I disagree. I much preferred it when they didn't pretend that TV should be the same as cinema. Even the mistakes are entertaining whereas on modern TV, they tend to stand out.
That's still not good. I recently switched from a Sceptre dumb TV to a top of the line LG OLED model, and it is sooooo slow. Everything takes forever because it's got to wait for the network connection which doesn't exist, play all its stupid animations, run the "AI" bullshit, and attempt an internet connection again.
Then you did it wrong. The tv should be turned on and set to display one port, say hdmi1 then never touched again until its time to shut it off. Volume should be handled through hdmi-cec from the tvs perspective it should get an on or off signal and maybe some volume signals and it should display hdmi and that is the entorety of its existence.
then put something like the OREI 8k HDMI 5 in 1 switch in front. Costs less than 60 dollars, you can control it with whatever universal remote you want or the remote it comes with. If I needed that I would just map it on my flirc skip remote and continue operating my whole setup from that one remote very easily with the tv only ever getting on/off and maybe volume signals. The nice thing about this solution is it lets you run everything at hdmi 2.1, which is often impossible on even newer tvs because only one or two of the ports are hdmi 2.1 on many tvs.
No, my response is protect yourself from the reality of the market via mitigation because you and i cant affect change because the incentive is to get worse for the corporation and minimum efficient scale is too high to have enough competitors to change the benefit math
I don't believe I overpay. I use my phone for hours a day. It is a marvel. I find it far superior to Android, which I used for years.
Yet I didn't buy the phone for the maps app. I have other choices for maps providers. It is perfectly acceptable to me that Apple charge me for additional services like maps.
We have different point of view then. I like iphones too, but I also admit that they are much more expensive than Android. You can get 140hz AMOLED with good processor on Android for 300€, s26 (comparable to iphone) is available at 600€. You don't get these discounts for iphone, it always stay near it's original price.
What makes it superior in my eyes is the quality of the default app, the note app for instance of the reminder, both extremely powerful and 'free'.
Now if they are going to downgrade their app quality by putting ads in them, it loose it's edge over cheaper Android phone.
Look, I'm not a Wayland booster, I still prefer X11 most of the time, but this is really the way it should work. Applications should not be allowed to dictate how windows appear. That is the job of the window manager. Chrome's PIP is a stupid workaround for Windows and Mac because they do not have robust window management.
This is the issue with imposing semantics of the programming model on the behaviour.
User behaviour is the only _real_ thing, it happens. Everything else is in your head. If people in the real world use PiP, then it should happen. The programming model has to bend and change to support it. It simply does not matter if the window manager does something or the window does something.
Sure, there is always the security argument wayland folks fall back to. But what ever is the problem with making a one-time permission popup? "Google Chrome wants to open in PiP: allow | allow once.". Just expose the existing PiP code in the window manager as an API guarded with an `if` that apps can call. It's not even that much real work, just pure bikeshedding and architecture astronauting.
Permission prompts still only allow things that have already been thought of so we will see less innovation in the future. I don't think this kind of security model is needed at all for an open source desktop where we can enforce directly that programs respect the user instead.
Right right, and I'm not saying users shouldn't be able to have a floating window with video (or whatever) in it. I'm saying it shouldn't be Chrome making that window floating and always visible.
That expectation is really an immediate major UX defect. Most really good GUIs rely on tons and tons of subtle behaviors to work right (that is, to assist the user). That means - counterintuitively - that they need a lot of leeway in how they get to control their own windows to appear on the screen.
Ultimately, the screen is just an unbroken flat surface and windows are just a software level abstraction that has been tortured beyond hope and one that users shouldn't have to micromanage or understand deeply.
If an application needs something to appear at a specific spot in a specific way, the display manager needs to bend over backwards to make it happen or it's broken. Windows understands it. MacOS understands it. X11 understand it, but the community is working hard to throw that wisdom away.
I don't get it, if you're on google meet, and you want to make one of many videos PiP. How can you ever do that in the window manager? It has to be done in the application! You right click or click on the menu on that particular video, and click Picture in picture.
The application could tell the window manager it wanted an always on top window. The window manager could ask the user if it should allow or reject and remember for this application or not.
That's exactly what I said... and also not how wayland works.
I cannot comprehend the way wayland folks think... quote from the xdg-pip discussion:
> To not make PiP windows effectively "always on top" and "on every workspace" dialogs - a terrible and sadly by applications used concept on X11 - PiP windows must be input-only, i.e. not receive keyboard, pointer and touch input
Like what the heck even? That is how pip windows are expected to work? And of course you want inputs on them? e.g to mute/unmute on a video call? Like these are use cases used daily by people. And its "terrible".
How many buttons do you want on a window frame then? The typical 4 buttons already take a lot of space in the title bar. Not everything that seems like a good idea at first glance is actually good design.
I don't know man, everybody is fine with putting tabs, and searchbars, and a bunch of other shit in the titlebar, but god forbid we put one button that's actually incredibly useful.
alt + left mouse button anywhere in the window (maybe win button or something is default now).
using the titlebar for moving a window is extremely backwards and productivity killer.
that being said, I agree with you, and I think its an outright abomination to put the tabs in the titlebar, and its disgusting how crome and firefox by default removes the real titlebar
Alt+LMB drag is impossible to do properly, at least on Windows, because too many applications use that for their own inputs. There are some X11 applications that also use that (Blender?), so while it's cool when it works, it comes with pretty severe problems.
I've fucking had it with you people and your "design"
As many buttons as he thinks he needs, and as a compromise they can be disabled by default and enabled through settings. Instead your ilk will probably remove even those remaining buttons and replace them with some obscure movement command
No, I wouldn't. I'm not your enemy. Please don't antagonize people like that. It's rude and I considered not replying because of your tone.
I have a pretty strong oppinion that GUI basics must be simple but more advanced stuff (e.g. tools that trainee professionals spend most of their workday in) must not hide its raw power because the user can be expected to learn.
User interface essentials have to be understandable without mental gymnastics by default without appearing overwhelming. The overwhelming majority of computer users don't change defaults on most software and a shockingly big number of computer users deal with them only because they must, not because they derive joy from it. They don't engage deeply with these devices at all. So those defaults must be picked carefully to keep the UI approachable. This isn't the same as ripping out features or antagonizing power users that do bother to learn.
The job of the window manager is to manage windows if the user wants it to do that. However there's many situations in which users want the application to be in charge of window positioning.
Making a decision on the user's behalf doesn't sound very free to me.
>> Chrome's PIP is a stupid workaround for Windows and Mac because they do not have robust window management.
What are you talking about? It's very convenient when I watch video while I do some work or entertaining thing on other web page or app. It's fine if you don't want to use it but many people do.
I actually prefer macOS's PiP handling compared to other operating systems. In that it's a blessed concept that only goes to one corner of the screen and can be shunted out of the way easily.
I use pinned (always above + on all workspace/desktop) quite often.
And to make it ergonomic I scripted kwin and set some shortcuts.
So yes, you can have any window PiP the way you like. But it requires you to do a long sequence of actions. Versus a single click for very specific PiP behavior.
Consider a window in a web browser tab. You could click the PiP button, which will pop out a tiny window, most likely already in a corner of the screen. This window is a mini video player. Your original browser tab stays untoucher, still at the same place in your web browser tab list, the rest of the tab still readable and scrollable etc etc.
Or, you could clone the tab. Move it to its own window. Locate the video. Put it in full screen. Un-fullscreen the window. Click on the pin button. Resize the window to the corner.
I meant from a consumer usage and uptake perspective. I was lucky to use Win 2000 as a consumer as my dad was a SWE who got free licenses from work (along with Compaq workstations, ergonomic chairs, and tickets to ATT Park), but apparently Win2000 for consumer usage was much less common than I thought.
reply