391–400 of 418 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
" Big buggy apps with dumbed downed features designed to lock user data as deeply as possible." Apple uses a lot of sqllite and xml for your user data. I'd be curious as to what part of your data you are unable to get access to?
If there's no way to export it, its locked down.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does Facebook's person-to-person communication offer beyond email and IM? (Honest question) No doubt it indeed has replaced email and IM for some people, but I would think it is just because "well, everyone else is on facebook so I'll just use that too"...
Facebook is my primary messaging system. It's better than e-mail because I don't have to sift through spam in my private message box. I don't even have to sift through messages from companies that I technically have a business relationship with. I only get actual personal contacts. It's better than various forms of IM software because (1) most of my relatives actually use it and (2) it's in the browser rather than a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OK, I'm curious what kind of model you have. Is it a top or front loaded? Mine (front loaded) has a pre-wash (2 hour program) or "soaking" mode for extra dirty clothes (4h), and I can select temperatures from 0-90 degrees celsius, but most clothes get clean at 40 degrees. I had to do an obscure button trick described in the user manual to have it remember the previous settings after a completed cycle, though.
Not in the laundry room right now, but its from Sears, top-loaded (cramped laundry room doesn't permit front-loading), all electronic, has no agitator(!) and is a piece of junk. Maybe I can find a trick in the manual; thanks for that idea.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My dishwasher does not require any rinsing. It has a built-in grinder for larger food particles that get washed off.
How about giving the brand and model a plug then?
F&P is built sturdy (e.g. feel difference in the rack). Unit is built as two drawers that are operated separately, so you can start the washer with smaller loads. No multi-level racks. Has 3-4 duration-of-wash settings (up to 2+ hours), but for normal dishes I never had to use anything but fast (20 min).
They are pricey but in my opinion you should get a similar quality dishwasher or not get a dishwasher at all.
http://www.fisherpaykel.com/product/dishwashing/ Warning: website is terribly designed
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But aren't these exactly the sorts of new features that you're complaining companies are putting into their products rather than perfecting their core capabilities (i.e. making phone calls and sending SMS)?
You're putting words in my mouth. Nowhere did I draw a line in the sand - you're attempting to do that for me. And I'm a little unclear why you feel like playing "gotcha" with me here anyway...
My point isn't an attempt at a gotcha - it's a comment that if this is how you really feel, then the only way that companies are going to take any notice is by putting your money where your mouth is and buying the more robust and optimised versions of those things that do the basics well rather than buying the models with the advanced features.
And it's not an attack on you specifically - it's something I see time and time again. My parents complain that the new TV they've bought, which is internet-ready, has apps etc, is too compicated for them to use. Meanwhile the old TV that did nothing more than show TV programs got thrown out a couple of years ago, despite still working fine, because they wanted the new model. They complain that the new version of Office that they use is too complex, but they've still got the Word 95 discs sat around somewhere (and they've rarely got any need to share documents with anyone else). And they are far from an isolated example.
Some people want the shiny new stuff - I know I do - but I accept that if I'm going to be on the bleeding edge of tech, I'm probably going to have bits of it that simply don't work properly. And as long as both you and I are out buying these things, rather than the boring but stable stuff, then this is what the market is going to build for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Every computer environment is layer upon layer of kludges. There is shit all the way down. You missed the AMAZING INGENUITY and BRILLIANCE that is also all the way down.
batista, I often find myself nodding in agreement when reading your posts on HN -- especially when you take a contrarian position. I do agree with you in this, also -- the hardware and software combination of a single PC or smartphone is, I guess, among the most complex systems humanity has built, and in such a short time frame. While my post was mostly me venting (bad Monday, frustration with people/clients/spouse/s…
A, thanks. I mostly take a contrarian position when I comment, because at things I already agree with I don't feel the need to comment on (yeah, have the silly urge to correct "someone wrong on the internet" as my motivation).
>This is not helpful at all. Does nobody at Google ever get a calendar request to their phone? The only way for me to respond to such a request is either to get to my computer and open it in web mail, or call back and ask what time the meeting is.
Yes, that's a perfect example of what the article SHOULD BE talking about (far better than the examples in the article). With those kinds of things, I agree, you tend to see neglect like this in all apps.
I just disagree with the particular examples given in the original article, which are far more complex and bug-like, and most of all with the notion of the article that because of those bugs (syncing, FCP crashing, etc) "everything is broken".
Some of the "layers of shit" (e.g, a pet peeve of mine, the traditional UNIX application installation directories and standards such as /usr/bin etc instead of self-contained, versioned, app directories) have historical reasons, and not necessarily incompetence, and it's very difficult to remove them without major financial and time investment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not at all. We have developed software as a true engineering discipline. It's only applied where it's really needed, and can be economically justified. For example, avionics and some safety-critical industrial control systems.
If you are referring to the extensive methodology and formal verification systems used in mission critical software, it is still prone to error and is still not viable for most projects. So the engineering aspect has to still evolve and find cost effective means of ensuring quality software. It should be possible with little more effort and application of mind and is an excellent business opportunity as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can I ask what mobile phone you currently use? Companies like Nokia made some great phone products that did the one thing (well, two if you include SMS) remarkably well in small packages, that had fantastic battery life. But then the iPhone, and Android, came out and virtually no-one was interested in the old, reliable phones anymore. They wanted the latest, shiniest gadget that they could get their hands on, regardl…
Probably because smartphones are now less about "phone" and more about "communicator". A phone that can only make calls is rightly seen as a huge anachronism. I daresay that I use my smart"phone" more for the applications I can run on it than making calls nowadays.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're putting words in my mouth. Nowhere did I draw a line in the sand - you're attempting to do that for me. And I'm a little unclear why you feel like playing "gotcha" with me here anyway...
The way I read it, you did seem to draw a line in the sand - that people should have stopped implementing new features a few years back. My point isn't an attempt at a gotcha - it's a comment that if this is how you really feel, then the only way that companies are going to take any notice is by putting your money where your mouth is and buying the more robust and optimised versions of those things that do the basics…
Every company is different, every product is different, every user is different. Attempting to speak in absolutes like you are simply doesn't work.
As for your suggestion I forgoe a decade of advance in phones... uhh no. A moderately buggy phone from 2012 is still a thousand times better than your puritan "calls and texts only" ideal phone.
The thing is, it could be much better with a little attention to detail.