for example I cannot argue that IE10 has any different taste than chrome, the UI is practically identical
There, fixed that for ya!
I however assert that a close 2nd is still a 2nd - as is a distant 2nd (I think IE is a close-ish 2nd) Definitely not the innovation that Chrome was - it's hard for me to consider the idea that Chrome was copied form IE, rather that IE 10 is MS's take on Google's design of the Chrome browser. But that's just me, I guess..
MS efforts seem admirable - they're a long way from the first to disclose such efforts. You excuse me (I hope) if I remain unconvinced that the design/principles employed are their own, rather than their implementation of someone else's.
- It also looks like they feed 3 phase power to each of the racks - so when the power goes out it seems likely that there's an extra DC -> AC -> DC conversion step from the centre's UPS to 3 phase AC, then back to single phase 12V at each rack. But there's insufficient detail in the links you posted that I read (didn't get the pdf) for one to really ascertain what is fact and what is fancy.
In any case - just look at the clothes people wear - different things have different visual appeal to different people. It's unlikely that either of us are in any position to seriously debate the technical merits of one company's approach over that of another company - but in any case, Google was the recipient of my vote for the reasons I've mentioned in both my 2 posts in this survey.
Thank-you though, there's nothing like an interesting discussion!
As far as I remember, chrome was the first to make a "lighter" menu on top, IE got a step ahead, with IE8 and integrated window/tab management, then chrome matched and they continued at the same pace. At this moment (particularly regarding the tablet versions) there's nothing left to remove, so both IE and chrome are chrome-less
Regarding the datacenters, yes it's a pity I didn't find that other link
You make some bold assumptions over there. No, I had forgotten about Google+ altogether, not because I play with my iPhone (I have no iPhone), but because they have no serious API or established user base, I decided I don't need a second platform. BUT it has DEFINITELY better taste than Facebook.
You can say that it follows about the same principles as metro (nothing really new there), but it's a pity Windows Live web pages do not follow those principles, making them inferior to Google+. I hope they will be remade, as practically the rest of Microsoft's web sites (azure portal, msdn, skydrive etc etc).
But still, when I see Surface or a Lumia or the first time I held a Zune HD (and I suppose it was similar for example for early iPhone adopters) I had this wow factor, this "THAT's design" feeling - that google never really gave to me. At best I said "that's a nice implementation" (see chrome, google+), in the same way I would say that I prefer Visual Studio's design over Eclipse's.
Of course that's just tastes. I am happy you explained your point of view in reaction to my post - the google supporters hadn't expressed themselves in the comments before that .
It seemed you were assuming voters only liked google for their response
Ah no, I didn't generalize that for everyone voting for Google - it was actually a response on a previous post by fpnzmarksh (which is quite difficult to discover, as the forum format of codeproject is... well... not perfect :P) who described his/her reasons of choosing google.
About the desert town thing, it depends on the case. In my case, moving to g+ will mean actually leaving all my non-IT friends outside.
Google+ is not well integrated mostly because Google has no serious API and they did not want to cooperate with Microsoft on that (see for example the fact that there is no official google maps app for Windows Phone 7). It's one of the arguments Microsoft used to bring Google to the European Commission for anti-competitive behaviour.
Linked in, though IS integrated, just partially. For example you can post messages to LinkedIn and integrate your linkedIn contacts (without hitch) but you cannot see linked in updates of people not having linked their Windows Live to LinkedIn (unless you're using Outlook). So, LinkedIn integration is on par with competitors.
Facebook integration is almost amazing. There's practically one thing that the FB app can do that the integrated hubs cannot (send offline FB messages).
But still we're not talking about what I would describe as "design taste". We're speaking of user experience, which is a different (but correlated) thing.
g+ is more about expanding your network. There is no approval of whether I "Add
you". You can turn around and "Block" me, but that is different.
That's exactly the part of G+ I like the least (and when FB does something similar, like groups for example, I HATE it).
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Use the browser like everyone else till we change our mind.
This is not an argument. Google HAS officially supported apps for Android AND iPhone, which certainly provide better functionality than the web-based client. And with the 90% market share they have on search in EU, they need to follow stricter rules than the competition (the same way Microsoft has to offer browser choice prompts on Windows, while Apple doesn't need to).
Regarding Windows 8, it's a transitional system, a necessity. We wouldn't be able to move from the old world to the metro world in one day. For the moment I am happy about gradually switching to Metro as better apps are getting out, without having to do a jump like the WP7 jump which had on release less functionality than the competition, and needed two years (and WP8 ) to catch up functionality-wise.
If you post something and it is not intended for a broader audience then you can
limit it (only post to specific circles/people). Facebook did not allow this.
Essentially what ever you post is public domain and searchable. This means
other apps can "track" you. Very dangerous IMO.
Thanks for having clarified that. Ok, in this way it's better. The fact that it indexes my emails still gives me the creeps, but facebook is also horrible in this regard (to be honest, if I could, I would leave facebook, but I have a lot of very interesting people there. As I change countries and meet people of many different places, and every country has its own social networks, only facebook seems to work for almost everyone at this moment).
In the same way you put the effort to move to g+, I am thinking of putting the effort of moving everything on windows live now that they remake their site( new outlook mail[^]). I started doing this gradually (actually with the connectors, if someone is following me on windows live they see the same info I post to fb). I really hope facebook at some point will get on the nerves of a lot of people the way mySpace did, and we move to some place with more respect for our privacy.
In this line of business, good looking means nothing to me.
No one will ever see me buy some electronic device or a piece of software because it's beautiful.
Same thing applies to the "because everybody have one".
If I don't need it, I won't buy it.
If there's a uglier machine but more powerful, I won't choose another just because it's prettier.
Technology by itself evolves in astonishing speeds only being surpassed by the visual trends, this means that whatever you buy will most probably look obsolete before it behaves obsolete.
Their website is a cluttered mess, the only design there is "find a place to shove this in the page". (I assume the poll is about website design, not hardware/other software from the description, but it honestly isn't all that clear.)
But the "Google's creative logos" sounds like a direct reference to their website. Also, the Fire runs Android right? So they really can't get all the credit for that.
Honestly the question is just kind of confusing. They don't all exist in the same field for proper comparison (Intel makes processors, who cares what they look like? And if Intel qualifies, why not AMD?). The only thing they all have in common is that they all have websites, but then again what large company doesn't these days?