1045 posts • joined 27 Apr 2009
>>"It's the fact that Microsoft are requiring OEMs to ship with secure boot enabled, using a Microsoft key (in order to be Win8 certified, and receive preferential discounts)."
> I don't know about any preferential discounts, can you give me some specifics, please? But it's a fact that as part of the Windows 8 certification requirements,
It is quite simple. If not certified (which requires secure boot enabled) then the OEM does not get discounts - they may even have to buy at retail prices.
>> "The intent of Microsoft was to lock out other OSes entirely and make Windows the _only_ OS on the market."
> It is a Microsoft requirement that secure boot can be disabled on standard Windows.
That does not deny the _intent_, only that it would be in breach of anti-trust. In any case without disabling secure boot you would not load Windows 7 and OEMs would not put up with that, nor would customers.
With ARM devices 'secure boot' must not be able to be disabled.
Even that article acknowledges that it is MS spin:
"""Obviously this is a bit of PR from Microsoft in the form of them patting themselves on the back, but the lack of concrete numbers takes away some of the fun."""
A couter article is:
"""Nokia Lumia sales weaker over holidays"""
Nokia's own figure show a drop from Q3's 8.8 million to Q4 8.2 million. If other company sales are up it is because they are dumping their stock (at a loss perhaps) now that Nokia will be part of Microsoft.
While there is growth 'year over year' from 2012Q3 to 2013Q3 and maybe 2012Q4 to 2013Q4 those 2012 quarters were a low point when WP7 was dead-ended and WP8 wasn't yet available. There may be some recovery in unit sales but at the expense of profitability, which is negative.
> You can sign and distribute your own apps if you want to.
Your answer is, at best, disingenuous.
You may be able to sideload your _own_ apps but this requires Windows 8 Enterprise plus Active Directory Domain Services.
Distributing this to others may be possible _within_ an enterprise but is not possible to others.
> Secure boot makes it potentially more secure than any other OS on the market.
The intent of Microsoft was to lock out other OSes entirely and make Windows the _only_ OS on the market.
> WP8 .. And remains the fastest growing mobile OS.
You haven't looked at the Q4 results then. 2012Q3 was a low, low point and 2013Q3 was high because of price cutting to below cost. So, yes that quarter showed high growth. 2013Q4 was a collapse.
Do try and keep up rather than pedaling selective out of date stats.
> Even though Touchscreen Monitors, have been 'round since the Vista era?
Actually since the early 80s. See 'HP 150'.
In the 90s there were many touch monitors avilable, mostly for Kiosk type applications.
Re: My first PDA
> I know of only one case where Microsoft was capable of taking on a leader and replacing it: the Internet browser
IE was written by SpyGlass (it wasn't a version of Mosaic). MS killed Netscape by giving IE away for free (and thus depriving their share of the 'sales') and making it a compulsory install on Windows 98. They also 'paid' OEMs to _not_ install Netscape via an additional discount.
It certainly wasn't because IE was a better product.
Re: IS MICROSOFT AN INNOVATOR?
> For pretty much the first time in computing history the same OS ran on a range of hardware from a range of manufacturers and people could buy software knowing it would probably work.
Quite wrong. CP/M had done that half a decade before. Plus DRI also had compatible MP/M for multi-user/multi-tasking and networking. MS-DOS was just a poor clone of CP/M.
> Yes, and the market *chose* Microsoft.
Actually Microsoft made it almost impossible to choose anything else. With 'per box pricing', bundling and other illegal deals it was almost the only thing that could be bought.
What the market _actually_ chose was WordPerfect and Lotus123. MS-DOS was [barely] adequate for those.
> My view is that they enabled a dramatic increase in business productivity.
No. It was the _applications_ that did that: WP and 123. The reason that Windows 3.x on 386 became popular was that it could run 2 or 3 DOS sessions - something that other systems could do years before. WFW because it replaced 'sneakernet' - the swapping of floppies - years after other did that. Later there were Windows programs which entrenched it.
>"It was almost magical the way the PC came about with an operating system from us and hardware from IBM."
The OS was a clone of CP/M for 8086 written by SCP. What was 'magical' was the maneuvering and scheming. Selling it to IBM before buying it from SCP.
At the time that the IBM PC came out there were better PCs and better operating systems, including multi-user/multi-tasking ones that ran on Z80 (with memory management and 256Kb) and 8086.
we were a software company
> we were a software company
Previously Bill Gates, Paul Allen and another ran 'Traf-o-data' which sold hardware to process traffic data.
In the early 80s the largest part of the revenue came from Z80 Softcards. Then there were mice, track balls and keyboards.
Re: "Merely...make money"
> an hour show there can be 21 minutes of 'stuff'.
If it wasn't for the adverts people would starve to death.
ps: I recall that when particular programs have been on the electricity distributors could tell when an ad break started and many switched on the kettles at the same time.
Re: "Merely...make money"
>> Viewing something on a screen is not publishing, you are quite wrong.
> Actually I'm quite right. Various states use such a defintion to enforce a variety of laws (everything from copyright to child protection). Hardly my fault if you are clueless.
No, it is you that is clueless. Whether various states do any such thing is irrelevant as I do not live in those states and therefore those laws do not apply.
"""To publish is to make content available to the general public."""
The web site makes web pages available to the public, viewing them on your computer does not. Even if several family and friends are watching that is _not_ 'the general public'.
"""In the United States, publication is defined as:
the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication.
To perform or display a work "publicly" means –
(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or
(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times.
—17 USC 101 """
Re: "Merely...make money"
> The act of viewing something on a computer screen is publishing (i.e. making a copy).
No. You are wrong. It is the web site(s) that is publishing (ie creating a copy that it sends to your screen). In the case where ads are coming from different sites (eg doubleclick) the several sites are 'publishing' and each site has its own copyright (or license) to publish those copies.
As the primary site has no idea what the ad sites will send there is no overall copyright on the whole page. So blocking ad sites may breach some terms of trade, if it can be shown that you actually agreed, but nothing to do with copyright.
> but it did cause some systems to forget their web cookies after a reboot or shutdown"
I dump all my cookies on a regular basis, those that I allow in the first place. I'd be quite happy for KDE to 'forget' them, but reboots are only on power outages.
> 1. Yes, Licensing costs are lower. Support costs are higher. Does anyone know where Redhat gets its money?
For Linux licensing costs can be zero, support costs can be zero. Yes, Red Hat has commercial support costs, others have optional support costs. Munich is not using RHEL for its desktops.
> 3. This argument is also false. Categorically.
Wrong. There may be specific individual cases where Windows can be shown to faster, other cases where Linux trounces Windows.
> 4. This is a pompous argument. Apache is the most viable source of malware delivery today.
I agree that yours is a pompus argument. If deliberate malware delivery is the aim of the site then it may well be more likely that Apache will be used. That is like arguing that Ford vans lead to more robberies (because there are more of them).
> it's less than $40 a seat to license every MS product for school use -
That is PER YEAR and also PER EVERY SEAT. If you have an Apple or a Raspberry Pi they will charge you for those too*. It is a 'discount' by a convicted monopolist.
> here's something obviously wrong with that statistic
Only with your fundamental lack of understanding.
> or that money is going on non-MS licenses...
Obviously no one should even think of giving money to anyone other than Microsoft, that would ruin MS's aims of running the world.
* In NZ they managed to kill that clause.
Re: Hmm. You never......
> leaves 30% of your users having to still use Microsoft
I understand that there are about 10% of users that still have Windows machines, plus another 20% of users who _occasionally_ need access to applications that run on Windows.
But they are not using "Microsoft", they are using legacy applications that happen to only run on Windows.
Re: Hmm. You never......
> Except that HP never publiched the report. Even though it showed that the supposed savings were in fact complete bollocks that completely ignored the costs of the migration project.
You are correct that HP never published the report. Microsoft did release small parts of it, the bits that seemed beneficial to them. Without the full report it is impossible to see what assumptions HP made or why their 'costings' are so different to what actually happened in Munich.
It is known, however, that the HP 'costings' made the assumption that Munich would have bought new computers every 3 years (which is usual for Windows users) whereas, in fact, Munich did not. Linux ran perfectly well on the existing computers (while Windows would not).
So HP were massively wrong in that one area, and most likely in many other invalid assumptions as well.
If that 'report' were to be published it would be torn apart and shown to be complete uninformed nonsense, just as your support for it is.
Re: Hmm. You never......
> banging on about how much they love using
No. Because it is 'just a computer they use for work'. It does the job.
Now there is another saving: not having Microsoft audit the licenses.
> (Hint, if you remote in to a windows PC from a Linux box, MS will still charge you for a windows license).
Another good reason to dump Windows.
Re: Microsoft needs to adapt
> who's OS's date back into the 50's and 60's are enterprise ready, because it was the only market back then.
That is just not true. The original markets for computers in the 50s and 60s were: military - ENIAC was designed for the US Army; University - see Columbia and Manchester and many others; Scientific - eg NACA.
The first computer designed and used for a commercial environment was LEO - Lyon's Electronic Office. It ran the ordering and delivery systems for the Lyon Teashops, and the payroll.
Re: Now if they can get ports the other way
> More importantly we could flash all that nice Samsung hardware to Windows Phone and get rid of that laggy and insecure Android stuff.
Well, no, you can't. That is because WP does not support the modern SoCs that Samsung put in their phones, it only supports a handful of SoCs that came out a couple of years ago. WP8.1 apparently will support one new SoC from last year.
> Microsoft's is too expensive (This could either be license or hardware costs)
The WP only agreement with MS expires early this year so the $ billion per year from MS terminates. This was intended primarily to offset the licence costs. Effectively this will raise the cost per phone by $30.
One major problem with WP7 and WP8 is that these only supported a limited range of specific SoCs so the phones became outdated internally and the makers could not benefit from newer, cheaper, chips. WP8.1 is supposed to add a new SoC to the list but it is likely that the cost of this will still disadvantage WP compared to even newer chips.
The only reason that there has been a recovery in market share is that the cheaper phones (520) have been selling below real cost.
Mozilla, for example, has just announced that FirefoxOS will run on a new SoC that integrates so much of the hardware, and is so cheap, that it can be made into a phone that costs $25. It is unlikely that WP8 would ever support this simply because Microsoft has to do it, the OEMs cannot.
> they could add their efforts to Android or whatever... and make something that people would actually queue up to buy.
People seem to be 'queuing up to buy' Android _because_ Microsoft can't 'add their efforts' to it.
Re: No privacy benefits to Microsoft
> The Borg scans all your emails / dcouments / photos and sells your personal data - Microsoft doesnt.
Only someone with a brain implant taking a direct feed from Redmond would say that.
> Microsoft would do well to ditch Windows Phone and put their work into making an excellent Android device - I suspect having a slice of the massive Android pie will be better than having the tiny Windows pie to themselves.
While I think that would be a good thing, it would not be be good for Microsoft. MS already have a history of dumped mobile platforms: WM6.x, Kin, WP7. If they dump WP8 then they will lose all credibility in mobile. People may buy Nokia Androids and not care too much, but only if they are cheap enough. Then, just like other cheap Androids, they will not spend money on apps and MS services. They will not 'invest' in it because it may become another dumped product.
The OEMs, those making the other 10% of WP phones, would also defect. They are more likely to make real Androids than MS nearly-Androids (unless they too are bunged a $billion). Then they may try Android other things or even ChromeOS and Linux.
> And someone else wrote Xenix as well (SCO)
Xenix was a licensed AT&T Unix edition 7 implemented on 8086 by Microsoft. Later, when Microsoft wanted to sell it off, some of the contract programmers formed a company they called the Santa Cruz Operation and bought it.
> Windows Phone grew global market share year on year by 156%!
I'll quote an adjacent message, seemingly from yourself:
"""Clearly you are of limited education and don't understand that market share relates to a percentage of sales."""
Clearly you are of limited education and don't understand that 'market share' is not 'number of units shipped'. The 156% is the increase from 2102Q3 _shipments_ to 2013Q3 _shipments_ and is _not_ the 'grew market share'. The difference is that the whole market grew 40% (from 695m to 990m).
> Actually windows Phone grow market share by 156% last year according to IDC!
You are being highly selective in picking that figure. It is true that there was a rise from 2012Q3 to 2013Q3 in _shipments_ of that percentage, but 2012Q3 was when WP7 was dead ended and WP8 was not yet available.
You also clueless as you do not know the difference between 'shipments' and 'market share'. As the total shipments increased overall by 40% between those quarters then the 'market share' rise was considerably less.
The _actual_ 'grow market share last year' was 46%* from 2% to 3%.
* From 2012's 16m of 695m total to 2013's 33.3m of 990m.
Re: Utterly desperate move
>> "..Microsoft give Nokia $1 billion.."
> Nokia gave them more than that back in license fees...
If that were the case then the license fee is $30-$35 per phone (approx 30million phones in 2013). Because the agreement ends soon then this would have become an additional direct, unsubsidized, cost. Add the margins and the retail price would have to rise $50 or so. The market share would collapse, especially at the low end.
This Android/Nokia X is obviously a 'Plan B' because even Elop knew that WP8 was unsustainable. High hardware cost because of the limited and fixed range of older SoCs (8.1 does add one newer one), higher software costs when the subsidy ends, failing market share.
No wonder MS had to buy Nokia phone division.
Re: Utterly desperate move
> Why do you think that Nokia can compete with Samsung's Windows phones but not with their Android's ones?
Because Microsoft give Nokia $1 billion a year to support the Windows Phones.
This means, for example, that the 520 can be sold at or below cost.
Re: The USPTO
> It's very simple
It is even simpler:
> - US Patent Office grants obvious/ridiculous patent to a US Company.
- USPTO collect application fees and renewals.
- Patent is challenged as being obvious and/or prior art.
- USPTO collects patent review fees.
The USPTO neither knows nor cares about how companies sue each other, collect licence fees, or whatever.
> These were dependencies that were present on a default install of CENTOS 5. Erlang for instance - and numerous others. It's just a painful, shoddy experience compared to Windows.
Erlang is _not_ a dependency "on a default install of CENTOS 5". It is a dependency of, for example, RabbitMQ.
Just enable EPEL and then 'yum install rabbitmq-server' just works (as advised on the rabbitmq web site). How hard is that ?
"""EPEL (Extra Packages for Enterprise Linux) is a volunteer-based community effort from the Fedora project to create a repository of high-quality add-on packages that complement the Fedora-based Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and its compatible spinoffs, such as CentOS and Scientific Linux. """
Re: Give it a rest, already.
> including their first product, DOS.
Actually it wasn't their first product. Ignoring the traf-o-data origins, the first product was BASIC for the Altair*. This was redone for many machines including the Apple II under the AppleSoft brand, and also for CP/M. Microsoft also had Pascal and COBOL compilers for CP/M. The most revenue came from their Z80 Softcard running CP/M for the Apple II.
* which seems to be based on a public domain DEC BASIC for which source code was available, and as Bill had access to the DEC machine at Harvard it is likely that he had a copy of this.
Re: NT has zero connection to VMS
> Apart from Dave Cutler, who designed them both.
It is not so much that NT is derived from VMS, but it is based on the design of VMS's successor which Cutler designed while at DEC.
DEC thought it was too close and MS settled by paying DEC $100million or so.
Re: No MS innovation?
> They did the tablet a decade before iPad.
But long after Newton.
> I found that my software wouldnt even compile under 6 - lots of missing dependencies.
With a clean install of Windows you don't even get the compiler.
> Excel (the first usable spreadsheet)
Only if you exclude, or were unaware of, the several usable spreadsheets that were available well before Excel (including Lotus).
> One thing that Microsoft did do was standardise the PC hardware market.
No they did not. MS-DOS ran on many different hardware layouts. SCP implemented 86-DOS on S-100 bus systems. MS-DOS was available on dozens of non-IBM-PC compatible systems from Wang, DEC, etc. The only limitation was that it must be 8086 or clones.
What turned the market to IBM PC compatibles was Lotus-123.
Re: New Wheeze
> And the chance of getting hardware to run under Win8 to it's full capacity
I am sure that Windows does run its hardware at full capacity most of the time. But much of it is in stuff that is not directly useful to the users: anti-virus, updates, reboots, shuffling files and directories, ...
Re: New Wheeze
> So that is a problem of the hardware manufacturer
It is a problem for the owner of the device. One they solve by staying with XP.
> some fanatics try to force on users.
Strange that you say that when you come across as if you were a fanatic would would be happy to see Windows 7/8 forced on users.
> LiMux is "under consideration for replacement"
Only by an upgrade to a newer version of Linux.
Re: New Wheeze
> You go online, you order Windows 7 from Amazon, and you install it.
People don't have a computer to run the OS. They run applications. The OS is something that is used to start the application and then should keep out of the way of getting the work done. XP does that, Vista did not. Win7 more or less, Win8 not at all.
Your instruction is trivial and naive. Some hardware running XP may not be supported by Win7, drivers may not be available for the older devices. After installing Win7 they would have to re-install all their applications. Some may not run, some may have lost the installation disks or codes. The configuration and settings made over the years may be forgotten and thus difficult to reproduce.
There is a significant risk of:
* incurring large costs including new computer, upgrading applications
* spending large amounts of time learning new applications
* losing all ability to run anything at all.
Re: Goose and Gander
> In that case that android phone is of very little use.
It is still a phone, and messaging, and email, and a browser, and several other things. Some want just that and don't care about flappy birds.
> Unless you want to develop all of your own apps
Or get their apps from F-Droid and several others.
Re: How is this "Android" lock-in?
> have Google apps like Google Maps or YouTube.
While Google may limit access via an app these are still accessible using a browser.
> Since when has WP become a resource hog? This OS runs very well on a single core with 512MB.
WP7 could only use a single-core SoC. It was the MS-DOS of mobile - no multi-tasking, apps were killed and restarted to appear to be put into background. The only actual background tasks were like DOS TSRs.
WP7 was dead-ended, along with all the WP7 hardware 18 months ago.
WP8 _requires_ dual-core. There are _no_ "single core with 512MB".
"""The list reveals that a dual-core processor is in fact a fixed requirement, and that for HD screens [720p or WXGA] a minimum of 1 GB of RAM is necessary, and 512 MB for WVGA phones."""
Sure, MS-DOS ran fine on a 80386 with 640Kb, but who does that today ?
> Windows Phone seems to run pretty sweetly on some very cheap kit
The phones are only 'cheap', such as the 520, because they are being sold at a loss to keep the volumes up. Microsoft was bunging them a billion a year and the division still made a loss.
> but Android needs quad-core monsters and is still laggy.
I remember when WP7 came out. It could only support single core (due to being the MS-DOS of mobile OSes) and the dogma was: what does Android need dual-core for ?
WP8 _required_ dual-core, and only works of several specific SoCs all of which are dual-core, and seems to dedicate one to the UI. So they have to adjust the dogma now to slagging off quad-core.
Quad (and Octo) core is not about performance, it is about flexibility of power saving. WP does not do quad so they have to slag it off.
Re: Nickname the 'Snide Phone' ?
> Android is controlled by a leviathan
Android is 'controlled' by nobody. Anyone can take it and make what they want of it, see Amazon.
Google services are controlled by Google and anyone can use them under certain conditions. That is called 'terms of trade'.
Re: I sea swelling
> The author is clearly implying that this 'sea-borne ice' got there by calving off a land based glacier, not by forming as sea ice.
No. You are wrong. He did not imply that origin of 'sea-borne ice' at all.
The vast majority of sea-borne ice, the whole of the Arctic cap, was formed at the surface.
As that glacier has retreated from the sea then it no longer calves icebergs, so in the context of this glacier, and the article, there is _no_ sea-borne ice coming from it.
Re: I sea swelling
> sea ice is not and never was the issue in the original article,
The article made a comparison between sea-borne ice (that had formed on the surface) and glacier land-borne ice.
Re: I sea swelling
> that 'sea-borne ice' got in the sea exactly how? Did it form there? Or did it break off a glacier that formed on land? Obviously the latter.
You are under-educated. 'sea-borne ice' is one of _two_ things: icebergs which did break off a land-borne glacier _OR_ ice that formed on the sea.
The whole of the Arctic ice cap is ice that formed at the surface of the sea and is and has always been 'sea-borne'. The Antarctic ice shelf (but not the ice cap) is also formed by freezing at the surface.
Re: I sea swelling
> cows produce a damn lot of methane and CO2
That is true. But _all_ the carbon in that which they produce, and all the carbon in their meat (and other stuff) comes from one source: the grass (and corn where applicable). And the grass gets all its carbon from CO2 in the atmosphere.
Cattle and sheep and stuff are carbon neutral.
Where the problem comes from is that carbon is being extracted from underground (in the form of coal and oil) and being converted to CO2 _without_ any corresponding balance that returns the carbon to underground to complete the cycle.
Re: I sea swelling
> WRONG. As a glacier tongue enters the sea it raises sea level just the
> same as if it had melted on land and had run down as liquid water. Fail.
While what you say is true, it is irrelevant because it FAILs to connect to the actual claim.
The original was referring to 'sea-borne ice'. Most of the Arctic become iced over each winter, much of this then melts during summer. This makes no difference to the sea level because it is 'sea-borne ice'. ie it is formed at the sea surface and is just floating on the surface.
Ice from glaciers that enters the sea, whether it melted before or after moving from land to sea, will raise the sea level. In this particular case the ice front is shifting away from the sea which means that all the water that was ice between the sea and the current ice front (ie was land-borne) has entered the sea and has caused it to rise. As the ice-front moves further away then that makes even more sea-level rise.
- Fee fie Firefox: Mozilla's lawyers probe Dell over browser install charge
- 20 Freescale staff on vanished Malaysia Airlines flight MH370
- Neil Young touts MP3 player that's no Piece of Crap
- Review Distro diaspora: Four flavours of Ubuntu unpacked
- Apple releases iOS 7.1 update in response to cars, complaints, vomit