Audience reaction to Steve Jobs scrolling on an iPhone in 2007

[Glitchvid]

[QUOTE=dustyjo;52417533]They've had those for around 20 years or so and they've never gotten any better, sadly. Stock ones at least.

I just looked them up and found [URL="https://www.navdy.com/"]this one[/URL] that seems to have a lot of potential.[/QUOTE]

It's just time until LG takes one of their flexible transparent OLED panels and glues it to the window.

[Rixxz2]

[quote]
The only thing that could possibly be argued for is the Xerox PoC, except Steve Jobs openly admitted to stealing that idea from them. Plus, it was just a research project. It was never going to a mass market. Apple brought it into the hands of the consumer. I'm fairly certain if Apple didn't do that, then nobody would even know about that Xerox PoC.
[/quote]

Yeah that's literally what my post says, obviously doesn't mean they're the ones who came up with it

[quote]And idk why you brought up Bell Labs. Mac OS X is the only consumer-usable Unix OS.[/quote]

"Yea except when they made the first [U][I]consumer-friendly[/I][/U] personal computer, portable music player, Unix OS, smartphone"

Oh, that part bleeds out onto the rest, you're saying that Apple made more than just the PC more user friendly, not that they literally invented them? Fair enough.

Still, Linux isn't Unix, it's written from the ground up and came around as essentially a hobby project by a Finnish teenage genius that no one had heard about before, in a time where Apple and Microsoft had already become household names and basically filled the market. That's not to say Linux isn't extremely popular and widespread, because it is, just not in the desktop/laptop compartment of things.
The main reason for that today I'd say is because of the vicious cycle based around the fact that Linux lacks proper support from third party developers. Why? Because there aren't enough users. Why? Because it lacks proper support from third party developers.

Those factors combined with the fact that it's not being led by some billion dollar powerhouse like Apple, but a community trying to pull it in all kinds of different directions at once, it's not really a fair comparison.

There are a lot of user friendly distributions out there, such as Mint and Elementary OS, that's not really the issue

[Not64]

[QUOTE=elitehakor;52418220]adding on to this:

IBM recently switched to giving their employees company macbook pros for work. they found that they were saving upwards to $500 for each windows laptop replaced with a macbook pro

[url]http://www.computerworld.com/article/3131906/apple-mac/ibm-says-macs-are-even-cheaper-to-run-than-it-thought.html[/url]

and google has a great policy in their offices: macOS or linux only, no windows laptops unless you have a business case

[url]http://bgr.com/2013/11/28/mac-chromebook-google-employees/[/url]

unless you're specifically focused on developing windows apps there is little reason to not use macOS/linux to develop. even in my uni's CS club the macOS/linux to windows ratio is super high.[/QUOTE]

I used to be a Linux zealot until I realized how the industry is actively fighting against open source stuff being well-supported (the one thing I was missing on Linux is Photoshop). I switched to Mac OS X because it had all of the proprietary stuff and all the Unix stuff. I really want to ditch it (Apple is evil), but nothing else is as good :/

But yeah. Windows sucks. If you're caught using Windows at the company I work at, you get laughed at. Windows is horrible for creating software (and is just a bad operating system in general, from a technical perspective). The only reason why I miss Windows is because of games. And the only reason why most games only target Windows is because Microsoft was/is a huge dick with Direct3D. Thankfully studios are starting to wisen up and target OpenGL/Vulkan instead.

It saddens me how few people realize how much the prevalence of Windows is holding back the software industry. Some truly cool shit is possible, but due to the technical limitations of Windows those things won't ever hit a critical mass. If everyone switched from Windows to Linux or BSD or Mac OS X the world would be a much better place. I am so glad I got GMod because if I didn't, I probably wouldn't have gotten into programming. Those Lua scripts were a godsend, they were really good at hiding all of that bullshit most Windows devs need to deal with.

[DOG-GY]

why is windows so bad for creating software?

[Rautapalli]

[QUOTE=DOG-GY;52418757]why is windows so bad for creating software?[/QUOTE]

It's not inherently BAD for creating software, it's just missing many of the tools that a lot of software developers have gotten used to, like a proper unix shell and all the unix cli tools, package managers etc.
There are ways to use them on Windows (cygwin, bash on windows 10), but they never work nearly as well and seamlessly as they do on an actual unix based operating systems.

[Talvy]

[QUOTE=Not64;52418130]The only thing that could possibly be argued for is the Xerox PoC, except Steve Jobs openly admitted to stealing that idea from them. Plus, it was just a research project. It was never going to a mass market. Apple brought it into the hands of the consumer. I'm fairly certain if Apple didn't do that, then nobody would even know about that Xerox PoC.[/QUOTE]

I thought he essentially bought their tech fair & square, which is why Adele Goldberg tried to warn them that the company was [I]about to give away the kitchen sink[/I].

[Not64]

[QUOTE=DOG-GY;52418757]why is windows so bad for creating software?[/QUOTE]

There are lots and lots of reasons, so many that I can write a whole book on it. Too many for me to accurately detail them in a forum post. But I'll try to give a succinct enough example that you can try yourself.

Every computer runs C. Here is an example:

#include <stdio.h>

int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
    printf("Hello world!\n");
    return 0;
}

Here's how to run it: On Linux and Mac OS X, you would open a text editor (like notepad.exe on Windows, TextMate on Linux, TextEdit on Mac OS X), paste that in, save it as main.c, and then open a terminal and run the command "gcc main.c". Then you'd get a program called a.out which you would run (By typing "./a.out" in the terminal) and it would print "Hello World!" in your terminal.

Now, try doing that in cmd.exe. You'd get something like "gcc: command not found". Turns out, in order to get gcc, you have to install [url=http://www.mingw.org/]a port of the GNU userland[/url] or [url=https://www.visualstudio.com/]a full blown IDE[/url] to get it to run. This is because Windows is not a Unix operating system.

Unix is (basically) the de-facto theoretical model of what operating systems should be, thought up by Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson in the 1970s. But Microsoft decided to be a gigantic douchebag and threw years and years of research out the window and write their own inferior operating system, designed by a huge committee that didn't know much about good software practices. They (intentionally?) made it shitty because if it was 100% compatible with Unix, then someone could easily port a Windows program to a Unix platform and they'd lose market share.

For instance that's why installers exist. On any Unix operating system you have this thing called a package manager (which is like an App Store, except everything is free and open source) which is vetted by community members and is guaranteed to be safe. But on Windows this doesn't exist. Instead, you have to go to some random (possibly sketchy) website and download a random program and click through all this bullshit in an installer and possibly wait 10+ minutes for the thing to install. On Linux and Mac you'd just get it through a package manager.

This is all a very, very brief and greatly simplified overview of why Windows is bad. There are many more reasons. For instance, if you want to get more technical about it, opening dynamic libraries is a nightmare. And you have to jump through a bunch of hoops to get [url=http://beej.us/guide/bgnet/output/html/singlepage/bgnet.html#windows]network sockets[/url] to work. Compiling software for Windows is very different from compiling software for Linux and Mac OS X ([url=http://luajit.org/install.html]example[/url]) And not to mention, Windows is proprietary software.

[QUOTE=RautaPalli;52418822]It's not inherently BAD for creating software, it's just missing many of the tools that a lot of software developers have gotten used to, like a proper unix shell and all the unix cli tools, package managers etc.
There are ways to use them on Windows (cygwin, bash on windows 10), but they never work nearly as well and seamlessly as they do on an actual unix based operating systems.[/QUOTE]

Cygwin sucks and Bash on Windows sucks. Windows is inherently bad for creating software because it is not a Unix operating system. There is no way it can be fixed. It is like everyone in the world speaks English, but for some reason Windows is the world leader and can only speak Japanese and needs a translator. You can only get so far with that.

[QUOTE=Talvy;52418830]I though Jobs essentially bought their technology fair & square, which is why Adele Goldberg tried to warn them that they were [I]about to give away the kitchen sink[/I].[/QUOTE]

Oh interesting I didn't know that. I thought he just went into Xerox and ripped off their idea.

[editline]30th June 2017[/editline]

[QUOTE=Rixxz2;52418709]The main reason for that today I'd say is because of the vicious cycle based around the fact that Linux lacks proper support from third party developers. Why? Because there aren't enough users. Why? Because it lacks proper support from third party developers. [/QUOTE]

I agree with everyone else you're saying but I'm not sure about this. Linux definitely has more devs (competent ones, at least) than Windows. I say it's just a political issue, if Microsoft wasn't forcing OEMs to ship Windows with new laptops I'm sure the Year of the Linux Desktop™ would happen almost overnight. Drivers would be fixed, people wouldn't have to go through all this BS to install another OS, etc. I'd say Linux is usable for 95% of people but the problem is that it isn't being shipped by default

[alanparsons]

RIP Steve Jobs
A great innovator.

[SirJon]

I really don't like Apple as a company but i'll be damned if their Iphones aren't top of their game

[Rixxz2]

[QUOTE=Not64;52418859]
I agree with everyone else you're saying but I'm not sure about this. Linux definitely has more devs (competent ones, at least) than Windows. I say it's just a political issue, if Microsoft wasn't forcing OEMs to ship Windows with new laptops I'm sure the Year of the Linux Desktop™ would happen almost overnight. Drivers would be fixed, people wouldn't have to go through all this BS to install another OS, etc. I'd say Linux is usable for 95% of people but the problem is that it isn't being shipped by default[/QUOTE]

Oh yeah, with 'third party developers' I'm referring to games, programs like Photoshop, etc. etc.
Most applications like that aren't on Linux simply because the userbase isn't there. But as you say Linux could instantly turn mainstream if everyone suddenly decided to ditch Windows, there isn't, as some people think, some kind of technical limitation holding it back.

[Corn]

Steve Jobs knew how to make a marketable product, which is what Apple lacks nowadays. Without Steve Jobs we have iPhones without a headphone jack and the Macbook "Pro" with nothing but 4 Thunderbolt ports and that ridiculous touchscreen bar thingy on the keyboard

[Marilynn]

[QUOTE=Not64;52418859]
I agree with everyone else you're saying but I'm not sure about this. Linux definitely has more devs (competent ones, at least) than Windows. I say it's just a political issue, if Microsoft wasn't forcing OEMs to ship Windows with new laptops I'm sure the Year of the Linux Desktop™ would happen almost overnight. Drivers would be fixed, people wouldn't have to go through all this BS to install another OS, etc. I'd say Linux is usable for 95% of people but the problem is that it isn't being shipped by default[/QUOTE]

Linux may be more user friendly to [i]developers[/i], however it is still woefully lacking in the user friendliness department to the point where I wouldn't even say it's usable for 30% of people because of how it handles many, many things through solely the terminal. apt-get is overwhelmingly used through the terminal and a lot of applications that you would ordinarily expect to have a GUI on Windows or Mac OS X simply don't have one and demand you to use the terminal. This makes Linux an absolute chore to use for the average computer user on its own.

Linux is also surprisingly easy to break on certain hardware but as you said that mostly chalks down to terrible drivers.

The thing with Windows and Mac OS X, IOS and Android is that you don't have to constantly fiddle around with a command prompt for days when you're just trying to install new software or change a few settings and then move on with your day. It's absolutely frustrating at times when all you wanted to do was this one simple little thing on Linux and it just turns into this huge mess trying to figure out how you could actually do that one simple little thing.

The problem isn't about politics, it's about quality of life and Linux is woefully lacking in that on the consumer department. Distributions like Ubuntu and Linux Mint and Elementary are steps in the right direction, but they're not quite there yet.

[Not64]

I'd say it's much higher than 30%, most people I know only give a shit about the web browser. Power users like the people on this forum would probably have a hard time but I'd say they're in the minority.

Also if Microsoft somehow went under and every new laptop started shipping with Ubuntu overnight, I'd imagine a lot of sites would host .deb files on their websites alongside .exe installers, just to ease the transition for people who are used to that method. Also Ubuntu ships with a GUI package manager that is quite nice

[fruxodaily]

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;52419018]Steve Jobs knew how to make a marketable product, which is what Apple lacks nowadays. Without Steve Jobs we have iPhones without a headphone jack and the Macbook "Pro" with nothing but 4 Thunderbolt ports and that ridiculous touchscreen bar thingy on the keyboard[/QUOTE]

Steve would of probably done all those things but would of sold it as something better. You also got to remember that before his death, Steve was against mini iPads and any UI that wasn't glossy.

I don't think he would of held back the company but it's hard to say what apple with Steve would look like if he was still alive. Tim Cook is a good man he's just not the salesman Apple needs. He's at the end of the day a businessman. They need someone with the charisma and character that Steve had. Of course you'll never get a Steve Jobs 1:1 but you probably could match it with someone who had the passion he did

[Not64]

If Scott Forstall is any indication, they probably would have made augmented reality glasses. Steve Jobs was also playing around with a TV-sized tablet idea before he died.