or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by PB

 Indeed, the first Mac OS X iterations made a great use of translucency, where the foreground window was completely opaque and the background ones had translucent title bars. Together with two levels of shadow depth, it helped usability in a very nice way. Now what exactly translucency is supposed to do? If it affects all the windows simultaneously, then it may get in the way and become annoying. Can anyone describe how it works in Yosemite?
 I suppose you mean OS X user. I don't know if there is any relation between the two (age of majority or average age of users - UI design) but I believe that there could be. The UI has to have an appeal for most of the users, current and potential ones. The new interface looks quite juvenile to my eyes. I don't like the color choice as seen in the pictures, but I will hold my judgment until I see the new system in person. And contrary to many people's criticism, I will...
 When the new Mac Pro was announced, I hoped that it would cover a wide range of possibilities from the mini all the way up to the pro. Of course this could put in big trouble the iMac, which had already a new design, so it was unrealistic. It is obvious that the new Mac Pro design has huge potential. Apple could easily use it to fuse the two headless desktop lines. If they will do so or not remains to be seen. But I don't think that they can just drop the mini without...
I don't deny the fact that technology is moving on, and with it society also. But it does not hurt to remember once in a while the original meaning.
1) Since never. It is one of the reasons I don't buy such devices, unless I cannot do otherwise. 2) The digital music players, including iPod, replaced the walkman of the 80's sporting as main function music playing and having more or less the same inconvenience regarding recharging. If the, as of now, chimeric iWatch will follow the same pattern remains to be seen.
No, as I explained it is more profound than this. No matter how good a watch made by Apple may be, it is going to be a mini computer needing regular recharging, not just a watch. This concept is of zero interest for me personally. I hope other people will enjoy it though.
Simple: I don't want anymore to bother changing batteries in a watch due to cost and uncertainty (you cannot know when exactly will stop). On the other hand, having to charge it regularly is completely out of question for me. It is a huge inconvenience. My watch hardly ever leaves my wrist. As I said, I chose a model powered by light. Anything less is not going to get my attention.
Very pertinent comment. I cannot imagine charging a watch regularly. Even changing the battery once per year in current classic watches is too much because, with 10-15 euros for each change, in a few years you pay the price for a new one. This is why I bought a light-powered analog watch last year. If it does not break, it will never need service.
Not only it worked, but it still works and the communication quality is so much better today than in mobile phones. Each time I receive at my fixed (wired) phone at home a call from someone using a mobile one, I am like about the audio. Of course the fault is not in my side because I never have this problem with normal wired phones As you can expect, I still refuse to buy a mobile phone.
Telephone is a composite word: from tele (meaning far away) plus phone (meaning voice). So yes, a telephone is a telephone as long as it transmits your voice far away.
New Posts  All Forums: