Jasper

I'de go for AVG Free - it's decent, it does the job. It doesn't come with a lot of features, but it does a good job at keeping the windows closed to bacteria.

I like pies

I like pies

I like pies

I like pies

Honestly, wait out with buying in. Digital distribution is getting some firmer leges now and blu-ray is just a small market for now with high prices. Unless you're an early adaptor (wich you're not since you didn't even know) you should leave blu-ray for the moment untill players get more commen, cheaper and the discs themselves become less expensive. Also, I think the comparison you've shown Emasher is also the comparison of analogue vs. digital. Analogue DVDs look crap, yes, but if they're connected digitally their quality improves hugely.

I'm sorry, but I am going to add that you're not only paying for the label here. The iPhone is the most sturdy phone out there with one of the best mobile OSes, a few of the nicest features and the only one with a multitouch screen. I'm not saying we're not paying for branding, but it's also a very good thing. And here's the thing: most people rather pay an few quid more just to get something that actually looks good. A mobile phone tells something about you - you've got it with you everywhere. Anyways, corcerning 'branding': a good branding will increase sales, and if they didn't call it the rediculous 'XPERIA', they could have used that ad money to get a better branding for the phone.

Let me be firm here: I know you are an Apple-basher, but you just made the worst remark out there. First of all, I study graphic design and advertising - branding is part of my studies and, yes, I'm interested in what I study - so I also let it determine part of my view of the world. I know everybody thinks that I just try to defend the iPhone here but it's got it's flaws to. I don't like the XPERIA, that's it. I don't like WinMo - yes it's customisable, but all the people I know that use WinMo find it slow and annoying. From my experience, the UI is just simple crap. Yes, you can replace it - but that's not the point, Microsoft should clean up their act and bring something to the market that's actually competive with what's out there. I have an advertisement with the XPERIA on it from a busstop - it's about the size of myself. I've studied that phone up close through high-resolution advertisements. It's just not a pretty phone. And yes, pretty is a factor I'de like to add. Yes, I've got an iPhone - and I am happy with it - but that doesn't mean I only like Apple products. The LG Prada phone is a pretty piece as well, sadly it runs even worse software. But I'm done with this. This forum is to much of an 'They must always prefer Apple if they don't like this' - I don't like the XPERIA, but there are non-Apple phones out there I'de love to give a try.

Actually, WinMo is the worst OS - it just has the most usefull applications at the moment. But at it's core it's old and rotten - and Microsoft needs to rethink their Mobile OS if they want to get to the future. Currently OS X mobile is the most powerfull OS (it contains really powerfull API's, but Apple restricts it with the app store). WinMo is actually the worst one out there - the other vendors are just more restrictive in what you can do to keep focus on things you should be doing. XPERIA is the worst branding I can imagen. Something simpler would be better. And off course, they could have made the thing a looker - I hate that stained steel.

Actually, I was talking about the interface being unprofessional, the handset itself isn't my taste (at all). Also, Windows Mobile isn't just behind in UI - it may be 'complete', but it fails to create a powerfull OS - it's not even a stripped down desktop OS, but it's simply a complete rewrite independant from Windows itself, deluding consumers with a flagship name that doesn't have anything in commen except the one thing it shouldn't - the interface. Anyway, the XPERIA has the worst branding ever, so this one won't get off very high...

Actually, just for the record, anything + windows mobile can NOT result into a 'Win!'-situation. Windows Mobile is outdated, sluggish, ancient and not for mobiles - it uses interface conventions of the desktop. Seriously, even Windows enthousiasts like Paul Thurrot say that Windows Mobile is the worst mobile system avaible. ANyways, this phone looks really ugly. I like what they did with the interface, but it always looks so cheap and unprofessional. And those triangular buttons? Were they thinking of diamonds when designing this?

Actually, Windows they only released Vista due to delays to Windows Blaccomb, wich is Windows 6 (but now named 7). Confusing naming stuff, but seven does work better from a marketing perspective than marketing it as 6.1 or Vista 2.

Looks great. Takes a lot of qeues from Apple's dock. Love it.

Uhm, have you clicked further than the initial yellow page? Because it gets better after that. SImplicity is still not easy to make, so keep trying. Simplicity is complex - because the simpler your site, the more you need to ask yourself about typography, text aligment, images and everything else. Here's (another, sigh) tip: start out with a piece of paper and ue that before you go digital. It will improve the looks of your site. Good Luck, again. (Now I'll quit with all that advice, I just wanted to help)

You don't need the skills, just try to keep things simple. Don't try to imitate things you can't imitate (I mean, don't make an IGN because you (sorry) will fail, because that design takes time and consideration and has evolved from a very different beast). What I meant (certainly with my examples) is that what you should do is look more closely and then try to imitate it - at first. Try to copy something you think is cool, and solve the problems on the way. If you solve them in your own way, you will make your own things inspired by what you wanted to copy. And really, the best tip I can give you, look closer. Think about how other designers handled certain problems and try to find out why they did this. This way you'll learn much more than just doing your thing and using quicker solutions. And keep trying. Really. But don't try to do things you're not up to. That's why I told you about postcardofapainting.com - this guy is a professional designer! Yet I'm sure you could make his website without a doubt. However, he came up with this simple website, so coming up with a good idea is half the thing! (And another thing I wanted to say with that site is that simple can be great, so first try simple and then enhance your site piece by piece, keeping everything looking just as tidy). Good Luck.

He makes a few valid points. Improve your writing and it'll come out better. But the look of your site is just so... nineties. With less work you can make something better - just lay of the Photoshop 'bleding options', don't ever use courier again and use a more standard font that isn't that wide. Courier is easy on the eyes, but also soar on the eyes because it doesn't look good. The blue color scheme is too much and people don't like to read on any color but white. integrate more white, make the menu prettier (or just make it simple - take a gander at postcardofapainting.com , it's simple, I'm sure you can make it, and it looks amazing). Try to use more white, brighter blues (going much more to Cyan and less mixed with white and black). My advice with colors is - if you're in Photoshop's Color Picker - never take a color that is not on the uttermost right of the color field. Other colors (wich have more white or black added to it) look simply ugly and are not usefull. Also try to keep it simple (KISS - KEEP IT SIMPLE, STUPID) and easier to find out. Take a look at some websites to see what works and what doesn't. Big images on your frontpage work, but tiny ones make it look ugly. Have a look at ninyou.nl , planc.be , zazazsu.be , the new CVG, the improved IGN, Nintendo of Europe's (or America's) website, and one more thing: get that counter off your website, because counters (certainly if they're external ones) never fit in with the look of your site and they make your site look cheap. These are just general tips. I wouldn't recommend making a static blog - do what you want to do. Keep on trying, but keep a lot of aspects in mind, I mentioned a few, but usability, the use of space (your site is too spatious), the aligment of your text (left reads great, middle makes it hard to get to the next line (since they'll vary) and right will be annoying to users). Use typography on a good way and make your own logo - don't use Nintendo's and paste 'time' on it. Get a copy of Photoshop and don't use any effects - just simple squares, bright colors and as little pages as necessary will make your site simple but great. Keep on trying and if you want, I'de like to give you tips along the way.

Well, I never said Apple was any better on that. Thank god I got that Genious sidebar off there, I hate it when Apple assumes I want that store popping up in my library. anyways, seems like the Genious thing is the same as Microsofts playlist idea, only much more advertised. Nothing interesting to see over at Apple (the new hardware looks good), but this is Microsoft's chance: this year they can make the Zune as good and full-featured as an iPod, and more. Come on, I want to see microsoft see something good for once.

Yes, they do, but do you really consider iPods bad? Are they selling just because of shiny packaging? Are they bad products? Zune was marketed and named the 'iPod Killer' from Microsoft, so it's fair to compare it. Also, the Zune has sold far fewer devices. Microsoft, being a company, has benefit at selling to the biggest avaible market. If Microsoft puts the Zune is a shiny packaging (wich they do), then they cater for that same market. And honestly, Bush is not the comparison here - you're comparing politics to consumer electronics, wich to me seems a little farfetched. You know what the big problem is here? The only people who post here seem to be fanatic enough (or hating Apple enough) to just accept that this is the bestest thing ever for the Zune - it's not, the Zune should be better in other areas. I'm not saying iPods are the bestest thing ever, but here's the thing: marketing makes 80 percent of the product and Apple nailed it, bigtime. Also, iPods are decent and good devices that do what they advertise and where the general public is happy about. If we're making the analogy to Bush here anyway, let's go down that route McPhee. Eight years ago, Apple introduced the iPod as well (okay, seven years ago) - Bush came into the White House, fresh from the shiny campaign. Eight years later, consumers are still happy with the iPod while Bush is going to be beaten by a Black President - for conservative America, this will be huge (yes, the emphasis is on black, because America is the land of racism just as well). Apple still makes good iPods, and people are still happy about them. Bush made good wars (winning and all), but people are not happy about him (wich is, again, understandable). Here's the catch McPhee: if consumers don't like your products, they don't keep buying. The iPod got popular from advertisements, shiny packaging and word-of-mouth. The Zune did fail because it set out to beat Bush and failed bigtime (like, uhm, who was that guy again that ran for president four years ago when Bush re-entered the White House?). Your comparison is bullocks. Okay, here's the problem: everybody assumes that, because I've got a mac and I defended Apple back in the day that they were biased for everything (and they're still), I set out to reply here and convince everyone iPods are better. I'm not trying that. I'm only offering pointers to Microsoft here - where they are wrong and where they could be better. Apple isn't perfect, far from, but they sell. The only fair and honest way to see wich product is better is to look at the numbers. We live in a democracy, and that means that if the majority of the people choose for something that it is law. Let's offer a different look. If you start a webstore now, will you make it look and work like Amazon? Off course, because that's what users expect. If you built a photo editing application, will you leave features like the layers palette out because Photoshop has it? If you release a professional photo-editor, you better make damn sure that your application contains layers - or you are royaly screwed. If you build a forum, will you make it work like this one? Off course, because that's what a forum is. No matter how you twist or turn it, Microsoft and Apple are both in the Portable Media Player market, and Apple is doing a great job - is it advertising? Ss it a good product? That doesn't even matter - the numbers dictate that, if you make an PMP, you better make it have the features the iPod has and more, or you won't be able to overthrow the big seller. Zune intended to kill iPod, it failed. Now it's just trying to say that it didn't set out to do that at all - it just wanted it's own market. But, McPhee, if a product has it's own market, than an average consumer can have both without them overlapping. But right now, the American (and Canadian) consumer in the store will choose between an iPod and a Zune. Not buy both. So Apple is doing a better job (because they sell more iPods than Microsoft even ships Zunes) - and don't say 'That's because it's named iPod!' - it's named iPod, and it was named iPod before it became popular. But it became popular and the Zune didn't. Stop being babies saying that everything Apple does is necesarilly bad, and stop being pussies hiding behind the Zune just to not have to admit that it's not beating the iPod at the moment. Microsoft failed where Apple succeeded and no matter where you look at it, it needs to defeat Apple on the points that Apple won - may it be shiny packaging and advertising, or good products. DISCLAIMER: don't inerpret me as a racist, because those are not my intentions. I'd love a black president, just for the look on the KKK's faces when this happens - it'll be big, and maybe it'll change the attitude of America a little bit.

And who exactly failed in being cool with their devices? I'm sorry, but you can't just put these two reasons up and deny that they are important. Apple apparantly knows marketing and Microsoft doesn't (look at their latest ad with Bill and Jerry - it just doesn't say a thing, except that Bill Gates (estimated to be worth more than half the northern hemisphere of farmland on Mars) buys really, really cheap shoes at a discount.) That's just silly. You're not telling me that 75 million iPods sold is just the Appel fanbase? You're just farfetching here - stop defending Microsoft on this one. They started PlayForSure, it failed (because nobody wants to buy subscriptions to music and find that their library explodes after a year and be required to check in every month to see if it's still good). Then they ditched their PlayForSure partners, launched Zune with a DRM called PlayForSure, but not compatible with all the PlayForSure already avaible out there. They ate all their North-American partners that used it and didn't even come close to eating into iPod sales. I'm not saying Apple is perfect - I payed 17,99 euros for the January Software Update on my iPod (after waiting two months, outraged that they were charging for it) and I had to pay again, 9 euros - let's not forget that they included the January Software Update in there for the full price of 9 euros - so I threw away 17,99. That's not fair either. The major difference is that Apple makes good systems that don't do too much (and thus don't need an extensive feature list on the back of the box) and not too little (so they don't have to brand the thing 'MP3-player' and leave it at that). It does things people want: listen to music, watch videos and synchronize content without too much hassle. Don't tell me that Microsoft didn't take a peek or two at Apple's iconic product before they started working on the Zune - even the phrase 'Hello From Seattle' is just a copy of 'Designed by Apple in California'. Now Microsoft tries to differntiate with features that are not really used. I'll be honest - there are a lot of features in my iPod touch that, at first, seemed like the Wow was then, and there - but now they're just everyday functions of wich most I don't even touch. But Apple makes a good iPod, it sells, it's perfectly marketed, and I'm sorry to tell you that that has everything to do with the incompetence of Microsoft within this marketplace - and well, let's face it, in about every marketplace that offers direct contact with consumers. I didn't want to make this a comparison, but there's no way around it: Microsoft wanted this to be the iPod-killer and I don't see them doing that with these new features. I understand myself that Apple fans are mostly smugg and annoying people (I've experienced it first-hand on aquataskforce.com) and I like them as much as you do (I'm also looking at Emasher here), but that doesn't mean that Apple didn't make a good product that is liked by the general public and that's - let's face it - selling like hotcakes. Apple nailed it - a product is not just a product, it's marketing, fame, quality, integration, name - and Microsoft just didn't. Yet. PLUS (edit)

Honestly dude, iPods are good products because the general public considers them to be - that's why they sell, say, seventy times more products than the Zune? Surely that must mean something. In America, DAB could be usefull, but I don't listen radio and Belgium doesn't use DAB. And I'm talking about playlists, not app pushing or update to 2.0-madness. Yes, you pay for itn but in my eyes it's worth that meagre 9 euros, nine for god sake, and what you get is great. I'm not saying APple is original with it's platform, I'm saying that it's making the right choices and that shows in sales. iPhone and iPod Touch is a bigger platform than any single mobile phone out there and it has a single, defined feature set making it nice for developers to work on - because they don't have to worry about iPhones without a touchsreen, or accelerometers. They can make great games without worrying about those hundreds different phones out there, while they still have a large install base. Zune also offers a unified platform, but much less usefull for gaming (like iPod Games, they suck) and with a much smaller installed base. And I wasn't attacking Microsoft nor the Zune, I was trying to tell how they can actually improve it - and don't tell me they don't need to look at Apple, because everything concerning msic that Microsoft did has failed and Apple was the only one to succeed - now exactly who had the right end of the stick, then?

I think I've made my contribution, and eveybody saying 'Nice' isn't really the purpose of a forum either. But sorry for me English, but I don't get yours. Is it a good or a bad thing not half-talking shit? Because this one seems like a double denial or something, the language part that confuses me even in French (yes, I know my share of French - but don't ask, since I don't practice it).

You know, I didn't say it was bad. I only said it wasn't really great news and the features I saw described are not attractive to me. But if I must go in defense, you're getting kicked in the crotch. First of all, if it's FM radio tagging then there will be two major hurdles: Microsoft does not have a playlist of these radio stations, so they can't know what song it is. Except if your Zune listens to it and tries to recognize it - and that will eat your battery power. So it either will work and drain your battery like blood springing from an open heart, or it won't work. Apple already offers customized playlists, smart playlists and iMixes. I don't think that this features doesn't follow in what Apple is doing - and if Microsoft is pushing these playlists to you, well, we all know how little Microsoft knows about users, and if they get to trace your music habbit you can be sure that they'll store the data and maybe even use it to get you to buy stuff. (Unused desktop icons? Come on, I placed them there, don't make me do things I don't want to do, Microsoft, and don't know better than me!) I'm sure, though, that I don't really get the special part of this feature: is it Microsoft suggesting music? Or is it just the Zune digging through the library? Anyway, I don't see the upside of this with a device that only has WiFi. Games are already on the iPod (not following the leader, Microsoft? That's Bullshit), and the iPod Touch and iPhone are thriving platforms with games on them and more of them coming. XNA has been in beta for a long time and Microsoft, as I believe, showed this feature for the Zune about half a year ago - and they're finally delivering it, better late then never. I still doubt that there is a market for this, since the Zune market just isn't big (now don't attack me on this, it's a fact - if you can choose to sell to millions of consumers or ten millions, your choice is easy). They are trying to steal from Apple, wich is - considered their market - the only thing to do. Microsoft already stole users from all PlayForSure makers in America, but barely touched into the iPod market - so that failed. Why should you follow Apple? Because they make a good product - and that's what they're supposed to do. Every company wants to make a good product, and Apple is doing that. Now for Microsoft to win, they should not try to think away from Apple - it's exactly those iPod features that made iPods attractive (that, and the ease of use, wich I've heard is good enough on the Zune too - but not widely known, that). Microsoft should follow Apple - no, they should catch-up with Apple and then lead the market. The problem is that the Zune still hasn't reached the ease-of-use and functionality the iPod does and their hardware is always hopping a year behind Apple's. They copy Apple a year later, and at the same time Apple upgrades again. We'll see if I'm right tomorrow, when Apple will have a supposedly big event (even though their new Nano has leaked, they say they still have big cards) - so maybe Apple has all this, and more -and they will still be ahead, or maybe they won't and Microsoft will have a good year to finally get the iPod into the Zune (sorry, guys). If Microsoft can focus, they can catch up and they can lead the long run, but we'll see tomorrow before I compare too much.

Waw. Sound like, well, honestly, I can't say. These all sound like features I won't need or want, so it's just plain stupid. Microsoft, focus. The reason Apple got this far is because they focused on what's important for the device - being a great MP3 player is more important than being a great little-of-everything. This sounds like an off-beat unneccesarry update. And please, XBOX360 of MP3 players? Come on, people don't even develop for this using the XNA - there aren't even more than two million sold zunes out there, there is barely any market for this. Microsoft needs to start getting their act together and stop making random things happen in rnadom places. FOCUS.

Don't be wrong - it is an attempt of Google taking over the internet, but Google is a great overlord. The only thing we have to suffers through are those cumbersome Google Ads - and as long as Google makes money in that spectrum, we get stuff for free! Also, Google is already half the internet.

Google on Chrome EULA ontroversy: our Bad, we'll change it. There you have it - sounds sincere. But it's weird because somebody at Google did write this piece of text - or maybe they just copied the EULA from their online applications. But hey - everything you do with a registred account with an American company is stored. Really. All those chats on MSN? Videochats? Audiochats? Every major company offering any service of this kind stores this data for ten years, and if it's stored in America the FBI can view this information at their will - you don't know that. In Belgium, the FBI request quitte a lot conversations done through MSN (that's just an example). Our government only allows the passing of this privacy if it's terrorrism or child porn, so I'm pretty safe (except if you start using the word 'bomb' and 'obama' too much - there are trackers on these). Well, most companies don't mention that on their EULA, though.