Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Revamping SkyDrive

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the silver-lining-done-in-rectangles dept.

Microsoft 82

Windows 8 is drawing near, and with it comes tighter integration with Microsoft's cloud storage service SkyDrive. Because of its increased visibility, Microsoft is revamping SkyDrive to a more modern design, and is updating the SkyDrive apps for desktop PCs and Android devices. "SkyDrive’s revamped home page embraces the same tile-based design aesthetic as Microsoft’s other new and upcoming products, including Windows 8 and Windows Phone 8. Microsoft previously referred to that aesthetic as 'Metro,' but plans on giving it a new name at an unannounced future point. ... SkyDrive users can flick for a more detailed view of files, including dates modified, sharing status, and size. In terms of features, there’s the ability to search within SkyDrive for pretty much any term, including content within Word and other Office documents. Microsoft has also shifted common commands (creating and sharing folders, for example) to the toolbar that runs along the top of the SkyDrive interface.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

In Unrelated News (-1, Troll)

casings (257363) | more than 2 years ago | (#41002969)

The Mythbusters proved that you CAN actually polish a turd.

Oh wait I guess this isn't that unrelated.

Re:In Unrelated News (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41003547)

Serious question, why is it a "turd"?

I don’t see anything obviously wrong with SkyDrive.

Unless you’re saying because it’s by Microsoft, there for it must be bad.
If so wouldn't that be considered trolling?

Seems like on Slashdot the difference between "trolling" and "funny" dependent on if you’re in the cool camp or not.
Serious question, why is it a "turd"?

I dont see anything obviously wrong with SkyDive.
Unless your saying because its by Microsoft, there for it must be bad.
Wouldn't that be considered trolling?
Perhaps the diffraence between "trolling" and "funny" is dependant on if your in the cool camp.

Re:In Unrelated News (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41004107)

Sorry ballmer, no one wants to buy your shit.

Fuck off.

Re:In Unrelated News (1, Insightful)

casings (257363) | more than 2 years ago | (#41008169)

it was a joke, you useless cunt.

Name Change? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41002975)

What's wrong with the name "SkyDrive"?

Re:Name Change? (2)

casings (257363) | more than 2 years ago | (#41002985)

Metro is the name that has to change not SkyDrive.

Re:Name Change? (1)

camperslo (704715) | more than 2 years ago | (#41004029)

They could stick with the spirit of Mojave by using the name of nearby Llano Del Rio.
Since Windows 8 is a Brave New World for MS, it is fitting that the author of the book by that title, Aldous Huxley, once lived there. There is no feeling of that big-city Metro crowding.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1a/LlanoDelRio1.jpg [wikimedia.org]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Llano_Del_Rio [wikipedia.org]

Re:Name Change? (2)

RaceProUK (1137575) | more than 2 years ago | (#41008895)

£10 MS replaces the Metro name with 'Tiles'. It's as imaginative as calling the OS itself 'Windows'.

Re:Name Change? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41013177)

Maybe Panes, then it could be Window Panes

Re:Name Change? (2)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 2 years ago | (#41003811)

I hope they change the UI name from Metro to "Annie's Boobs". That would be monkeyrific!

Re:Name Change? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41005253)

For an authentic Microsoft aesthetic, monkeyrific would be Ballmer's boobs, not Annie's.

Re:Name Change? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41005605)

Its not "SkyNet"

Re:Name Change? (1)

RaceProUK (1137575) | more than 2 years ago | (#41008913)

SkyNet already exists. I know, because I work on it.

Seriously, I really do work on a project called SkyNet. It's not gone hunting for Sarah Connor yet, so I think we're safe for now.

dropbox (0)

zlives (2009072) | more than 2 years ago | (#41002995)

is it because Ballmer got caught using drop-box? ( earlier slashdot article)

Re:dropbox (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | more than 2 years ago | (#41003855)

could be he had it before skydrive and just hasn't bothered to migrate.

Disgusting. (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#41003029)

This isn't specific to Skydrive, it's a defect of other 'cloud storage' things as well; but why the hell would I want an "app" on my desktop for something that is supposed to be a filesystem?

Why would I use an application-specific re-implementation of things like 'search' and 'metadata display'? That's just perverse. I can understand that, if you need a UI that works in just about any browser, with download links and a little xmlhttprequest upload box, for basic just-need-to-grab-that-file-to-print-it-out type needs; but a desktop "app"?

Is it too hard for Microsoft to expose their own service as a filesystem?

Re:Disgusting. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41003139)

I read your post 5 times and I still can't figure out what you're all pissed off about. Slow down and take 10 deep breaths.

Re:Disgusting. (1, Informative)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#41003181)

Parent post was perfectly articulate, you're just dumb.

Re:Disgusting. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41003331)

OK, explain it in 25 words or less then.

Re:Disgusting. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41003535)

This should not require an app, it should look like any other directory. Microsoft should be able to connect seamlessly with their own shit.

Re:Disgusting. (1)

Barlo_Mung_42 (411228) | more than 2 years ago | (#41004407)

The app is for syncing. This way my stuff is available when I'm off line. Any change I make is synced when I connect. What's the big deal? You don't have to use the app. You can just use the web interface if you want.

Re:Disgusting. (1)

IAmR007 (2539972) | more than 2 years ago | (#41006001)

This could still easily be written as a filesystem, or more precisely, two. First, write a filesystem that accesses the online storage. Secondly, get a good union mounting FS. Make a union mount between the directory you want things to be in and the online storage. Configure the union mount to synchronize the bottom layer with the top layer. The union mounting would be useful for other things as well, such as automatically syncing a flash drive with a folder or caching network drive data. A read only base layer with a rw top layer allows for the base system image + configuration image for netboot. Much of this is already working in Linux, though not necessarily feature complete, yet.

Re:Disgusting. (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#41012133)

Dude, this is Microsoft, not Linux. Microsoft isn't capable of doing anything like that.

Re:Disgusting. (1)

QuantumRiff (120817) | more than 2 years ago | (#41006107)

Microsoft already has file systems and algorithm's for syncing and being offline (note your "offline files" in windows vista or 7) They also have DFS that handles synchronizing, replication, delta changes, etc for server shares.

Like the GP said, it should be just built into the OS. You can mount a WebDav share as a mapped drive, just like a SMB share. But with skydrive, you can't just drag an email from thunderbird into a folder and have it sync? that would really, really suck.

With an app, you can't use your basic utilities to work on it.. Like windows backup, or robocopy, or cp, etc.

Re:Disgusting. (1)

rbonine (245645) | more than 2 years ago | (#41008719)

Before forming such a comprehensive opinion on it, wouldn't it make sense to, y'know, actually take a look at it?

I have all of my Skydrive content saved as D:\Skydrive (on three different machines). If I want to save something to Skydrive, I put it in this directory and it gets synced to the cloud, and thus to the other machines, via a background process (the "app"). I also back up this directory to an external drive just in case - I can do this because it's just a regular directory tree. Why is this such a difficult concept to understand?

Re:Disgusting. (1)

crashumbc (1221174) | more than 2 years ago | (#41008899)

because this is ./ and we like bitching about random stuff... Of course, I'm pretty sure MS has been slammed for YEARS here for doing exactly whatthey want it to do...

To rehash/clarify...
MS bakes their IE browser into the the OS: [Slashdot opinion] this is the most evil thing ever and they are evil in gaining a "unfair" advantage.

MS doesn't bake skydrive into their OS instead using a app so all cloud storage apps are on equal footing:[Slashdot opinion] This is the most stupid idea ever, why wouldn't they bake it into the OS!

No I'm not a shill and I have no intention of ever using Skydrive OR Windows 8

Uninsightful (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#41013509)

MS bakes their IE browser into the the OS: [Slashdot opinion] this is the most evil thing ever and they are evil in gaining a "unfair" advantage.

MS doesn't bake skydrive into their OS instead using a app so all cloud storage apps are on equal footing:[Slashdot opinion] This is the most stupid idea ever, why wouldn't they bake it into the OS!

Nobody's asking that Microsoft "bake skydive into the OS", just that one should make it appear that it's part of the file system. Nobody demanded that IE not be available, just that it not be part of the OS. If you "bake skydrive into the OS" so it can't be removed, that would be like IE and Windows and yes, we would rightfully bitch about that.

Hope I cleared that up for you.

Re:Disgusting. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41004951)

okay. I will be that guy... the AC who explains something then gets ignored:
it is exposed as part of the FS. it is treated like a drive mounted under an NTS folder. it is named "Skydrive". with me so far? good.
it ALSO has an app. the app is really quite useful if you want to look at files on another machine that are not explicitly copied to sky. it is also nice for viewing stuff from the sky on another computer.

so, you are correct, both of you. they also did this. the app is nice for other reasons and makes things cute and ties the entire experience together.

consider it like this: just because you have an nfs mount, it does not mean there may not be reasons to use sftp or a webserver to move files to and from that mounted location.

thank you. please feel free to ignore this as AC posted it and it is not simply shaming MS for being 'dumb'.

Re:Disgusting. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41003661)

Cloud storage should be exposed as a filesystem/drive/directory, not as an application.

Re:Disgusting. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41003819)

You've been able to map Skydrive as a drive for years.
http://www.nirmaltv.com/2010/02/02/how-to-map-skydrive-as-network-drive-in-windows/

Not a clue if they've since removed this ability, but I'd hunch not since Office etc still needs to be able to directly open and save files stored there. (As earlier versions lack any direct skydrive compatibility)

Re:Disgusting. (1)

19thNervousBreakdown (768619) | more than 2 years ago | (#41004451)

Yep, just download and run the 3rd-party app developed by "Mike" to get the secret URL to your files so you can put it in Microsoft's non-working WebDAV implementation. Easy as pie!

Er, except it doesn't work anymore [mikeplate.com] . But other than that..

Re:Disgusting. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41005719)

Yep, just download and run the 3rd-party app developed by "Mike" to get the secret URL to your files so you can put it in Microsoft's non-working WebDAV implementation.

No [cnet.com] you don't need to do that.

Re:Disgusting. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41003759)

Requiring information be delivered in 25 words or less == proof you're a retard

My god, how daunting a book must be for you.

Re:Disgusting. (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | more than 2 years ago | (#41003881)

file-systems whether on site or remote should be accessible via file-managers, not require a dedicated app.

btw (1)

Kurrelgyre (548338) | more than 2 years ago | (#41003597)

Patriotism isn't bigotry. Nationalism approaches bigotry. Pretentious sigs are pretentious.

Re:Disgusting. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41005833)

Slashdot is perfectly usable without noscript, you're just dumb.

Re:Disgusting. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41003193)

I feel the same way with regards to every post on slashdot under a Microsoft news item.

Re:Disgusting. (1, Insightful)

Ziggitz (2637281) | more than 2 years ago | (#41003249)

While the outrage is a little over the top, the issue is that Microsoft can't implement their own cloud storage solution as an explorer add on. When I install the Dropbox application to my Linux machine, my Dropbox folders show up as folders in my user directory even though Dropbox didn't create my desktop environment because the Filesystem implementation for Linux is exposed to them. Microsoft on the other hand can't implement the same integration for Windows, their own operating system and desktop environment, for SkyDrive, their own cloud storage solution.

Re:Disgusting. (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 2 years ago | (#41003305)

I'm sure it's not "can't" it's "don't want to". They want to add features to the Apple-style lock-in that is 'Metro'. How are they going to take their percentage of apps if people write native apps?

Re:Disgusting. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41003333)

You mean the Skydrive program that synchronizes with your Skydrive that was made availible months ago?

Re:Disgusting. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41003383)

Maybe the Linux Dropbox app works differently than the Windows Dropbox app, but on Windows the files are actually local files that are synchronized by the app with the cloud copies, there is no remote filesystem magic happening, just good old fashioned downloads and uploads.

Which, coincidentally, is exactly the same thing as what the SkyDrive app does. There's a local folder on your machine that gets a copy of the cloud folder and is kept synchronized when the files change. You don't need an app to use the files in the folder, the app just keeps things synced up.

Re:Disgusting. (1)

Teun (17872) | more than 2 years ago | (#41003475)

I think you mix up Dropbox and Webdavs, it's the latter that shows the remote files as part of your tree, Dropbox only shows a local copy unless you use a browser and get on the net.

Re:Disgusting. (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#41006501)

You can certainly implement this level of integration on Windows. Jungle Disk cloud storage, for example, installs as a driver (or something along these lines) and then appears as a network drive in Explorer, working directly against remote files.

SkyDrive doesn't have the same exact thing, but it just uses a different model - it has a local folder that's automatically synced to the cloud in the background. So you don't really need an app to work with; and, indeed, there's no desktop "app" for it (there's a download, but it's the service that does the sync, not some kind of a file browser).

Re:Disgusting. (2, Insightful)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#41003213)

Call me old fashioned. But this whole idea throwing personal and corporate data to the "cloud" doesn't resonate well with me. I find the entire concept to be... well, unsettling from a security standpoint. Online systems have been and do continue to get hacked.

No sir, I don't trust cloud technology.

Re:Disgusting. (1)

Teun (17872) | more than 2 years ago | (#41003509)

The better brands have your remote date encrypted, that way it's safe from thieves even though you can still lose it.

Re:Disgusting. (0)

kwerle (39371) | more than 2 years ago | (#41003559)

... You trust your underfunded, overworked, and undereducated (for security issues) IT department more?

Security and usability (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 2 years ago | (#41003579)

Call me old fashioned. But this whole idea throwing personal and corporate data to the "cloud" doesn't resonate well with me. I find the entire concept to be... well, unsettling from a security standpoint. Online systems have been and do continue to get hacked.

If your computer is connected to the internet it is, as much as anything in the cloud is, an "online system" and subject to the "online systems have been and do continue to get hacked" problem. So, there's that.

If your computer isn't connected to the internet, you probably aren't storing data from it in the cloud in any case.

Either way...

More seriously (though the above is not non-serious, just somewhat less serious) storing data on the cloud rather than on your own computer which is sometimes exposed to the internet obvious has some amount of increased security risk. It also has some usability advantages, particularly if you use multiple different devices -- say, you prefer your desktop when you are in the neighborhood of your desk, but prefer your tablet when you are away from your desk -- and want to keep them in sync.

There's a cost/benefit balancing to be done as to whether to use cloud storage and what particular content to use it for (and what particular cloud provider to use, including -- particularly for business -- self-hosted cloud storage as an option.)

Neither "no one should ever use the cloud to store anything because of the potential security risks" nor "everything should be tossed off on to the first free cloud storage service you stumble across" are particularly thoughtful ways of addressing that cost/benefit consideration.

Re:Disgusting. (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | more than 2 years ago | (#41003893)

it is perfectly safe as long as you encrypt locally.

Re:Disgusting. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41005023)

Because lack of encryption is the only problem that the cloud will ever have, eh? How about total data loss? How about mucking up your data and making all the other little invulnerable storage places mucked up too? And then if you store locally and back up locally, what's the point of using the cloud in the first place?

Re:Disgusting. (1)

DuckDodgers (541817) | more than 2 years ago | (#41009455)

If you have a fire at your local location, you can still lose everything. The point of backups is to have at least one valid copy of the data survive any given catastrophe. So if my encrypted files are in Amazon's S3 storage on the west coast and my local copies are at my house on the east coast, one copy can be totally destroyed and I just recreate it from the other. The odds of both copies getting destroyed at the same time are very low - but if you're that paranoid, invest in a second cloud backup solution hosted by a different provider in another part of the world (Europe, Asia, etc...).

Re:Disgusting. (1)

Cro Magnon (467622) | more than 2 years ago | (#41012521)

That's why I put a backup on a rocket and launched it into space. If anything happens to my backups on Earth, I can restore my data from Uranus.

Re:Disgusting. (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 2 years ago | (#41005401)

I find the entire concept to be... well, unsettling from a security standpoint. Online systems have been and do continue to get hacked.

No sir, I don't trust cloud technology.

No should you. The "cloud" in a network diagram is where data goes to disappear, become unreliable, be attacked, come back exploited, etc. The less "cloud" in your network diagram the better it is! It's a hold over from drafting in general where you make cloud like lines around some part of the blueprint, which is later exploded into its individual pieces -- Except with a network diagram, "the cloud" isn't known -- We leave it mostly blank. It's as opaque, fluffy, and fickle as the clouds in the sky...

One thing is true in both real and digital clouds -- That's where all the Lightning comes from. I spend thousands of dollars to protect my data from The Clouds -- Whatever marketing moron thought this was a good analogy must have been a delusional twit... You only spend a moment being on Cloud 9 thinking, "This is heavenly," since you don't have wings. In no time at all that whole warped time-space gravity thing bounces you real hard.

Moral of the story: If you want to send your data to the cloud you better wrap it in a full body condom of encryption, gives it a cache of reserve parachutes, then invest in lightning rods, reserve batteries, and cloning technology -- Essentially, when you say "To The Cloud!", you better be wearing a bloody lab coat and follow up with a hearty Mad Scientist laugh! Mua ha ha HA HAA!

Re:Disgusting. (1)

DuckDodgers (541817) | more than 2 years ago | (#41009423)

If you're going to use the cloud, investigate TNO (Trust No One) solutions - options where the data is encrypted on your computer and uploaded to the cloud, and the cloud hosting provider does not have access to the decryption key. If you want to do it yourself, use GnuPG or 7-zip to encrypt the file, and then put the file into the folder that gets automatically synced to DropBox or SkyDrive or Ubuntu One or whatever. As long as you don't upload your decryption key or password, nobody should be able to read your data. Just make sure to keep safe backups of your decryption keys and passwords.

Some cloud storage plans claim to have a complete TNO architecture, like SpiderOak - the way I understand it is that you create a password on your computer, and it hashes it. That first hash is used to encrypt your files. Then it concatenates that hash plus the password and hashes it again, and the second hash is your authentication token to SpiderOak servers so it permits files to be uploaded and downloaded. SpiderOak's servers hold your encrypted files and the second hash, but since they never get the first hash and hashing algorithms are one-way by definition (given a particular input you can recreate the output, but given a particular output you can't recreate the input it came from), they can't decrypt your data. However, while SpiderOak open sources most of their code, they haven't open sourced their encryption code so it's always possible they're lying.

Shut up before you make yourself sound even dumber (1)

Kurrelgyre (548338) | more than 2 years ago | (#41003581)

Skydrive has a synchronization application for Windows and OSX. It has for months.

Re:Disgusting. (1)

Swampash (1131503) | more than 2 years ago | (#41004363)

Dropbox owns this space because it's a folder. It's not a filesystem or a server or an application. It's a folder, you put stuff in it, it syncs.

See Michael Wolfe's excellent answer to this question about Dropbox at Quora:

http://www.quora.com/Dropbox/Why-is-Dropbox-more-popular-than-other-programs-with-similar-functionality [quora.com]

Re:Disgusting. (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 2 years ago | (#41005121)

SpiderOak [spideroak.com] still kicks its ass. Supports Linux, very configurable and more free space.

Re:Disgusting. (1)

water-and-sewer (612923) | more than 2 years ago | (#41008597)

I also like SpiderOak. Very easy to set up, already in the Ubuntu repositories, and all your data is fully encrypted on the remote server.

Re:Disgusting. (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#41006505)

And SkyDrive does the same exact thing.

Re:Disgusting. (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#41006463)

You don't need an app for that if you use the desktop. It's just a local folder under your %HOME% that's automatically synced to the "cloud". Naturally, any existing program that can work with files will also work with that.

There's a SkyDrive app for Win8 because it de-emphasizes the file system, and for WP because it completely hides it from the user. But you don't have to go there if you don't want to.

Re:Disgusting. (1)

RaceProUK (1137575) | more than 2 years ago | (#41008937)

Is it too hard for Microsoft to expose their own service as a filesystem?

The non-Metro SkyDrive client adds a SkyDrive folder to your user library. From there, it acts like any other folder.

Re:Disgusting. (1)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | more than 2 years ago | (#41008977)

Baby steps. Patience padawan.

I see what you want an OS that just has content on it, view able, navigable, searchable, accessible, all irrelevant of the actual storage mechanism. Whether its stores on a local disk or in the "cloud" somewhere it just available like any other file or content on your OS.

Its a great idea, and historically Microsoft did offer features that blurred the line between local content and "local network" content, offering network files that included an "offline" mode for cached storage when the network resources are not available.

So it should be a natural extension for Cloud content to be accessible to the OS in the same way as any other file or content.

The problem is the Luddites rule the world now. Cloud is this new concept that is not really new, or even that clever. I mean, its a glorified FTP protocol allowing for "off-site" access of network content. Hardly a big stretch for people already in IT or development to understand.

Because of the "newness" of the Cloud, Luddites are wary and fearsome of it. Everyone on Slashdot ranting about cloud services fall into this Luddite category, afraid to embrace technology because of an inherent belief it is set to destroy us or obliterate our human rights. They might used it begrudgingly, but they won't enjoy it, never! And it absolutely has to be accessible through a rectangle with rounded corners ( or in the case of Windows 8, a regular plain ol' rectangle). I call them "Luddite Portals" because it allows those to access technology in a safe and familiar way and they can delete them at will if it gets too scary.

If Microsoft integrated cloud content as ubiquitous as local content storage, all Hell would break loose. There would be riots in the streets because people would not know what content is theirs and what content might be accessible to "The Man". Governances like the European Union would have to spend years wasting what precious little money Europe has left to try and smack down Microsoft for offering an improvement to the Windows experience. Old men in robes carrying gavels will hash out ridiculous laws because they can't comprehend this brave new world of blended files systems.

Simply put integrating cloud content into normal OS content would destabilize the world's economy, cripple governments, and bring us to the brink of total anarchy.

So, you will have to wait a few more years for the Luddites to catch up to the reality that Cloud is just another kind of hard drive and eventually your vision of a Utopia of a fully blended file systems will come to pass.

Unless Apple does it first and then its all puppies and unicorns and epic glorious reach-arounds.

Re:Disgusting. (1)

tgd (2822) | more than 2 years ago | (#41009157)

This isn't specific to Skydrive, it's a defect of other 'cloud storage' things as well; but why the hell would I want an "app" on my desktop for something that is supposed to be a filesystem?

Why would I use an application-specific re-implementation of things like 'search' and 'metadata display'? That's just perverse. I can understand that, if you need a UI that works in just about any browser, with download links and a little xmlhttprequest upload box, for basic just-need-to-grab-that-file-to-print-it-out type needs; but a desktop "app"?

Is it too hard for Microsoft to expose their own service as a filesystem?

It is, but the OS won't do local caching so you have the files offline.

The app gives you file synchronization with offline copies. You don't need it, you can access it via WEBDAV just fine.

Re:Disgusting. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41013941)

install skydrive. Notice new folder which is just a folder, is indexed and behaves just like any other folder. But anything in that folder is synced to skydrive and accessible from any other devices you have the app installed on, or via the web. The install sets up the folder and the background syncing, that's it.

revamp? (1)

Trepidity (597) | more than 2 years ago | (#41003185)

With that lead-in I expected a significant change in the service, but it sounds more like, "redesigned the website". Wow, they moved some buttons to a toolbar, too!

Re:revamp? (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 2 years ago | (#41005431)

With that lead-in I expected a significant change in the service, but it sounds more like, "redesigned the website". Wow, they moved some buttons to a toolbar, too!

How quickly you forget how significant that can be... At risk of awaking that which shant be named, what recall have you of, "The Ribbon"?

Skydrive still useless compared to Dropbox (5, Informative)

Swampash (1131503) | more than 2 years ago | (#41004319)

LAN Sync: with Skydrive if I move 50gigs of data into the shared folder of my iMac, my iMac uploads that 50gigs into the cloud over my DSL connection and then my Macbook downloads that 50gigs from the cloud over my DSL connection and then my old PowerMac downloads that 50gigs from the cloud over my DSL connection. Dropbox will just copy the 50gigs to the other machines over the gigabit ethernet they're all plugged in to since they're all in the same room.

Differential upload: with Skydrive if I change one byte in an 8gig DVD image then that 8gigs of data gets uploaded into the cloud. Dropbox uploads the one byte.

Get public link: right click on a file in Dropbox, get link for sharing with people. A killer feature that Skydrive just doesn't have.

Re:Skydrive still useless compared to Dropbox (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41004831)

Windows Live Mesh did this and was much more advanced than both DropBox AND SkyDrive. Aside from LAN syncing, it also let you sync ANY folder on any drive, not just those in some 'special' DropBox/SkyDrive folder. Also one of my big gripes with DropBox is that shared content from other people uses up my quota, not so with Mesh - the service only stores the file one, why bill 5 different people's quotas? Storing data in the cloud is just like on another PC, you can select to do it, or no -. I used it to sync 300GB of media directly between my work and home machines (initial sync was done at home). I can't do that unless I pay DropBox/whoever for 300GB. Admittedly MS phased out Mesh in favour of SkyDrive in the latest 'Windows Essentials' pack, but I've been vocal in contacting reps @ MS about replacing Mesh with what is (currently) an inferior product. Mesh is/was a great product, MS just sucked at bringing it to people's attention.

Re:Skydrive still useless compared to Dropbox (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 2 years ago | (#41005477)

Mesh is/was a great product, MS just sucked at bringing it to people's attention.

Or, they realized it gave you too much control over your own data...

Re:Skydrive still useless compared to Dropbox (2)

tgd (2822) | more than 2 years ago | (#41009239)

Mesh is/was a great product, MS just sucked at bringing it to people's attention.

Or, they realized it gave you too much control over your own data...

Don't fall into the trap of attributing strange things Microsoft does to nefarious intents, athough that's the knee-jerk at Slashdot. The reality is that corporate politics and turf battles are the real cause of most of these things. When you have two products coming out of two business groups or parts of the organization under two different senior leaders, the losers are the consumers. Much of what people tend to attribute to some sort of centralized scheming on the part of Microsoft is really just a result of a compensation system that (at senior levels) heavily rewards looking out for yourself above all else. Silverlight's fall from grace, for example, is simply because of Sinofsky ending up with the ear of Ballmer and the associated power that brings.

Re:Skydrive still useless compared to Dropbox (1)

tgd (2822) | more than 2 years ago | (#41009183)

Windows Live Mesh did this and was much more advanced than both DropBox AND SkyDrive.

Hopefully some of that functionality will eventually come back. A bigger loss without having Mesh (and you lose Mesh if you move to the new versions of the Live apps), in my opinion, is the remote access functionality. I doubt many people even knew it was there, but it was one of the best freebee things Microsoft had associated with their Live properties.

Re:Skydrive still useless compared to Dropbox (3, Insightful)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#41006511)

Get public link: right click on a file in Dropbox, get link for sharing with people. A killer feature that Skydrive just doesn't have.

It does now. [ghacks.net]

Re:Skydrive still useless compared to Dropbox (1)

Swampash (1131503) | more than 2 years ago | (#41019023)

That is nowhere near the functionality that Dropbox offers. That's a confusing twenty-click nightmare that only Microsoft could think was useful to a user.

Dropbox: right click on the file in Finder or Explorer, context menu, "get public link", click. THAT's useful.

Re:Skydrive still useless compared to Dropbox (1)

oldlurker (2502506) | more than 2 years ago | (#41009689)

Get public link: right click on a file in Dropbox, get link for sharing with people. A killer feature that Skydrive just doesn't have.

My SkyDrive does exactly this. Right-click on file, share - get a link (select to give view or edit rights, built in URL shortener). You can also make file public, share on Facebook or send directly as an email from within SkyDrive.

Re:Skydrive still useless compared to Dropbox (1)

Swampash (1131503) | more than 2 years ago | (#41019037)

My SkyDrive does exactly this.

Now that's not ENTIRELY accurate is it?

Re:Skydrive still useless compared to Dropbox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41021093)

My SkyDrive does exactly this.

Now that's not ENTIRELY accurate is it?

Not sure what you mean, I did it as I wrote the comment, exactly as stated. You absolutely can "right-click on file in SkyDrive to get link for sharing with people" which OP claimed you couldn't.

Ah ... Well Yes ... Oh Dear (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41005685)

Revamping SkyDrive is a good idea.

M$ doing this is a nightmare. I.E. they can't figure it out! ... It's not DOS! Cut to the 'M$ Boiler Room in Redmond Basement when and where 10K of 'worker Bees' stop and can't figure out the layout to the standard keyboard.'

Hmmm....

AhHa! H-1B! http://onlinevisas.com/h-1b-visas.html

Ah, M$ in action again. Filling the trough. Linking the links. My heart quakes and shakes. 'Not'

I expect to read stories of Balmer doing some, err how should I put this, 'furniture re-arranging and window testing' ... there I got is out and anybody who follows M$ know just what I refer to.

I have never owned M$ stock by the way. And for good reason. 8D ;)

SponGe (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41006005)

deliver. S0me of [goat.cx]

A Drive (1)

psholty2 (2696677) | more than 2 years ago | (#41007091)

They should call it "a drive", or "a: drive" to be more specific. Nobody uses flopies anymore. Make it appear to be just another disk and consider it done.

Re:A Drive (1)

RaceProUK (1137575) | more than 2 years ago | (#41008955)

The non-Metro client (almost) does that already - it makes a SkyDrive folder in your user folder.

Chuck Versus the Family Volkoff (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41008247)

Check out the product placement in it for the SkyDrive. Or just search for comments online about it.

MS and mobile websites (1)

mythix (2589549) | more than 2 years ago | (#41008853)

... they don't go very well together. I tried the new outlook and other unified, metro styled, webapps on my windows7.5 nokia... I could ignore the uglyness, but the functionality... they must be kidding.... are they new to this thing called the internet?

It's getting lame... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41014395)

I'm really starting to hate Microsoft for changing all of their websites to this shitty new GUI. My reactions to changes they made in the website GUIs.

apphub (formerly creator's club which sounded cooler):
1) Pressed F5, maybe the page didn't load properly.
2) Pressed F5 again with firebug running, maybe the page had an error I could report.
3) Cleared browser history, cache, and all other temporary data.
4) Tried again with 1 and 2.
5) Tried loading the page in IE, repeated the above with an IE equivalent to firebug.
6) Checked the page on my laptop.
7) Disabled web filters on my router to see if maybe I blocked the content.
8) Deleted apphub from my bookmarks.

codeplex ran me through the same as above, except step 8 was moving my projects to a different open source project host.

Seriously what the hell are they thinking. That new GUI looks like someone just figured out how to use the line and box tool in mspaint. The previous GUIs looked nice, they weren't distracting, and best of all they were usable.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?