|
mystes posted:I thought WebOS was actually supposed to be decent? Either way, nobody cared at that point and that would be reason enough to steer clear for app/compatibility reasons. WebOS is great, but it doesn't matter. The biggest advantage to smartphones is applications, which WebOS just didn't have enough of. It will be the same thing that continues to kill RIM even if they manage to launch the new BB and have it not suck, and it still hurts WindowsPhone7. WebOS is great at multitasking, but if you don't have any poo poo to multitask with who cares?
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2012 23:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 24, 2024 09:44 |
|
|
Space Gopher posted:Sadly, it fell victim to Microsoft being so drat full of itself. Things that really killed the zune were: Horrible software: What they have now rocks, what they had at launch was a buggy, poorly skinned version of WMP with less options. Annoying Format Support: The list here is long and niggling, but basically it is comprised of things not enough to can the thing for, but enough to annoy the poo poo out of almost every potential customer. For example, everyone had a blast finding software that could even encode video into the format the Zune used. To Big: I loved the hardware and UI, but the first gen Zune was just to drat large in the face of the iPod. It really hurt them. Horrible Marketing: I liked what they tried to pull off, but Microsoft lacked the image to do it well, and it pulled a lot of negative press as a result. The "Double Shot" case was actually really slick and the hardware and interface for the device itself was great, but Microsoft has this iterative release approach and they just couldn't afford that in the face of the Apple Juggernaut.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2012 01:04
|
|
|
DNova posted:OK I tried to not to sperg out after TomorrowComesToday's post but now I can't help it anymore. I was going to do this too. Old school CRT stuff is really cool Another thing about the image quality. While the lens at the front and the setups narrow viewing angles had a lot to do with poor image quality, a lot of it was also calibration and maintenance. Poor calibration, poor convergence, and one of the CRT's dying all contributed to really poor quality images. Basically most people just didn't know how to or realize they needed to maintain the things to keep them looking good. You used to see them in arcades all the time. The new machines would look great with a gorgeous screen, and 6 months later it would like like a dim, tinted, fringy pile of butt because they were on non stop and no one bothered to do upkeep on the display.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2013 08:08
|
|
|
AntiPseudonym posted:Is THAT what caused that? I used to think I just remembered them being better than they were, like looking at N64 games these days. Yep, rear projection crt's require regular maintenance to look good. A big issue is convergence and uneven wear. CRT's have a shelf life, they just happen to last way longer than a projection bulb. In Arcade usage though you were putting them under tons of stress. They were left on for 12+ hours a day non stop, often in a hot area, and were getting bumped and shifted a lot. The 12+ hour a day thing meant some times you had one CRT that hit a half life (the point it was half as bright as when it was new) while other elements hadn't so even with color calibration it would be dimmer and a bit off color wise, but of course no one ever calibrated them so you always ended up with wonky color push. People hitting and bumping the machines non stop would also slowly drive the convergence off on the 3 crt elements meaning the three color pixels didn't fully overlap, which made the display fuzzier and gave it weird color halos or even resulted in double vision. They still made CRT projection sets well after DLP hit because they were cheaper, and early DLP had a ton of its own issues. CRT's stayed popular in things like arcades because they were tough. They would take a beating and still work, even if they looked like crap.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2013 23:56
|
|