workstation for free. That's very nice of them but it also makes it completely useless as a point of comparison if you want to talk about cost.
The difference is that no-one uses the launch pad in OSX since you have the much more useful dock and the vastly more useful Spotlight bar at your disposal.
The reason for this is that the transition is massively jarring, offers no useful advantage and, in fact, serves absolutely no purpose at all that can't be done in far better ways by not splattering them all over the screen.
Re: Chrome is bad
"you can't even block ads with Google chrome, so it's perfect for THEIR business, I'm not anti-google, just can't stand their privacy politics."
Neither does Firefox, unless you get Adblock or some similar extension. Now, as it happens, Chrome has this: https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/gighmmpiobklfepjocnamgkkbiglidom?hl=en
...and I tried to duplicate this when the whole "oh, but it happens with every smartphone" spin first got out. And indeed, I *did* manage to get it to drop bars...
...by more or less sitting on it. If I made sure that the only thing not covered in me (ok, just using my hands worked as well) was the part of the screen that showed the connectivity, I could indeed see how it would sloooowly start losing bars, but open up just a little bit and they'd start coming back.
Sure, I suppose other phones could exhibit the same kind of sensitivity as the iPhone 4, but that doesn't mean that the iPhone is any good, only that a number of other phones are just as horrid as the iPhone is.
The inclusion of F# is in and of itself another interesting development that shows the pressure that's been building on MS. It's in functional programming that we find the fundamental concepts that made Google search so successful. If MS have picked up on this and begun to push in the same direction, then that's yet another good sign of how they might be moving out of their complacency and into the very nasty competitive mode that occasionally makes them produce wtfawxsome products…
UAC was never the problem
The real issue with the UAC nagging wasn't UAC – it was the fact that windows programmers were incompetent and/or complacent. They'd gotten use to the idea of programming for an all-permissive environment (everyone is an admin, right?) and completely blanked when they were suddenly forced to program for a limited-mode environment.
Well-sorted programs never unduly triggered UAC; crap programs made by idiots did.
In some ways, it's no different than the move from Win95/98 to Win2k, when suddenly programs started to die horribly (most notably games, giving rise to the "Win2k can't run games myth) because those programs used various no-no ways of doing things that Win2k wouldn't allow. Just like UAC, it was a great way to weed out useless apps… also, Win2k was truely win for gaming ;D