Windows Vista (and Windows 7) installs updates that require a restart when you shut down. The thinking by the design team here is obvious - the user is shutting down anyway, why no install updates now instead of forcing the user to shut down an additional time just for the updates? Seems logical enough.
Yet totally incorrect.
The reality is that I almost never shut down my laptop. I put it sleep, or log out, but only rarely shut it down. When I do shut down, it's because I need it to turn off: I'm getting on an airplane, or I'm leaving the house for an extended period of time. But I can't just shut it down - Windows wants me to install updates first.
So I can't put my laptop away and I end up at the back of the B line on Southwest, and thus in the middle seat for a three hour flight.
Windows shouldn't install updates when I want the computer to shut down for the simple reason that, at that time, I want the computer to shut down, not install updates. Windows should choose to install updates when I'm not using the computer at all, in the middle of the night. It should be smart enough to figure out when I'm not using it and install updates then. Putting updates where it does, Windows guarantees that I will be inconvenienced.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Monday, February 1, 2010
Apple Builds Bundles of Sensors
I heard an analyst on NPR this morning (I listen to a lot of NPR) complaining that the iPad was not the category-defining device that it could have been and that some were expecting it to be. He took issue that the device didn't have a killer social networking app - that there wasn't a compelling reason for grandma to buy one. He was expecting a communication marvel - he expounded on scenarios where families caught up with each other across time zones by sending pictures, video, and notes from a magazine-sized tablet. The iPad, he claimed, was not this device.
Why? Why is this not the iPad? Because it doesn't have these features out of the box? Everything the analyst described (except the lack of a camera - a void 3rd party vendors will happily fill) was software functionality, not hardware. Though Apple most definitely makes software, their mobile devices are increasingly just piles of sensors for developers to use as they will. Like a canvas before it's been painted, the iPad (and the iPhone and the iPod Touch) are just blank slates waiting for developers to make them dance. The iPhone in particular is a great example. It's almost a challenge to developers. Apple says "We are giving you a device with:
Now what can you make it do?"
The defining feature of the iPhone was not the hardware (as pretty as it was at the time), it was the App Store. It was the software. Why should the iPad be any different?
Why? Why is this not the iPad? Because it doesn't have these features out of the box? Everything the analyst described (except the lack of a camera - a void 3rd party vendors will happily fill) was software functionality, not hardware. Though Apple most definitely makes software, their mobile devices are increasingly just piles of sensors for developers to use as they will. Like a canvas before it's been painted, the iPad (and the iPhone and the iPod Touch) are just blank slates waiting for developers to make them dance. The iPhone in particular is a great example. It's almost a challenge to developers. Apple says "We are giving you a device with:
- Bluetooth
- 3G
- WiFi
- Microphone
- Camera
- Compass
- Touchscreen
- Accelerometer
Now what can you make it do?"
The defining feature of the iPhone was not the hardware (as pretty as it was at the time), it was the App Store. It was the software. Why should the iPad be any different?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)