15 posts • joined 3 Oct 2007
Agree that RT will stay and I think it should stay.
RT devices that could be immediately administered with the same management and monitoring tools as laptops and win8 tablets could do well and would push sales of Microsoft services and servers.
The expensive full fat windows tablets are a cludge in comparison, useful for the odd legacy or specialist application (not unlike kinect for windows and, I'd hazard, destop touchscreens outside the point of sale type setups for which they are currently used).
I think that it's a failing of Microsoft that they've put so many unnecessary blocks in the way of SMEs and home users making the most of Microsoft software and services. This makes it easier to switch to competitors. E.g. Directaccess restricted to Win 8 Enterprise Software Assurance version.
I get that they "charge what the market will bear", but within every business and home there are submarkets, so ability to upgrade licenses and features easily without having to re-buy everything would encourage people to stick with Microsoft.
Have there been any changes to the management of Microsoft Licensing as part of this shakeup?
Re: Actually, LibreOffice sucks too.
Libreoffice's a lot thinner of a pig than last year. Libreoffice 4.0.3 is the first version that I've found starts up in reasonable time and doesn't stall on a decent computer.
Not for professional writers, but Word / Access / Publisher have had their ups and downs meeting this description due to this and that missing feature.
What I find disappointing is that MS ship a large percentage of Office sales as OEM but don't price their applications at prices that encourage regular upgrades.
E.g. A Microsoft Steam/Store equivalent that allowed businesses to buy/upgrade just Outlook, or just add Access for €50 or so per application. For small businesses it even becomes a cost barrier to Office 365 / Exchange Online.
Retail business sales of Office of course are a joke. Go into PC World and there will be one copy of Office Pro on the shelf for €700 in the hope that some panicked executive makes a crisis purchase.
Access 95 and Publisher 97 used to be installed across the entire business network, now they are priced and licensed in a way that only volume license customers will purchase, so most people do not encounter them. I doubt that this benefits it's shareholders or sales figures.
Re: How to have your cake and eat it.
What could Ireland change in their tax system?
The 12.5% is not paid. Unclear how increasing this rate would do anything to the multinationals.
The loophole is that Ireland doesn't tax some outgoing money transfers. It's not alone in the EU for that.
Are they to match their tax rules to those of the US? Or change global accountancy rules so Google US can't charge Google Ireland 7.5 billion to 'license' the search technology. (vs 1.5 billion in 'real' running costs )
The US could look to change their rules on transfers between companies and their wholly owned subsidiaries, the famous "double Irish" is a loophole in US law. The Dutch law on not taxing incoming transfers avoids paying the tax to Ireland.
France's nominal corporation tax rate is higher than Ireland, but after all the accountants games, the amount paid at the end is between 2.5 to 3 %, similar to Ireland.
As you write, they " they made loans to people who said they had a great plan.".
In Ireland 2002, Anglo Irish Bank had a loan book of €20 billion. They announced plans to treble this in 4 years to €60 billion. And they did. Half a billion here to a state entity to purchase a toxic waste dump, 150 million there to buy a hotel that was barely profitable. €15 million for a field which can't find a buyer now at €250,000.
An anecdotal talk I had was with a part-time self employed builder was invited for a talk with the bank manager and straight out offered 5 million to build a housing estate, which the builder chose to reject.
So half of the loan book went bad.
The book of risk management was thrown out the window. The one bank CEO that took a prudent approach was ousted by institutional shareholders that wanted the loan book to bloat like the others.
The pension fund managers didn't want single digit growth of their share portfolios.
Is there a coinciding push for IT departments to buy volume license + software assured Windows Enterprise upgrade CALs.
I.e UserExperience-V and similar MDOP tools to keep this BYOD stuff in some manageable shape? Which likely ends up costing more than the tradition business supplied set-up.
Some clarification from the Intel site is available, after all this has been some Intel stuff since '08.
1. You can set your device to lock from the Intel® Anti-Theft Service website and it will lockdown the next time it synchronizes with the service. Your device automatically synchronizes with the service when it is connected to internet.
2. If your device does not synchronize with the service within the "user selected" number of days, the Intel® Anti-Theft Service will lock your device. The Timer Based Lock uses a hardware based timer that prevents an unauthorized person from defeating device lockdown.
It's a subscription service.
The security sites have been pointing out the security risks of vPro for a while now.
I.e copy the xbox dashboard revenue model.
Step 1. Fill the windows store with all sorts of stuff of indeterminate quality.
Step 2. Charge developers for premium dashboard / search placement. x dollars per 1000 views otherwise your app is never seen by human eyes.
Now all it needs is Andrew Tanenbaum to criticise it and it can take over the world.
Intel/AMD are probably reading this and noticing that they no longer need to put expensive L1, L2, L3 cache on their processors. They can use the cloud.
A more mainstream and general purpose form of Onlive or Citrix Receiver service will probably become mainstream before the scenario outlined in the article.
How do you upgrade from NT4 workstation with the realtime patch?
One manufacturer suggests posting the entire PC (responsible for operating the CnC machine, putting it out of commission for a week) back to Italy.
Google are using Dalvik because Oracle won't have anything suitable for mobile until Java 9 in 2015 or so.
On the other hand, should Oracle win this, will their lawyers be meeting the IBM Nasgul in court in regard to their derivative version of IBM's SQL?
And does Dennis Ritchie's estate now own the world?
Stenography HTTP proxies?
If they were restricting by port, then it would only be because the engineers are trying to fake compliance while leaving loopholes available.
Looks like they'll have to redevelop a version of tor that transmits data in other ways.
Proxies that introduce image / video stenography, altered ip packet data, even packet timing to convey information.
Another two buttons we'll have to tell family members not to press.
Seeing as Metro / WinRT applications aren't compatible with windows 7 and earlier, that'll mean that all that get preserved (apps, settings, license keys) are a few lightweight apps in the near to mid future.
Bets on how long it'll take to release Metro versions of Photoshop / CS Studio / Visual Studio anyone?
Removed the basic spam filter too.
They've removed the very basic antispam updates that were available to Exchange 2010 users on standard CALs.
So even worse anti-spam than Exchange 2003 SP2?
No, will not be buying Forefront + 'enterprise' cals for everybody.
Licensed not sold?
According to the software companies, the software is licensed and not sold (setting aside the California judgement on Softman Products vs Adobe 2001, http://www.linuxjournal.com/articles/web/2001-11/5628/softman-v-adobe.html, where "The reality of the business environment also suggests that Adobe sells its software to distributors.")
There is text in the EULA explicitly outlining how the license can be transferred to another party, and the only relevant restriction appears to be complying with US export restrictions.
So anyone got an opinion on whether the court banning the transfer of licenses between countries? Or was the software counterfeit, as the copyright infringement bit would suggest? Or does the court ignore the license and it's "not sold" element of the transaction and state that the software was originally legally sold but became an unlawful parallel import when resold in Europe?