Microsoft Hollo Desk.

[walker 0]

Hi all

Like several other developers Microsoft are looking into 3D interfaces for future OS development:

OTuIVkHxwsw

Kind regards walker

[dale0404 5]

10 years down the line and things are gonna be pretty cool!!

[mrcash2009 0]

My only concern later is that physical world will be almost non existent in terms of interactions for schools and young folk. Tablets, touch sensitive whole 3d play areas, DJ's using mp3s completely (already to some degree) and touch screen mixers, e-books, facebook and the net virtual avatar ... pen and paper and no spell checkers or calculators in exams anyone?

I dont dislike its potential and fun factor, but if O/S is building to that and this push for 3d/touch screen tablets now its a large push to remove physical at the moment.

Plus its mass reliance on servers/power and net to stay up .... "the off switch". Eventually you will have a "personal avatar online DRM" to do anything.

The more I see of the future gadgets the more I scratch my head and the coolness and wow factor lasts for a bout 10 seconds.

Edited October 21, 2011 by mrcash2009

[Beagle 684]

10 years down the line and things are gonna be pretty cool!!

We used to say that 10 years ago but what we have today is pretty the same as 10 years ago. The main "innovation" today is pure marketing strategy, not technology advance. Edited October 21, 2011 by Beagle

[dale0404 5]

Dont think so Beagle...

Off the top of my head we count cpu speed in Ghz not mhz, 3D televisions / cinema, smartphones, CERN, ability to detect planets better (I know the first planet was detected in ~ 1996), Ipad / kindle etc, Ant and Dec... :p

[mrcash2009 0]

Ant and Dec...

haha :)

[Mr. Charles 22]

That'd be pretty nice for medical and mechanical studies.

[Derbysieger 11]

Dont think so Beagle...

Off the top of my head we count cpu speed in Ghz not mhz, 3D televisions / cinema, smartphones, CERN, ability to detect planets better (I know the first planet was detected in ~ 1996), Ipad / kindle etc, Ant and Dec... :p

you mean extrasolar planets, right?

[dale0404 5]

you mean extrasolar planets, right?

yes mate.

[Beagle 684]

Dont think so Beagle...

Off the top of my head we count cpu speed in Ghz not mhz, 3D televisions / cinema, smartphones, CERN, ability to detect planets better (I know the first planet was detected in ~ 1996), Ipad / kindle etc, Ant and Dec... :p

The first 1 GHZ cpus were from 1998 and just putting a second engine into a car is no technological advancement.

Marketing is to sell old tech that just was not releases yet to the customer.

The strategy is to sell the steps beetween the advancements not the ful advancement at one time. or do you really think products come out of the lab directly..before it really hits the shelf a technology is usually quite old. Just look at automobile technology...the currently sell aircraft technology from the 50's in 201o cars and pretent it to be something new.

[solidsnake2384 10]

Ive seen stuff like this at arcades but not as big when I was younger. There was a shooting game with a plastic or glass window on top of the gun. If you dont look through it you dont see anything. When you do look through it you see lasers shooting out of the gun.

[st_dux 26]

The first 1 GHZ cpus were from 1998 and just putting a second engine into a car is no technological advancement.

Marketing is to sell old tech that just was not releases yet to the customer.

The strategy is to sell the steps beetween the advancements not the ful advancement at one time. or do you really think products come out of the lab directly..before it really hits the shelf a technology is usually quite old. Just look at automobile technology...the currently sell aircraft technology from the 50's in 201o cars and pretent it to be something new.

This might be plausible if there was only one technology company in existence. Competition produces clear incentives to expose the market to new technologies that outdo competitors and increase profits.

Also keep in mind that just because a technology exists doesn't mean that it is yet marketable to consumers on a grand scale. If it's so expensive to produce that there's just no way the average person could afford it, it will only be sold to governments or large corporations. Cellphone technology has technically existed for decades, but it has only been advances in the last ten years or so that have allowed cellphones to be produced cheaply enough to enter the mass market.

[Beagle 684]

This might be plausible if there was only one technology company in existence. Competition produces clear incentives to expose the market to new technologies that outdo competitors and increase profits.

Also keep in mind that just because a technology exists doesn't mean that it is yet marketable to consumers on a grand scale. If it's so expensive to produce that there's just no way the average person could afford it, it will only be sold to governments or large corporations. Cellphone technology has technically existed for decades, but it has only been advances in the last ten years or so that have allowed cellphones to be produced cheaply enough to enter the mass market.

Do you really believe in free markets???

Do you really beliebe AMD and Intelare still in an free competiton???

Do you really believe the consumer is free in decissions?

C'ome one...thats not true, the whole industrie is a monopoly already

Thats like saying oils prices are defined by the free market and competion beetween the OPEC countries.

Wake up, Science is not free anymore. Today most science innovatiosn are finanzed ny corporation that take the right to exploit this innovations by themselfs. The times when research was done by Universities is long gone since the 90's and thats exactly when the slowdown in inovations began because research is concentrated in areas that promise easy profit.

there were no groundbreaking innovations since the 60's, Til today we just recycle and reuse what still lies unused in the research lab cellars. There had ben more "quantum leaps" in actuially usefull technology beetween 1930-1950 compared to the 1990-2010 and most parts we still use 1890's technology...the inovative products we are presented today is often just cosmetics of stuff we alrady now for 20 years...or so expensice that it's not really profitable for large scale production.

Edited October 21, 2011 by Beagle

[st_dux 26]

Do you really believe in free markets???

Do you really beliebe AMD and Intelare still in an free competiton???

Do you really believe the consumer is free in decissions?

Yes, yes and yes.

Do you really believe that none of your decisions are free and that you are actually being controlled by unseen forces to buy and sell goods and services against your will?

C'ome one...thats not true, the whole industrie is a monopoly already

Thats like saying oils prices are defined by the free market and competion beetween the OPEC countries.

OPEC countries have voluntarily decided to cooperate with one another in some ways. There is nothing about this that is wrong or incompatible with the free market. It is no different in principle than several small companies deciding to combine their efforts and create a corporation except that this would be an example of total cooperation while OPEC is an example of partial cooperation. There is still a degree of individual control that each member of OPEC exercises, and to that extent, they are in competition with one another. Moreover, OPEC is not the only organization on earth that produces oil. They are in competition with other oil producers throughout the world, and as their competitors have continued to grow, OPEC's influence on the market has been declining for several years now.

Your assertion that the whole technology industry -- which is really an umbrella term encompassing a huge variety of goods and services -- is one gigantic monopoly is both vague and completely unsubstantiated.

Wake up, Science is not free anymore. Today most science innovatiosn are finanzed ny corporation that take the right to exploit this innovations by themselfs. The times when research was done by Universities is long gone since the 90's and thats exactly when the slowdown in inovations began because research is concentrated in areas that promise easy profit.

there were no groundbreaking innovations since the 60's, Til today we just recycle and reuse what still lies unused in the research lab cellars. There had ben more "quantum leaps" in actuially usefull technology beetween 1930-1950 compared to the 1990-2010 and most parts we still use 1890's technology...the inovative products we are presented today is often just cosmetics of stuff we alrady now for 20 years...or so expensice that it's not really profitable for large scale production.

I see no reason why science funded by corporations is bad. Most universities are founded primarily with private money anyway. I will agree with you that whatever science they produce should be freely available for utilization by everyone -- ideas are not a scarce resource -- but the only thing that stops this free flow of information is the government. It is the government that issues patents, copyrights, etc. It is the government that creates this artificial scarcity, this perverse system popularly referred to as "intellectual property." This is no result of the free market. In the free market, information is never scarce and thus always free.

It's true that there was a greater frequency of enormous leaps forward in technology during the industrial revolution than there is today, but it was called the industrial revolution for a reason. Besides, markets were freer back then than they are today, not the opposite. That being said, I would definitely count computers, the internet and GPS as three examples of fairly radical inventions that have completely reshaped our world, and all three occurred after the industrial age. It's ludicrous to say that science has been in a virtual standstill over the last 20 years; it very clearly has not.

[Mr. Charles 22]

That being said, I would definitely count computers, the internet and GPS as three examples of fairly radical inventions that have completely reshaped our world, and all three occurred after the industrial age. It's ludicrous to say that science has been in a virtual standstill over the last 20 years; it very clearly has not.

These inventions are all older than you'd think.

[Beagle 684]

A little example about wrongy credited inventions

for example cars...

the first car ever was bild in china

Hydrogen and electric drive is older then gasoline engines.

Who Invented the First Ever Car

Ferdinand Verbiest invented the first car in the year 1672. It was the first ever car invented and was powered by steam. Ferdinand was an experimentalist and a missionary to China. He built his car in China. Hence you could rightly say, the first ever car was made in China.

In 1769, the first self-propelled car was designed and built by Nicholas Cugnot. His model of car was a three-wheeler.

Francois Isaac Rivaz, a Swiss inventor, designed and invented the first ever car with an internal combustion engine. This car engine was fueled with a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen. This car was made in 1806. However, this design was not a success.

The car models designed and built by Samuel Brown, Samuel Morey and Etienne Lenoir were also a failure.

In 1881, Gustave Trouve not only designed and invented the first ever car powered by electricity but also demonstrated the functioning of this automobile at an International Exhibition of Electricity in Paris.

Four years later in 1885, Karl Benz designed and built a car powered by gasoline. This car was made in Germany. This was the first ever car to be granted a patent in 1886. The rest is history and the world acknowledged Karl Benz as the "Inventor of the modern automobile". He also invented the first ever car with an internal combustion flat engine in 1896.

[PELHAM 10]

Do you really believe in free markets???

Do you really beliebe AMD and Intelare still in an free competiton???

Do you really believe the consumer is free in decissions?

Yes, yes and yes

On the last one I am completely free to consume as little and as much as I want. Eg I don't own a single Apple product and never will. Despite being oh so fashionable, I can find cheaper products that offer greater freedom of use. I don't have a facebook page either - the powers of marketing have no hold over me. lol

[NeMeSiS 11]

We used to say that 10 years ago but what we have today is pretty the same as 10 years ago. The main "innovation" today is pure marketing strategy, not technology advance.

10 years ago i could not have all of my music*, as well as all the books in the world in my pocket, and be able to read/listen then whenever i want, wherever i want.

*Actually i cant, ever since they stopped making affordable MP3 players with HDD's instead of the flashmemory they use today, combined with my evergrowing music library. :p

Though, with internet, you sorta can.

Edited October 21, 2011 by NeMeSiS

[Beagle 684]

The point is that nraly everything new today emerges without a real demand.

The main reason why marketing departsments are growing faster then reserch departments is ust because of that...in todays situation demands have to be artificially made first.

You can't risk to be ssen with last years Ipos or I-phone...people around you might think you have no home and no job when you get caught somewhere in the park with an old model of gadget ;)

This mayeven point to grot4sk situation like i encounterd recently when iI found a second brand new and stil boxed iPhone in my mothers kitchen... she said its just in case the other one gets broken ???

Fits perfect as she also has to BMW Mini Coopers...just in case one get's broken

Did I mention my brother? well she got two of us just in case the one gets....

Edited October 21, 2011 by Beagle

[NeMeSiS 11]

The point is that nraly everything new today emerges without a real demand.

The main reason why marketing departsments are growing faster then reserch departments is ust because of that...in todays situation demands have to be artificially made first.

Obviously, there is no real need for a holographic interface if you compare it to an old one, but improvement is improvement nonethess. Wether its from a real need or just for the sake of more profit.

You can't risk to be ssen with last years Ipos or I-phone...people around you might think you have no home and no job when you get caught somewhere in the park with an old model of gadget ;)

http://www.google.com/search?hl=nl&q=nokia+6230&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=5688l7446l2l7623l4l2l2l0l0l0l130l130l0.1l3l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.,cf.osb&biw=1366&bih=683&wrapid=tlif131924008239310&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi

This is my phone. I only use it for texting, i barely call. Which is a good thing since the battery doesnt last for more than a few minutes when i call. (After turning it on again i can still use it for texting for days though :p )

Noone judged me for still using this thing, if you feel that pressure than you can either blame yourself or your friends, but in the end noone really cares. :rolleyes:

My mp3player is somewhat fancier (Archos 43), but its still relatively cheap for what it does.

[Dead3yez 0]

One purpose for this that I can think off the top of my head is for training surgeons.