I don't think you need to be an MS insider to notice that what they're offering is a zero-price OEM license.
4412 posts • joined 16 Nov 2009
I don't think you need to be an MS insider to notice that what they're offering is a zero-price OEM license.
It would be incredibly complex (and thus expensive) for MS to go around deciding what the lifetime of any device is. Therefore, what this (almost certainly means) is, in the short version "non-transferrable". You can't take your Win10 license key from your 7-inch tablet, junk the tablet and put it on an HTPC.
OEM license, basically.
> My betting is that 'free for a year' implies they want to go to an Office 365 model where you rent the OS with automatic updates
I'd take that bet but it would be unfair because Terry Myerson said a week ago at the preview event that it would not be a subscription, that there would be no further charges for the OS and that anyone who tried to implement such a pricing model must be "nuts".
Don't worry though, it's still being repeated around the Internet, mostly by the same people who spread FUD about SecureBoot.
will you operate it whilst enjoying a swift jaunt around one of Her Majesty's parks on your newfangled Penny Farthing, good sir?
Oh, if only there were a version one's valet could carry for one for use whilst travelling upon a charabanc or the public omnibus!
> Yahoo Search == Bing
True, but Yahoo! pays Bing for search and also pays Mozilla to keep on building Firefox.
No, Yahoo! does.
>what does the average phone buyer know
Not enough for this to even register with them.
Is it a Samsung? Does it do Maps? Can I get my emailz? Will it run Tindr? WhatsApp? Okay.
It's just grumping without any serious analysis.
Relevant bit is -
"The European regulators appear strangely in thrall to the operators’ argument that they need to merge in order to invest in new networks and services. But there is no evidence that this is so. Although returns on capital employed have fallen in European mobile from a very high 20 per cent to 10 per cent over the past five years, this still well exceeds their cost of capital.
Nor have regulators found a satisfactory substitute for the competitive stimulus they are permitting operators to eliminate. Guaranteeing access to virtual mobile operators is little more than a sticking plaster with few adhesive qualities. These entities neither reliably lead the market on price, nor can they deliver improvements to the quality of networks.
Brussels’ past lack of rigour gives little comfort that it will reach a much firmer conclusion in the case of Hutchison’s British deal. Indeed the risk is that precedent will lead the European regulator to rubber-stamp the same flawed arrangements.
The mobile business remains a national market and those affected are UK consumers. Either Brussels must toughen its line, even at the cost of some inconsistency, or it should break the circuit of dismal precedent and hand the deal back to the UK authorities. One thing is certain. Having messed up three mobile markets, Brussels should not be permitted to make the same mistake again."
I think that (globally) dumbphones still have the largest market share.
My missus is hanging on to her iPhone 5S for dear life, I know that much.
> Yes, if you connect and hang up one second later, you will be charged £1.53"
Surely you'll be charged £3.06?
I see a gap...
Honestly, I'm surprised Sky didn't just counter-bid against Three.
The BBC doesn't have (as much) international appeal or brand-name recognition but your idea is crazy enough that it might just work.
As a hat-tip to an old Channel4 show and it's (currently at the Beeb) presenter, maybe JulesTube?
Are you suggesting she puts it on Youtube?
That's David Lowery of Camper Van Beethoven, right?
Usually the problem is "Google, stop claiming your products are IMAP when you have bastardized the specification with your Embrace, Extend, OwnForeverMuahahaha" bullshit".
Attachments blow goats on it. Composing a new mail to multiple individuals is a pain. It doesn't pick up Exchange mailing lists well. Flagging is a pain.
Generally speaking, it's not a bad POP3/IMAP client but it's nowhere near the functionality of Outlook Mail.
Maybe you need a Page 3 feature.
Some of their cinema isn't actually awful which is more than you can say for Israeli pop music.
The combination of thinking Eurovision is cool and the sound of the modern Hebrew language leads to an experience akin to having your ears raped.
> Sorry, but one of the most phonetic language is Italian - you read it exactly the way it is written
Lies. There are a myriad of cases where you have absolutely no indication whether "c" is "ess", "ka" or "cha".
Omar Sharif's arabic is like a massage for your ears, true.
Modern Hebrew sounds like Welshman having a fit.
(missed edit time limit)
Also, Hebrew is fugly. It sounds like you're trying to puke out a snake made of gravel. Why Eliezer Ben-Yehuda wanted Jews to speak like Klingons is beyond me but for some reason they decided it was a good idea...
And an entirely different alphabet! Fantastic! With no vowels! So every single word is a crossword puzzle at all times and you have to know what a word says before you can read it. English isn't the world's most phonetic language - that would probably be German - but Hebrew takes the absolute fucking piss. Gotta love being suddenly illiterate.
Mm yeah, because verbs and nouns taking the gender of the speaker and listener(s) at the same time is tres facile. And the new word for the definite article, that's not confusing at all.
I disagree. French is piss easy by comparison. But Spanish is easier still.
> Yet more total garbage from this rapidly deteriorating website.
To be fair, Gavin's articles have always been bollocks.
I'd completely forgotten about Polaris.
Well, that explains why Google refused to support Mozilla anymore.
I'm sure many religious people aim to understand the purpose and meaning of our universe and many others are conditioned or terrified of the responsibility that living without religion entails and a small number are power-seeking shits who treat people as things but they probably would be with or without religion.
The big difference is that we can make blanket statements about the purpose of science with some degree of confidence. It's much harder to do so with religion, but that doesn't mean Professor Townes was wrong - only that he was not wholly right.
And as a scientist, he would have learned a great deal from not being right. That's the whole point.
She better not be, she's been dead for 20 years.
> Reminds me of time on holiday in the US when I mentioned (in a crowded bar in the deep south) that I was going out for a fag.
A colleague of mine on business in San Francisco commented that their railway stations were apparently not used as ashtrays (this was pre Smoking Ban) with the immortal phrase "I'm impressed by the state of fag butts around here".
That caused some confusion, I am informed.
I have that one solved. I don't install Flash.
do you recommend they then use Chrome to download Firefox? After all, it has less cruft in the form of spyware and phoning all your searches back to Google and it doesn't keep asking you to "log in" to your Google account. It also renders hi-res text and images better than a 1970s American TV. Unlike Chrome.
I can't argue if that's where you were going but I would strongly suggest cutting out the middle man.
No, because IE is still there for that.
that's nearly as funny as "M$", AC. What a droll man you are.
> buy a chromebook
if you live in Starbucks and never use anything outside of a browser.
I don't see what's liberal about not selling dogs online anyway. I mean, by doing it the traditional way that would appear to be innately conservative.
Many people advertise puppies for sale online and that's fine. You have to let people know you've got a litter somehow, after all.
Nobody would actually _sell_ a puppy online. Christ, imagine the prank sales with bored idiots "buying" puppies for the local cat lady or for the flat-dwelling guy who works 18 hours days...
Apart from anything else, a reputable breeder can (and does) refuse to sell to somebody they don't think would make a responsible dog owner. You can do this because no money has changed hands. It would be a legal minefield if the puppy in question was already bought and paid for.
Two people were. I didn't know Larry and Sergey voted here.
with proof-of-concept code, naturally.
I wrote to my MP regarding the last heap of crap they shoved through Parliament. He basically told me to fuck off.
>A: Take inspiration from Shinto shrines that have been in existence for hundreds of years, but which are rebuilt every 20 years.
That's very clever......Do you work for GCHQ?
Hey El Reg types,
When are you going to bother to enable SSL on The Register? Both the site and the forums are currently unencrypted and not available encrypted.
It is 2015, y'know.
> Haha good one! So tell me, what's the purpose of Spartan?
To stop supporting nonstandard things like ActiveX.
> IE9 through 10 seem a little better, IE11 seems to play nice with our code base now however without any major modifications, I think there is just one or two CSS changes for it.
>But wow, I still hate Microsoft browsers
So just to clarify, IE11 is fine but you hate it anyway.
Jesus, I actually cannot believe that these articles are somehow getting worse - clearly when you hit bottom, you keep on digging.
1. "modern" browser. Nice try at making it look like it only works with Metro/Modern. Well done. Nobody bought it because they all call themselves modern browsers. These days "modern" means "supports (some of) HTML5".
3. Chrome is a piece of shit. It has built-in spyware, it renders text and graphics incredibly badly, it is slow and it's a big fat memory hog. I could load down FireFox with plugins and it'd still be quicker and more usable than Chrome.
I am a Firefox user. I will not be switching to Spartan. This non-story should have a "SPONSORED BY GOOGLE" label on it.
> Actually with that beard of his, I see your point.
I'm not suggesting that Jesus had his hand up Sooty's arse but....
> I find XAML and WPF as mind-bogglingly complicated compared to the simple drag and drop I am used to in Windows Forms. They need to make it as simple as the Windows forms UI and hide all the XAML nonsense in the background.
What? What madness is this? No, no they bloody don't. Windows Forms generates code-behind. That means there is logic in the display. That means that even if you attempt a loosely coupled design, any further UIs you add must replicate that logic extending your codebase every which way. It means unit testing becomes all but impossible.
What you suggest is everything that was wrong with WinForms, WebForms, MFCs and especially VB-bastard-6. What you're suggesting is a WYSIWYG designer because those are so awesome, right? Right?
Microsoft can't guarantee that carriers will roll out their updates. They've never been able to guarantee that, it's not news. Google can't guarantee it either.
Don't see why not.
Just because Universal Apps are a thing doesn't mean that apps which aren't Universal won't run. WP8.1 already runs universal apps and non_Universal apps.