Re: Excellent pricing
which tablet was that, Arnold?
4514 posts • joined 16 Nov 2009
which tablet was that, Arnold?
I would totally get one of those. IF and only IF it wasn't iPhone only.
> There aren't any universal apps at the moment.
There are plenty. The framework's been in place since VS2013 Update 2 and you can write apps which are compatible with controlled interface changes between Win8.1 and WP8.1 without any extra effort.
Want an example? XBox Video.
The rest of your point stands.
Google does seem pretty determined to kill Windows Phone.
See also - anything posted by Bob Vistakin.
It might well be but I still can't see it selling well anywhere people can afford, er anything else at all.
Then again, it's fits with Acer's usual stuff. "Every form factor, but shoddy".
wow, that seems to be a bigger market share than linux on the desktop.
Are you arguing that as linux on the desktop has a tiny market share, it is useless and nobody should ever use it ever, Bob?
I think you are. I just don't think you'd noticed your own hypocrisy.
Yes. "Mobile World Congress", a trade fair held in Barcelona.
Have you got kids, codejunky?
Is it feasible that you will ever have kids?
If so, get down on your knees and give thanks for the BBC because the alternatives are crammed with 20 minute ad-breaks aimed at turning your children into marketers on corporates' behalf.
It's amazing the amount of strongly partisan vested interests out there who think the BBC is biased.
You're company with the Greens, David Irving and Nigel Farage! Lucky you.
Rupert Murdoch gets very upset about that kind of talk.
> In my experience, overseas viewers can't "freeload it".
I know - it's region locked. My point was that it would no longer need to be, if it were locked to license holders.
All you really need to do is make iPlayer demand a code on your (physical or virtual) license in order to work at all.
This would raise revenue considerably because you could make licenses available world-wide, safe in the knowledge that overseas viewers would actually be paying for the BBC and not just freeloading it.
No you won't.
Honestly, this stuff is just plain lying to the ignorant in order to make MS look bad. Why are you bothering? They can make themselves look bad without you making up lies.
.NET Core is .NET from now on. You run .NET core and install any other bits you need via nuget.
The 4.x framework isn't fully open source yet - and it may never be fully - but that's not really the point. Everything you need to develop new code is open and you shouldn't be using 4.x (after VS2015 is fully released) for anything except supporting old code.
No it doesn't. It sounds like Windows Update which runs as a Windows Service.
I get that you hate Microsoft but can you not see that FUD only damages your own credibility?
Hyperbole is absolutely the worst thing to have ever existed.
> They did not opensource .NET, just parts of it
Yes, actually they did. All of it. See for yourself. Quit it with the FUD.
One thing the Apple Watch is touted as doing is analysing your sleep patterns.
That might be tough from the charger on your bedside table.
> Is it any wonder given the style of headlines that appear hear when there is a story even remotely connected to 'crapple'?
That's become more extreme over the years, largely as a result of Apple snubbing the Reg at all available opportunities if I'm any judge.
They used to be a bit snide about Apple, then there was the combination of "jagWAH" and refusing to kiss Steve Jobs' ringpiece in every article and the resulting blacklisting. Since then, I guess the Reg's editors figure "why not? What harm can it do? And we already know that Steve Davies 3 will do the requisite ass-kissing in the comments anyway...."
@Indolent Wretch -
I think there's a case to be made for review shows (sort of like the Gadget Show only for actual kids) where reviewers have no pressure to actually sell anything. That gets the message out there but without the black voodoo of advertising fucking with your kids.
A £10million ad campaign aimed at a 1630Hrs timeslot though - that's pretty much the definition of "blandly evil".
> In recent years the attitude from MS has been changing to the point where I'd be tempted to consider it actually altruistic.
It's kind of like Despicable Me. He's clearly a "bad guy" but he loves his adopted daughters and knows each of his minions by name.....
I always enjoy riling up the emotional fanboys with a few well-chosen facts.
the W3C never formally recommended Touch Events. There were moves to do so but then Apple threatened them with the possibility that the entire API was covered by restrictive Apple patents, which Apple made it clear they had no intention of offering on a royalty free basis. I further note that Apple are now saying there are no patents but this was pre-Samsung case. Maybe they were aiming to go after Samsung super-hard.
Anyway, it was at that point that MS developed Pointer Events and Mozilla and jQuery got on board. Pointer Events is written to be patent and royalty-free.
What Google are doing is... well, it's complicated. Apple are being dicks but you expect that. Google are probably just enjoying the opportunity to be dicks to people who use Windows touch devices - and what with touch-screen laptops, there are a whole fuckload of those out there - while blaming Apple for it and Mozilla are still aiming for workable web apps, which is obviously damaging to Apple and Google's "App Store" revenue so unlikely to be welcomed with open arms.
MS' motives in developing and offering Pointer Events for free? I don't know. Good experience for Windows tablet users? Hard to find a cynical reason although I really am trying.
Only if they happened to be for sale.
Ah, I see. All those billion-dollar industries are stupid. Good thing you're so much cleverer than them.
> It's good for beginners, but after a few years you grow out of it.
"app" developer detected. Or possibly "web developer".
Come back in ten years, son. When you've written something that does some actual work.
Yes, it was.
THIRTY FUCKING YEARS AGO.
Are you suggesting that nobody at MS has altered the compiler significantly since its release in 1985?
> Can run cross platform (XP?) I thought that was one of the aims of Windows XP?
On the Windows side, this is the tool which supports Microsoft’s “universal app” strategy, allowing developers to build a single app for Windows desktop, tablet and mobile.
Just to clarify, Tim - you are talking about VS2015 ("the tool") and not the ASP.NET web framework you were talking about at the end of the previous paragraph?
That's kind of confusing on the first read-through, especially as the grammar points to the latter case which is er, utter nonsense.
I'm in the UK but EU law and US law are fairly agreed on the concept. A "natural" monopoly arises from the market. Everyone got MS DOS and then Windows, nobody got OS/2 because bleh, OEMs bundled Windows because of consumer demand* short of ordering MS to make their product worse or withdraw it from sale, that's how it was.
The obligatory flawed car analogy is that if everyone buys Hondas and all the other manufacturers go bust or become tiny minority players, hey, good for Honda.
What is illegal is attempting to leverage an existing monopoly into a horizontal or vertical market. This is what MS was accused of doing with Internet Explorer (the merits of the case remain debatable - Netscape Navigator cost money and was notably inferior and there was never any effort made by MS to monetize their new leading browser market share or prevent users from choosing Navigator or Opera). This is also what Google have been accused of doing with selling subsidiary services by inflating their Search rankings and what Apple somehow failed to be accused of in leveraging their iPod/iTunes monopoly (by market share) into phone handsets and then tablets.
Leveraging an existing monopoly horizontally is illegal. It's also what's now become known as "ecosystem".
* wah, wah windows tax wah don't wanna wah linux wah wah wah monopolist wah - there, that saved you some time. Yes OEMs bundled Windows by consumer demand starting with IBM themselves. You might not want it but generally businesses on that scale don't go around doing stuff that pushes their cost per unit price up just to annoy nerds.
> I don't know how people have the patience for the monopolist's OS.
you mean Android?
Here's a hint, billium. Either they are all monopolists or they all want to be. And here's another hint - there's nothing illegal about a monopoly.
you'd rather have a malware vector than Windows 8.
Jesus, the lengths some people will go to in order to avoid learning something.
what does chinese tea have to do with this?
If we're talking about a supplier/builder, please advise who (TF) YumCha are because Google doesn't know, beyond some silk importers and tea shops.
I'm still appalled by that Cillit Bang ad.
He lies straight out of the box. He is not Barry Scott. He's an actor playing the part of Barry Scott. He is Neil Burgess. There never was a Barry Scott.
After that, how can you believe any of it?
I echo the above sentiment with a minor alteration so that it regards GCHQ.
> Nor will I be considering Samsung laptops.
Didn't Samsung recently drop out of the (European) laptop market anyway?
maybe at that point they showed him what they had on him.
I think that's the first time I've seen you use a post title other than "Sir".
But on-topic, well said.
Okay, maybe we shouldn't burn them to the ground if they're primary schools. This might be quite cool for those, provided you can stop the kids from sticking it in the school fishtank or filling it with plasticine.
It’s good for schools who [...] don’t want to get bogged down in electronics
Those schools should be burned to the ground.
Technically, according to Google's T&Cs, doesn't that mean he would eternally assign all copyright over the work to Google?
Well, the short answer seems to be "the entire security industry plus Microsoft and Mozilla" so far.
Making Windows look like it contains adware by default is a very good way to upset a quite large and quite wealthy company in Redmond WA who have access to a lot of lawyers.
Outrage is pretty limited though - it's limited to, well, us.
And none of us are affected because as somebody stated above, job #1 is to wipe the corporate laptop shipment and put the corporate image on it. And if we bought it for our own use with our own money, we probably didn't buy the shitty low-end machines that were infected. And if we did, we'd probably still have re-imaged them immediately and thus, not been affected.
The corporates don't give a damn because they are not affected. The consumers don't give a damn because they almost certainly still don't even know and probably never will. The only outrage is here and frankly, we are not important. I know, I know, your ego, all those guys going "I am keeping XP forever because fuck you Microsoft hahahaha bet that made Nadella cry", all the "Sony? Rootkit! Rootkit!" crowd, all the people who hate Apple.... we're not important. We are, in the grand scheme of things, nothing. Nobody cares about your start menu or your Bootcamped MBP or your hacked Dell. To the people who make the money and the people who spend the money, we are nothing.
Lenovo will make something shiny, Engadget will come in their pants about it, the Verge will give it 4/10 (based on the traditional -5 points for not being designed by Jony Ive), Curry's will put it on a big flashy stand and sell millions of them and life will go on.
I'd still like a ThinkPad X1 Carbon, that hasn't changed. I'd still reimage it immediately, that hasn't changed. Lenovo will make billions this years, that hasn't changed.
Sometimes I think we should really get the fuck over ourselves.
> Can't argue with any of your points Jake - but I hope you didn't take the "True Love" angle of the article too seriously!
Of course he did, otherwise he'd have had to complain about a technical inaccuracy that isn't there.
Far easier to simply decry all technology as unnecessary.
jake posts by banging rocks on a telegraph wire.
Or maybe the lesson is that being intelligent does not somehow magically prevent you from eating protein or lifting weights.
Unless you care to offer evidence to the contrary?
> I wasn't aware that falling alcohol consumption amid health campaigns were bad capitalism. I stand corrected.
It's possible that pricing pubs out of the alcohol market in favour of
major political donorssupermarkets along the smoking ban have more to do with that.
On the latter, there's an example of bad capitalism writ large - non-smokers said they didn't go to pubs because of the smoke. So they banned smoking and non-smokers still didn't go to the pub. Also, less smokers went to the pub. So the pubs closed.
It's not as if landlords were stupid - it's cheaper (in cleaning, redecorating and replacing nicked ashtrays) to run a non-smoking pub. If there had been such a huge demand for non-smoking pubs, there would have already been a shitload of non-smoking pubs. Instead there were about three and nobody went to them.
But no, the health puritans have to fuck things up for everyone. And then live longer and cost the NHS money.
up.scot sounds like a porn domain for people with a tartan fetish.