Social Feed

Stuart Sweet
Staff member HERE TO HELP YOU! Pub Member / Supporter Cutting Edge
Last reply · posted in The Solid Signal Blog
Chances are, the Windows PC you use has gotten an update lately. I'm not talking about the routine ones that show up every Tuesday like clockwork. This one, called "Moment 3," is supposed to be a big one. It's one of a few times a year that your computer will get a pretty comprehensive refresh. And it's boring as heck.

Your phone may get an update soon, too. Or, it might have just gotten one. iPhone fans will be looking forward to iOS 17, while users of fairly current Androids might have already gotten Android 12. And you know what, they're boring too.

Here's what I'm talking about.


Windows' latest update has huge new feature functionality like "This update provides the total amount of storage capacity of all your Microsoft OneDrive subscriptions. It also displays the total storage on the Accounts page in the Settings app." I'll tell ya, I don't know how I ever lived without that.

iOS 17 will create blooms of joy for its users because it will have a "journaling app" that lets people record things about their day. Um, I'm pretty sure TikTok has that covered.

As for Android 12, its "Material You" update is touted as a big thing. It sure is: it makes some of the sliders fatter and some apps will pull their color schemes from your wallpaper.

Is it me, or are these all pretty small tweaks? That would be fine if they were advertised as such. But these are the halo features of the updates for our major devices. These are the earthshattering things that make life worth living, if you believe the folks who wrote them.

We've gone too far the other way


There was a time when updates were massive swings. Think of Windows 8, where Microsoft more or less threw away everything you liked about your computer. Or perhaps iOS 7, which changed the look of every icon and control on your phone. These were real updates. And some of them were total garbage. People railed against those big updates. In some cases they cried so hard that the manufacturers rolled things back to the way they were. Still, you have to applaud the companies that tried to do something innovative, even if they failed.

The last big swings, the ones I talk about in the previous paragraph, were a decade ago. Since then, OS makers have tiptoed around providing tiny changes to functionality. Even when they did that, they still came under fire. When Microsoft DARED to center items on the taskbar, people screamed. Never mind that pretty much every other device with some sort of app launcher at the bottom already centers things. People couldn't believe Microsoft would do such a thing.

And yeah, I get it. For the most part most of us just want to use our devices. We don't want to have to learn how to use them all over again. We also don't want to lose that one big feature we loved and no one else did. That happens all too often with OS updates.

But we've gotten to the point where these companies are so afraid of hurting someone's feelings that they've stopped making changes altogether. They've gone too far the other way.

What can be done?


It's foolish to think that our phones and computers have evolved as far as they ever need to. There should be a massive user interface change brewing at some point and I'm personally hoping they'll be smart about it. I do get that it's been a big hurdle in the past and it's created unhappiness for users.

Seems to me that they need to take a page from Apple, circa 2000. Back then, they took about the biggest swing possible. They went from OS 9 which looked like this:

39579b3ce39de8d4e8e2b489a2a93880.jpg


to OS X (commonly pronounced "OS ten") which looked like this:

MacOSX10-0screenshot.png


There was practically nothing in this move that wasn't touched. It wasn't an easy one either. Some apps wouldn't work at all, while others ran in a special compatibility mode. It wasn't just the look and feel, either. It took the better part of a year for people to figure out how to do the most basic things.

So here's what Apple did: they made it optional at first.

You had three choices. You could still run OS 9. Or, you could run OS X but launch a full copy of OS 9 within it whenever you needed to. Or, you could jump in with both feet and run OS X. Most people chose the middle option. I know I did.

It still wasn't easy and it took a lot of relearning. But by giving users options, people could jump in when they felt comfortable. No one felt pressure. By the time OS 9 was completely phased out a few years later, no one missed it.

Could such a strategy work today?


Yes, I think it could. Today's computers and phones are powerful enough to run emulation software if needed. I think that Microsoft, Google, and Apple could create whole new experiences for their users and make them optional. Give them the ability to switch in and out of them as needed. It wouldn't have to be an all-or-nothing proposition. This would give early adopters something to talk about, and would give the manufacturers the chance to refine things as they went along. After a year or so, they could start phasing out the old experience, when it was determined that enough people had stopped using it and were reasonably happy with the new one. That's how we could get real reinventions of the way we interact with our devices. And I think that time is long overdue.

Because, I get it. There are going to be some folks who just want to use their devices to do work. This is especially true with computers, which have begun to fall squarely in the "I only use it when I have to" camp. You don't want to have to try to remember new steps just to answer a phone call, or train yourself how to add an appointment all over again. But remember, you did those things once. There was a time you answered a phone call by picking up a physical handset. You learned how to press or slide the green button to answer. It didn't take too long. Why are you afraid to do it again?

Time to take some chances


It's been a decade since there was genuinely anything big to talk about when it comes to our devices. We've become accustomed to getting excited about little things like adding seconds to the clock or seeing the battery percentage inside the battery icon. It's time to dust off those thinking caps and move into the future. At least I hope it is. I didn't like Windows 8, but it wasn't boring. I'm tired of being bored.


The post EDITORIAL: Updates are too boring appeared first on The Solid Signal Blog.

Continue reading...
1 Replies · 374 views
harshness
The companies have to associate something with the update other than the many bugs and vulnerabilities that they seek to address. I wonder if they're actually holding back minor improvements so they can claim something positive with each update.
Scott Greczkowski
Staff member HERE TO HELP YOU! Cutting Edge
Last reply · posted in The Chit Chat Club
Sometimes a thread gets so many posts in it that is can cause issues for the server so that why today we introduce The Song Name Game Part 3!

So let the game continue!

The last song was added by Bobby who posted...

One Meat Ball - Andrews Sisters

CONTINUE ON AND HAVE FUN! WELCOME HOME TO SATELLITEGUYS.US!

Here are the original rules for the game as posted by WebbyDude back in 2006. http://www.satelliteguys.us/threads/68645-Song-Name-Game

Just name a song title and the band who performed it. The next person does the same thing, but needs to list a song title or band name which includes a word from the previous entry. Pick songs from any genre.

Example:

Long Live Rock and Roll -- Rainbow

Rainbow in the Dark -- Dio

Another example:

Ride the Lightning -- Metallica

Lightning Strikes -- Ozzy Osbourne


Get it?


An additional note: we all know that song titles, sometimes, use profane words. Because this is a family friendly website it is advised that you clean up that title up a bit. This is accomplished by using something like sh!t instead of the real word. Thanks....
68655 Replies · 2680128 views
  • Like
Reactions: c-spand
gms49ers
Jet City Woman - Queensryche
  • Love
Reactions: dishstaller
FTA4PA
Detroit Rock City - Kiss
  • Love
Reactions: dishstaller
sdfntx
I Care About Detroit - Smokey Robinson & the Miracles
dishstaller
I Wanna Talk About Me - Toby Keith
Bobby
98.6 - Keith
R
Last reply · posted in Computers and Gadgets
Lately my eight year old Dell laptop has been shutting off even when I have a full battery. I have had to keep it plugged up all the time to keep this from happening. Any idea what is causing this? I replaced the battery about three years ago.
2 Replies · 34 views
arlo
A recalibration might be needed. Even if it shows full, the individual cells may have become unbalaced. And the BMS chip in the battery reports false information to the pc.
Try this. Start it up in the bios/uefi and leave it there until the battery dies and it shuts off.
It might just keep running longer than in Windows. Or run for a short while and shut off.
If it's the first case. Probably just needs a balancing. If the latter, the pack might just be dead.
Not throwing stones but perhaps just a cheaply constructed battery with substandard cells. Could be.

Patience. Keep restarting it in bios/uefi until it won't fire up anymore.
Then plug the charger in and let it complete a full charge. And see what happens. If it's better.
Do the same thing one more time. Run it until it dies dead-dead. Then just let it charge, pc shut off.
When charged, it might be better. It might not be.

There are bench jigs that read the actual BMS and override it to let a tech manually monitor and charge the separate packs. They can also reset any "time bombs" in it that cause an otherwise good pack to show bad.
Maybe Santa will be good to me some year.

You might just need a new battery. Maybe the PC power management chip is going. A Dell common thing.
Leaving a laptop plugged in with a full battery is known to reduce the life. Asus for one recommends that you don't leave the charger plugged in all of the time even when shut down. And setting Windows to charge the battery to 85% instead of 100% increases life.
That's all I got.
dishstaller
That's all I got.
That was quite enough....I definitely learned something from your post. Thanks
TRG
TRG
Pub Member / Supporter
Last reply · posted in Computers and Gadgets
I set up a music server for my brother a few years ago. It's basically a small headless computer but it needs to have a DHCP IP address reserved for it in the router settings. This was easy to do in his DSL router. He's switching to Starlink now and I was wondering if these setting are easily accessible in the Starlink router. I'm pretty sure he will be getting the latest V5 router.
5 Replies · 273 views
b4pjoe
I set up a music server for my brother a few years ago. It's basically a small headless computer but it needs to have a DHCP IP address reserved for it in the router settings. This was easy to do in his DSL router. He's switching to Starlink now and I was wondering if these setting are easily accessible in the Starlink router. I'm pretty sure he will be getting the latest V5 router.
If you can't get into the router to reserve an IP address just don't use DHCP on the device that needs connected and assign it to a specific IP address in the network settings.
  • Like
Reactions: harshness
HipKat
I set up a music server for my brother a few years ago. It's basically a small headless computer but it needs to have a DHCP IP address reserved for it in the router settings. This was easy to do in his DSL router. He's switching to Starlink now and I was wondering if these setting are easily accessible in the Starlink router. I'm pretty sure he will be getting the latest V5 router.
They are not. Your best bet is to set up a third-party router, attached to the Starlink for your server, that you can get into, like a Linksys, etc
  • Like
Reactions: Foxbat
Foxbat
…it needs to have a DHCP IP address reserved for it in the router settings. This was easy to do in his DSL router. He's switching to Starlink now and I was wondering if these setting are easily accessible in the Starlink router. I'm pretty sure he will be getting the latest V5 router.
The Starlink V5 Install Kit I just got comes with the Mini Router. It is pretty limited in what it can do. For example, it can provide only one IP subnet at a time, no Guest Network, but it does support the pass-thru to a third-party Router. You can also split the Wi-Fi into separate 5 GHz & 2.4 GHz SSIDs to help some IoT devices that don't support 5 GHz bands to work.

The larger Starlink Router that still comes with the V4 Kit does support a Guest Network with separate IPv4 Subnet, but it's $120 from Starlink. And it still won't do DHCP Reservations.
harshness
If you can restrict the DHCP address space to assign addresses to one end of the subnet (i.e. x.x.x.50+), you can manually assign the IP address on pretty much any operating system. This is a default behavior on several popular routers. As the Router Mini only supports 235 devices, I expect that's already done.

Another option is to use a router that supports PoE to power the antenna. This article discusses that option (under PoE Power heading):

  • Like
Reactions: Foxbat
Foxbat
Now that I've had the v5 kit with the Mini Router, it's not as bad as I first thought. Yes, no DHCP reservations, but you can set up multiple SSIDs that have separate IPv4 subnets, and like the big brother, you can select from 192.168.x.0/24 or 10.x.0.0/16 (where "x" is 1-4).

You can also split a subnet and have different SSIDs for the 5 GHz and 2.4 GHz channels to handle some IoT devices. I haven't discovered what subnet the 2nd NIC on the router assigns, I'm guessing it's the first subnet.
dishstaller
Pub Member / Supporter Lifetime Supporter
Last reply · posted in The Chit Chat Club
2 Replies · 43 views
dishstaller
Sorry for posting the wrong link. Just corrected it.
dishstaller
Pub Member / Supporter Lifetime Supporter
Last reply · posted in The Chit Chat Club
Terrible tragedy. You would think that they would have safe guards in place that would prevent something like this from happening. I guess if you are going to ride in a passenger train it might be best to get a car near the rear.

2 Replies · 47 views
  • Sad
Reactions: Jimbo
Jimbo
Terrible tragedy. You would think that they would have safe guards in place that would prevent something like this from happening. I guess if you are going to ride in a passenger train it might be best to get a car near the rear.

They will have to look at the switching sections to determine WHY 2 trains were on the same track ... at the same time.
dishstaller
Thought this article might be of interest to some of you who might travel via train.