236 posts • joined Thursday 12th August 2010 08:52 GMT
Whereas MB make their own engines, gearboxes etc
"The likes of Apple don't make their own phones and they don't make the components that go into them. Whereas MB make their own engines, gearboxes etc... as well as the main body of the cars. Sure, they have a supply chain, but I suspect they are less dependent on buying a few common components available to all their competitors."
Sorry but that's just not true. Of any modern mass-market car the majority of components come from external suppliers. Mercedes does design some(!) of their engines (not all of them, some are bought in from other mfgrs) but even there lots of parts like pistons, bearings and other stuff all are made by external suppliers.
And not all components made by these external suppliers are open market parts, quite often parts are custom made for a customer (i.e. MB or Volkswagen).
The reality is that the amount of stuff that is actually made by MB (or any other car manufacturer) is very very small. Car manufacturers nowadays merely assemble the externally produced components.
That's especially true if Microsoft is the company with the button.
"That's especially true if Microsoft is the company with the button. They've been known to break their own products to force people to update before after all."
The EULA is in force
"The EULA is in force and accepted by you when you boot the device the first time, not when you purchase the device/software."
Yes, in the US of A, the country where consumers can be legally screwed by most companies with little to no protection.
But here in Europe the situation is quite different. First, if you buy an XBox console, then the contract is between you and the seller (i.e. the shop that sold you the console), and that's it. It does not include Microsoft so whatever they want simply doesn't matter at this point (of course you might enter into a separate contract with MS later, i.e. by buying XBox Live).
Second, for all contracts, all parties of the contract must be made aware(!) of all properties of this contract at the point when the contract is closed, period.
Displaying some legal gibberish and an 'ACCEPT' button does not automatically make for a valid contract, and most certainly it does not affect one that has been closed before (i.e. the purchase of the console), especially when MS isn't part of the contract parties.
Oh, and in Europe, when consumers buy a physical item (like a console, or a console game on DVD), they actually *buy* the item including the content (software), not just a license like in the US.
Re: As to ditching the XBOX Brand
"As some other minds have chimed in. The Day of the "Unique" Console seems to be over. The PS4 and the XBONE contain more or less the same Hardware in them. At least as far as the ATI APU goes. Given that pretty much anyone can buy these "Chips" from AMD, granted they are slightly different! It should make things like the Ouya or say Valves Steam Box more easier & affordable to build, and then compete with both MicroSoft, and S0NY on their level."
The hardware is irrelevant, what counts is the software. Just because you can buy the AMD chipset doesn't make you able to compete with MS and Sony who already have the necessary infrastructure which the large game publishers want and which makes their consoles attractive to the masses.
And Valve is a good example how irrelevant the hardware side is to be successful in this market.
Ouya is more or less a crappy toy, it's cheap to manufacture but simply doesn't have the software titles to make it attractive outside a small fan niche, and certainly won't ever have it at a level enough to compete in the console market, and certainly not on a same level as MS and Sony.
Re: What I don't understand is...
"Why doesn't Microsoft start their own Microsoft+ Service you can use your Microsoft account to log-into the what would only be the BIGGEST Social Network of all time by simply installing Windows."
Probably because it already didn't work so well for Google who quite literally has to drag users by their feet to use Google+. Most people just hate G+.
Re: Is it just me.....
I like Bing, too. I really like the Bing picture of the day, and more and more often I find that Bing actually delivers better results than Google (which more and more seems to focus on finding me shops to buy something and not necessarily what I'm looking for).
Would be a shame if it dies.
Microsoft will have Nokia maps to fall back on for mapping
Only if they pay. Nokia's map section is excluded from the deal, as it is Nokia's remaining major cash cow. Once MS owns the cell phone part then they probably have to pay for Nokia Here, as they probably already do for Bing (Bing Maps is powered by Nokia map data).
On the positive side, this means we might see Nokia's navigation software on non-WP devices like Android, iOS and BB10.
The only weird thing is this article.
The headline is misleading. When talking about alternatives to Windows and Linux I would have expected to find something a bit more contemporary, for example Solaris 11.1 or the various Illumos derivates. Or even the various *BSD variants. Not a trip down memory lane to operating systems from yesteryear and more or less dead clones of them.
QNX is great if you develop for embedded systems (i.e. in-flight entertainment systems) but its not and never has been an alternative to (non-embedded) Windows and Linux.
And ZevenOS, really? 'Get weird' with just another Ubuntu remix (as if there weren't enough already)?
and all they need to do to sell boat loads is produce an Android version
Right, because that works so well for HTC, does it?
I'm not sure that the world needs another 'me too' Android vendor.
And considering the abysmal state of affairs regarding security in Android, it's probably not a platform that BB wants to sell to it's (mostly security conscious( customers.
There are 2 reasons why people still install Windows servers:
You forgot the most important one:
3. People need something to get the job done and understand that an OS is just the tool to get there and not a purpose in itself. So they choose the application that does the job and then the OS that best supports that application. They may also require proper IHV/ISV support which further limits the OS choice.
Telling people that they can do everything on Linux no matter what only shows utter ignorance for the most basic principle in IT - that the problem (the task) dictates the platform, not the other way around. Sometimes this means Linux is the better choice, sometimes not.
"Those people may even ask questions like "How do I install Acrobat Reader on Linux?"."
Right, and after they were told to "RTFM" they will conclude that while Linux may be great (which it definitely is), a large part of the community is very unpleasant and unhelpful, and they will quickly return to the "just works" solution where people are less likely to project their uber-ego into an operating system.
Re: 2012 R2 - over-powered by FreeBSD and Linux
"There is absolutely nothing, except a few gimmicky add-ons that Microsoft Windows Server 2012 R2, System Center 2012 R2 and Windows InTune can do that cannot be done with greater scalability, performance reliability and security than a professionally configured and tuned FreeBSD 9.2 Server setup or RedHat Enterprise Linux 6.4x - and at "a fraction of the cost", aggravation, down-time and patching process one will experience in the new Windows systems. , even for small implementations like those with which I work."
Well, it's pretty clear you have no idea about large systems, as otherwise you wouldn't spill such nonsense. The thing is that while Linux and FreeBSD are great, operating systems are not a purpose in itself. And if you try to mimic the backoffice of a large organization on Linux then quite quickly it gets very painful (just ask the various Linux vanity projects like Munich). And it's even worse with FreeBSD and its lacklustre hardware support.
BTW, it may be news for you out there in the sticks but the myth that Windows is generally less secure than Linux has been debunked by security experts for a long time. And I could tell you quite a few stories about lost nights because of shitty Linux patches and the aggravation that FreeBSD caused with standard server hardware, so it's not all roses there, too.
"he IBM Watson Super Computer that won the Jeopardy Game Show Challenge against the best previous winners, and is now used in designing traffic control systems for some of the largest cities in the world - as only one example - runs Linux. Windows Server was never able to handle the super computing operations required and therefore was never a consideration."
Utter BS. The reason Linux is the major OS in the HPC arena is simply because its sources are open and it can be easily modified for specialist tasks - this is the same reason why Linux is in most routers, TVs and other gear. Windows isn't really a contender as MS isn't even interested in HPC any more, because even when such projects give geeks a boner the reality is that it's not profitable for MS to cater for this market (which MS found out the hard way with Windows HPC). In addition, what's required for HPC is utterly irrelevant for what businesses around the globe need to run their business. A market which btw is still predominantly Windows.
Oh, and as for your other examples of companies invest in Linux infrastructure, for every one that does that there are probably four or five companies extending their investment in Windows, but since this is common for businesses it doesn't make the headlines. Even more so, if you have a closer look you will find that the backoffice of many of those 'investors in Linux' run on Windows and Exchange, and that Linux is often employed in a niche where its flexibility makes it the best choice.
Windows has been essentially based on a VMS core
No, WindowsNT is not based on VMS, that's utter nonsense. NT inherited a few design properties which are similar to VMS but that's about it.
Of course Linux-based systems support in-place updates and upgrades.
"Ofcourse Linux-based systems support in-place updates and upgrades. And they usually do so much better than Windows, since the default on Linux isn't that a single file-lock can cripple the rest of the OS."
Yes, Linux supports upgrades, and for individual programs it usually works fine. However quite often upgrading a distro to the next version doesn't go smoothly and in the worst case results in an unbootable system. And don't start about upgrades 'jumping' over multiple versions. It's certainly not less painful than on Windows, where OS upgrades usually just result in a slower system. I've seen many OS installations that started their live as NT 4 and have been subsequently upgraded to W2k, XP, Vista and W7. On Linux, at least one of the upgrades does fail miserably.
"On Windows however, you are almost always forced to reboot the computer after applying updates because file-locks prevents the updates from being done in place. Have a few Adobe or VMWare updates and you will be cursing your computer for the reboot-fest it just became."
That's mostly nonsense (and I can't remember when was the last time that an Adobe update required a reboot, I guess that must have been back in the Windows98 days. And VMWare, oh well...). Windows supports inline updates (no reboot required) for a very long time, and since Vista many of the few cases where a reboot was previously still required have been made reboot free.
The simple reason why many installers ask you to reboot is because the developer of that piece of software for some reason believes that a reboot would be a good thing. In some cases this is justified, but in many cases it's just down to a poor understanding of how modern day Windows works.
I have a co-worker who had a Z10...
"... and was extolling the virtues of the BB10 platform until he tried to side load Android apps."
Maybe he should have not given up so quickly on which at the end of the day is a very new platform. The original BBOS 10.0 was indeed riddled with of problems but most of them have been fixed in 10.1, and based on reports from people using the pre-release version of 10.2 (which is due to come out within the next 6 weeks or so) not only squashes more of the remaining few niggles but also bring lots of new stuff (i.e. USB OTG).
BB10 is really a very much underrated platform. It's a real shame that BB has effectively priced their phones out of the market.
Bought a Z10 after having several Android devices and two Nokia Lumias (one WP7.5, one WP8). Was feed up with Android's oddities and security issues. WP8 wasn't bad but the OS lacks several features that are important for me (like being able to download large files), and that aside, the time it takes MS to come out with updates is ridiculous. Didn't really expect to like it and it took a while to get used to the UI but the Z10 and BB10 has really blown me away. The Z10 is a great phone with a remarkably good display, decent camera, very good receiption (better than my Lumia 820), very good call quality, replaceable battery, HDMI out and support for 64GB mSD cards. BBOS 10.2 is fast and slick on hardware where Android still lags like hell, can run Android apps, comes with a very good browser (with Flash support), a full media server, can share storage via SMB over the network, and lots of other features. And BB10 has in a short while seen more work and much greater improvements than WP from 7.0 days to WP8 today.
It's really a shame it failed on the market. But neither the Z10 nor BB10 are the reason why BlackBerry is now in the situation it is in. The reason why the Z10 failed on the market is purely down to price and marketing. When it came out, the Z10 was (depending on the vendor) as expensive (or even more expensive) than an iPhone 5 or high end Android handsets like the Galaxy S3, which made sure that customer interest was killed in an instant. That BB's moronic management thought it might be a good idea to artificially delay their other BB10 handsets (Q10 and Q5) made the situation even worse.
There's still hope. Fairfax is not exactly known as the typical gut&sell shop so if they take over they may be able to turn the business around. Would be a shame if we get stuck with iOS, Android and WP only.
OSX is much more optimised for the GPUs Apple uses than Windows
Apple uses the exactly same GPUs from AMD, NVidia and intel as any other PC manufacturer out there, and it's a widely known fact that the OS X drivers are worlds behind in terms of performance and capabilities than their Windows and Linux counterparts.
Because Windows and Linux is where high end users are going.
No mobile phone can really compete with a dedicated camera
Well, Nokia N8, 808 and 1020 can. The latter two can even compete with some SLRs.
My N8 still produces better pictures than most point and shoot cameras.
WP 7.8/8 and Alphabet Shortcuts
" do sort of like Windows Phone, although 7.8 and 8 have removed a couple of minor things I really liked (for example apps list was alphabetical with letters to start them off, tap a letter, get an alphabet, tap the letter you want and jump to it... neat if you have loads of apps and faster than the scrolling approach everyone else uses (and now WinPhone has joined in...)"
I'm not sure why you think this has gone as our Lumia 800 and 710 running WP 7.8 as well as my new Lumia 8.20 running WP8 still offer this functionality.
But as with WP7.5, this feature only becomes available if the number of installed apps exceeds a certain threshold.
the answer is because it has the best camera in any Smartphone other than the newer 92x handsets...
If you think the Lumia 920 has the best smartphone camera then you obviously don't know the Nokia N8 or the Nokia Pureview 808.
"Microsoft only wants to destroy VMWare to estabilish a monopoly."
Ok, the stupid monopoly drivel, here it comes again! But obviously you haven't noticed that this time it's VMware who practices customer locking and charges large amount of money for every additional bit of functionality, and squeezes customers with ever increasing license costs. I guess you also have been in a coma when vSphere 5 was introduced and customers were angry because VMware had over tightened the price screw when they changed to charging for using your server RAM as well. On the other side, Hyper-V supports many features that cost an arm and a leg with VMware, while also supporting non-MS hypervisors with their management solution (SCVMM).
But don't let get reality in the way of a proper delusion.
"They can't accept VMWare to be a success just like they hate Apple."
The same could be said about Apple and Samsung, or in fact most other companies. It should be fairly obvious why companies rarely have sympathies towards their competitor, but I guess that's also different on whatever planet you're on.
the only way this sort of behavior doesn't manifest is for customers to go through the process
No, it isn't. And it's naive to think that Apple will consider all cancelled orders to have been fraudulent. It's even more naive to believe that sending them the requested documents and then cancelling will teach them a lesson that asking for these documents in unacceptable. If anything, it just confirms that most consumers are like kettle on the way to the slaughter house, ready to be taken out.
The *ONLY* way to address this is to tell Apple (or any merchant trying this nonsense) that this is unacceptable and that they should go through their payment provider who will gladly trigger a verification with the customer's CC provider or bank.
this is arguably the only way they can make sure you are you and your card purchase is legit.
Nonsense. The proper way for Apple (and any retailer that acts professionally and not just like a bunch of morons) is to flag the transaction as 'suspicious' with their payment provider, which will trigger the customer's CC provider/bank to cross-check with their client to make sure the transaction is genuine. Simple, easy and secure. No need to ask for personal information from your customers.
When consumers are so naive to give out personal data without thinking first it's no surprise CC fraud levels are at an all-time high.
This is the best camera ever fitted to an HTC handset
This may be true, but considering that HTC camera modules have been utter crap this does not say nothing.
"...and one of the best ever fitted to a mobile phone."
That may be true if all you know is HTC cameras, but after I could play around with a HTC One yesterday I can honestly say that the camera poses no danger to HTC's reputation of having mediocre cameras. Low light sensitivity is good, although not extraordinary (worse than the Lumia 920 which has an 8.7MPx sensor), but the very low resolution does show. It's no match for a Lumia 920, and definitely no match for phones like the venerable Nokia N8 or the Nokia PV 808.
It seems the author is a bit too focused on HTC and too little on what else is out there.
Re: This is why US cells pay to receive phone calls.
No, it isn't. The sole reason why Americans pay for being called is because they are easy to pull a fast one from. Which, considering their unshattered belief in a 'free market' with as little regulation as possible, is something they are probably well familiar with from many other areas (i.e. health insurance).
There is simply no technical reason why the person being called has to pay, as demonstrated by most other countries.
Re: The wankers at AMD decided that HD4XXX or below is now legacy...
"...and we are going to give fuck all support on a chipset that they were flogging only a year or so ago."
No, they weren't. The Radeon HD 4000 Series came out 2008 and is out of production since somewhere in 2010.
Of course that doesn't make their decision to move them to legacy support any better, which is stupid considering Nvidia still supports the Geforce 8 Series which came out 2006 and that cards like the 4870 or 4890 still play latest games at HD resolution just fine.
Re: The OS should be secure enough
"...to not be hijacked by Adobe Reader or a third party app going via Adobe Reader."
Yeah, right, because application vulnerabilities are no problem on other operating systems like Linux or OS X. Oh wait, they are.
I guess that all operating systems are fails then.
Effectively cost the ISP more money than they take.
"I'm fairly sure that my usage levels are way above the average (200-300GB/month), therefore effectively cost the ISP more money than they take."
No, you aren't. What costs money is installing and maintaining the network, and that is independent on the amount of traffic that runs through it. The actual traffic costs your ISP close to nothing.
BE support from hell
Was with Be for three years. They are great if everything is fine, and minor issues like a incorrect invoice or a missing modem is solved quickly, but their Czech (not Bulgarian) support staff is completely clueless when it comes to even minor technical detail, and they are rather lying to their customers than actually looking on their own network. We were lucky that our previous house had a very good line (so Be was somewhat stable), but when we moved Be was unable to solve constant connection drops and low reconnects in 6 months. They sent out Broadband Engineers, who all checked the line, and confirmed it's fine. The modems have been replaced many times, even the BT socket had been replaced, and all the engineers said the only thing that is left is to look at Be's equipment in the exchange. To make a long story short Be did everything to shift the blame away from them, it can't be, their monitoring says its fine, they said they never got the results from the engineers (which was one of their lies because I was present when the engineers talked to Be support), and when they ran out of lies they said sorry but that's all they can do.
I learned my lesson, changed to Zen, explained them the issue and said I'll move if they can gurantee me that they can find the problem. They said yes, they can, I moved, and after switching over I got a call from their support saying that the line should be fine as they found a defective line card. And the line has been stable for over a year.
And unlike Be support Zen's support team are actual engineers (not hotline workers that know nothing about the stuff they read from their scripts in broken English), and are sitting in the UK.
Wet dreams of an Android fanboi
"Nokia are now enslaved to MS. But if they did make an Android, I'm pretty sure their know-how would be enough, plus Google would doubtless help them make their product a polished experience."
Yeah, sure. Apparently Nokia tried that, and Google told them that the only thing Google cares is Google. But sure, it's not enough that every phone manufacturer except Samsung rakes in huge losses with that shitware, in your opinion Nokia should have invested in the same crap as well.
"I would definitely buy a Nokia Android (especially if Nokie ditched that snake Elop), but there's not a chance in Hell I'd buy a Nokia with Windows Phone 8 on it, even if it was a good OS, due to the evil-doing of killing off Meego, Symbian etc. Contrary to myth, they were actually in a very good state before Elop came along."
No, they weren't. Had you paid any attention what happened in the industry outside of Android, you would have noticed that even the latest Symbian variant (Belle) from 2012 was still an ugly and bug-ridden mess (I still have a N8, so I do know what a pile of shit Nokia has turned it into). MeeGo was mismanaged from the start, long before Elop came to Nokia, in the Nokia typical incompetence in everything software.
"And because Android requires far fewer resources to run, then it could be made into a lighter, more powerful phone with a smaller battery and improved battery life."
What a idiot statement. Android phones are the smartphones with the shortest battery life on earth, even iPhones last longer. And you have to be really really thick to ignore that even quadcore Androids with 1+GB of RAM run like shit (and drain power and burn their users in the process) while WP 7.5 runs perfectly smooth on a lame single core and with 512MB RAM.
"But sadly, Nokia are already another MS partner that got crushed under the brontosaurus foot of MS. If they hypothetically divorce MS, then they might have a chance at another roll of the dice, like Blackberry, based on their brand."
Oh yeah, because Blackberry is doing so well, right? I mean, it's not that they are in a far worse situation than Nokia has ever been, or that large customers are still dropping them even after they brought out their new Z10. But yeah, why should Nokia make money with Windows Phones when they could actually continue to rake in huge losses like Blackberry does.
Having a voicemail feature built into machine
"Oh, this would be a nice feature on smartphones- having a voicemail feature built into machine - messages are recorded locally on the device"
I had such a cell phone, around 1993. It was made by Alcatel (can't remember the model, I think it was something with '2000') and had the keypad and display on the back of the handset and not on the front where speaker and microphone sit. It did have integrated voicemail which could record I think 30s of message per call.
It was a very nice phone for that time.
Lumia 800 clock
"Weird, because I have a Lumia 800 and I think it's great. Only bug I have with it is that for some reason it gains 1 minute every week or so. My network doesn't appear to support time sync so have to adjust clock every few weeks. "
It's not the network that doesn't support time sync, it's your phone (and mine, having a Lumia 800 myself). The Lumia 800 does not support network time syncing, and it's a well known issue that the clock deviates quickly. A real pain in the butt Nokia could have fixed with one of the many updates, but the problem is still existing in WP 7.8.
The change from PPC to x86 has cost Apple their 'power' crown.
No, it hasn't. The later PowerPC Macs (later G4s and the G5) were in fact quite slow, even when compared to the dreadful Pentium4 with its Netburst architecture (and the XEONs which were based on the same stuff). When intel finally came out with their Core 2 processors, Apple was lost. Plain and simple.
The only positive thing for Apple in using PowerPCs was that they were different enough to act as a differentiator from ordinary PCs. Since Apple adopted x86, there is not much which makes a Mac different from a PC, and in the areas there still is a difference, Apple is mostly more limiting.
a new machine is 2-3x that price and for what...
"...a new machine is 2-3x that price and for what, i7 chipset , 3Ghz cores vs 2.6Ghz cores, a snappier graphics card to run the games I never buy or play?"
I don't know what you use your Mac Pro for but let me tell you that the XEON 5600 processors which are also used in the current Mac Pro run circles around the old XEON 5100/5300 or 5200/5400 series CPUS from the old Mac Pro days. And the memory performance has also improved dramatically. FB-DIMMs were a pretty stupid idea, especially for desktop computers.
Today, even a current quadcore Mac mini will most likely outperform your Mac Pro in anything except maybe graphics performance.
Mac Pro and 64bit
"The limitation with the original Mac Pros if I remember correctly was that those CPUs can't do 64-bit"
No, the CPUs do 64bit just fine when sitting in a non-Apple system (I have a Dell Precision 690 using the same intel XEON 5365 processors as the old Mac Pros, running Windows 7 x64 just fine).
The problem was with Apple's implementation (or better: crippeling) of UEFI which they used as system firmware instead of a standard BIOS. UEFI has it's advantages but Apple removed most of them for the Mac Pro. It's this firmware which prevents it from running 64bit OS X.
But then, the firsg gen Mac Pro's could only take 16GB anyways (32GB with 3rd party modules and an user accepting the risk for killing the memory because of overheating), at a time when Windows/Linux workstations a la Dell Precision 690 or HP xw8400 could already take 64GB. Without overheating.
Can you describe a Dell Optiplex 200?
Yes, I can. Anyways, the Optiplex is not a workstation anyways, it's a business PC.
Dell's workstations are called 'Precision@, and yes, they are distinctive. Much more than a wannabe-workstation in a chassis which hasn't changed for almost a decade.
And if you want something really distinctive, look up the HP z820. Designed by BMW.
I believe that even the Media Player is now an extra.
"...I believe that even the Media Player is now an extra."
Only if you buy the EU-mandated 'N' variant. The normal Windows versions all come with Windows Media Player of course, and Windows 8 adds a (quite nice) Metro audio and video player to that.
"Ultimately I just do not trust MS, they have done to many dirty deeds. Vista assumed that everyone was a criminal and ran like a dog while it checked for possible copyright infringement."
I would have thought that by now everyone even in the sticks knows that the Vista DRM nonsense (which came from wannabe-scientist Peter Gutman from NZ) was just that - a huge pile of nonsense. As apparently you never used Vista (otherwise you should have known better) I suggest you have a read here:
"It is like BT and Phorm. Once a company crosses that bridge there is no going back, they will never convince me to support them again."
Well, in this case you should never ever use a product from Apple, any Android phone, a PS3, and many other stuff made by or supplied by companies that have an eye on their customers. In fact, these days MS is by far one of the lesser evils.
But I guess old habits (and prejudice) die hard.
Re: Professionals don't want it
"In the 1990s there was at least some professional market for Windows which by now also is largely gone. (except for companies signing in for the VBA vendor lock in)"
Yeah, that's why there's no professional software on Windows any more. Oh, wait...there is. In fact, the majority of professional applications are made for Windows.
How stupid software manufacturers are, making software for a platform that has no customers. They could have saved tons of money by just listening to you.
"And the people who care about their IT and have multiple computers at home, usually go straight to some Linux distribution..."
This narrow-minded thinking shows that your time is worth nothing and you don't have to use your home computers to a real job and earn real money. I guess IT is merely a hobby for you.
However, for those that use computers for real tasks and have to make money with them (so-called 'professionals') it should be pretty obvious that a computer is only a means to do the job and not a purpose in itself. And when a computer is a tool and not a hobby then it's normally pretty obvious that the choice of OS is dictated by the availability of applications to do the job and not blind fanboi-ism. Sometimes it may be Linux, sometimes it may be OS X, but in many occassions it's simply Windows. Period.
"...and used Thinkpads."
Right, because Thinkpads are nearly perfect (and all the flaws that IBM and later Lenovo has designed into the T20, T21, A20, A31, T40, T41, T61 and many other Thinkpads apparently never existed in your world).
It's the guardian of the security of the data held
Yeah, right. That's probably the reason why IE6 was still the mandated browser in many companies when the non-corporate rest of the world had long moved on, right?
If IT departments were the 'Guardians of Security' then they would implement processes to test and roll out updates quickly, they would stay on top of developments (not only in the IT security field) or start working on migration plans early on (when the successor product comes out).
The reality is that many (most?) IT departments is that it's mostly driven by cost-cutting and lazyness. That's why they are still on Windowsxp (an 11 year OS with worse security than it's three generations of successors), that's why they keep mediocre virus scanners like Sophos or McAffee deployed (which have terrible detecion rates but are simple to manage), and that's also the reason why migrations are pushed down the road until it is almost to late. Whatever makes life easy, unless of course someone who's at a level where he can make life of an IT bod quite miserable comes along and asks for a favor of course, then the sky's the limit.
It doesn't have to be done this way (I worked on a place that had a very good IT department), but the above attitude unfortunately is not an exception but the norm.
Re: Upgrade to a more useful, sexier, *real* operating system. Linux
"* No Metro - Linux Mint comes with Gnome 2 fork - Mate."
Yes, and GNOME sucks. It's the worst user interface ever. Even your hero Linus Torvalds thinks the same. GNOME 2 is a bit less painful than GNOME 3 but both are made by people that have no idea about Human Factors and UI design..
"* No need for an Antivirus scanner - Linux simply cannot catch a virus in the real world (ignoring daft hypothetical lab stuff that doesn't work in the real world), which is why no Linux viruses exist in the wild."
Great. The same can be said about Windows because the traditional viruses are a thing of the past. Modern malware consist of Trojans and worms to which a Linux distribution is also susceptible.
"* Secure (secure UNIX architecture)."
It's an illusion that UNIX which it's everything-is-a-file mantra and primitive file access controls is inherently secure. It took great lengths to actually make modern day Linux as secure as it is, and the sloppy development in many of its userland programs certainly didn't help.
"* Developed by the best teams. You do not get stronger than Torvalds at OS design."
Nonsense. Torvalds is certainly a very good developer but even he got a lot of things wrong in the Linux kernels, and there have been more than one really embarrassing flaws in Linux over the years.
And the best developers don't pay for free, they actually get paid for their work. And it's unlikely that most of them work on Linux.
"* Choice of window managers - use whatever UI suits you whenever you want."
Yeah, choice. Many desktops just suck, and it's not rare that the next version does things completely different. The greatest consistency probably comes with KDE. Linux desktops are a good example that quantity doesn't equal quality.
And if you need a touch UI then it gets even worse.
"* Better Server - Linux is the best of class server."
Most major corporations around the world most certainly would disagree, as their backbones runs on Windows, Exchange and ADS and not Linux.
But at the end of the day the OS doesn't matter (both Windows and Linux make for great server OSes), it's the applications that count.
"* No commercial licences, no licence management overhead."
Right. Unfortunately these are not the only costs that come with a platform choice. And in many cases it's simply more economical to pay for Windows than to use free Linux.
"* Brilliant command line available for power users."
Yeah. Same with Windows (ever heard of 'PowerShell'? Guess not). It may be news for you but Windows development has not stagnated since Windows95.
"* Easy to install"
Linux got better, but still doesn't match the simple installation procedure of Windows 7 or Windows 8. And there still are too many cases where an installation will just fail and needs manual intervention on the command line.
"* Out of the box Linux comes with LibreOffice, and many other applications. Windows gives you minesweeper."
Out of the box, Linux comes with a kernel, period. A Linux distribution may come with LibreOffice (which sucks donkey balls), though. Unfortunately the only way to run a proper office application is to use Wine.
Oh, FYI (since your Windows 'knowledge' seems to be stuck at Windows 95): Windows 8 doesn't come with Minesweeper (you can download it from the Microsoft Store, though).It comes with lots of other stuff, though.
"* User Friendly"
In your dreams. Aside from the desktop suckage, there are still too many instances where something doesn't work (even some very simple things like a OS upgrade), and too many instances where there are just too many (and often useless) changes between versions. For those users that can't cope with the new Windows 8 user interface, Linux will be the worst nightmare.
"* Runs fast on even old hardware. (Better memory management, less bloat, etc, availability of fast windows managers)."
Utter bullcrap. I guess you never tried a current Linux distro on older hardware, otherwise you had known that this results in a sluggish system which is a pain to use. Yes, Linux can be very fast on old hardware, if you strip everything out that makes a modern Linux distro.
And you have to be really obtuse to ignore all the what you call 'bloat' that is in every major Linux distribution for generations.
BTW: Windows 7 runs just fine on old hardware, and guess what, Windows 8 runs even better.
Yes, Linux is great (especially for embedded devices), but everyone who believes that it will come without major issues will be disappointed. The change between the various versions of most major Linux distros is even bigger than the change between Windows 7 and Windows 8, and that was the only major UI change in the Windows world since Windows 95 some 18 years ago. Your post is the typical fanboi-ism that makes a certain part of the Linux community as enjoyable as Athlete's foot. And of course you (like most fanbois) totally miss the important point that an OS is not a purpose in itself (and most certainly won't compensate for the lack of joy in your life), it's a means of running the applications you need, period. And at the end of the day, the majority of apps most people want to run are on Windows only. And when Windows not only runs all the apps they want but almost everything that is available on Linux, no-one with at least half a brain would move to Linux.
This is already done...
...since Vista when MS introduced virtualized system folders. And MS has published style guides which describe how programs should be designed and where which files should go to keep everything clean and tidy.
Unfortunately MS still underestimated how crap the majority of software developers are, which happily ignore any platform style guide and work around operating system protection mechnisms, breaking the system for anything else that is installed, too.
And this crapness includes large software houses as well. Yes Google, I look at you! Whoever decided that Chrome should install in the user data directory should be shot!
That is no NT error message
This is not a WindowsNT specific error message, it comes up on Windows 2000, XP and Vista (haven't tried W7 and W8) as well if the startup fixer assistant can't be launched.
The other clues that this is not a relict from WindowsNT 4.0 should be the path of the missing files (which is 'Windows', not 'Winnt' as it was the default under NT) and the fact that it refers to an EFI boot loader (which doesn't exist for WindowsNT).
Microsoft removed the requirement to match up discs and product keys in Windows 7
No, they removed that in Vista already. Any Vista DVD can be used to re-install with an OEM product key, and even cross upgrades (32bit to 64bit or vice versa) are allowed as the key does not resolve the word length.
I won't buy an SSD unless the firmware revision is in the double digits
Well, then you will probably never ever buy an SSD as rarely any model is long enough on the market to reach double digit firmware versions.
Judging a product mainly by the number of digits in its firmware version is silly. If a product is good and stable right from the beginning it won't require much updates so the version numbers will remain low, and if a product is put to market prematurely but the vendor doesn't give a shit then the version numbers will remain low as well.
"The first and last SSD drive I bought was a Kingston, even with the latest firmware (which was supposed to stop the corruption) it still corrupted after a few months."
Let me guess, it was a V100? They were indeed horrible, but other SSDs using the same chipsets were the same. At least Kingston has exchanged many of them for the (much better) V+200 variant if the user complained enough.
The V100 is still offered and, while the firmware has improved, is still not worth buying. The V+200 and the Hyper-X SSDs however belong to the most reliable SSDs on the market.
In the same way Linux runs faster than windows on the same h/w
Yeah, sure. You obviously haven't tried a modern Linux distribution like Ubuntu, other wise you'd have known that such general statements are plain BS.
Every year there would be something I'd have to upgrade
"I used to be a PC gamer but every year there would be something I'd have to upgrade - graphics card, CPU, motherboard, memory. All of this of course required getting Windows to once again play ball and when I was on it every evening it was worth it."
Not much a problem today. Due to the technological stagnation in most games due the limitations of consoles a decent 4+ year old computer can run most games just fine. The situations where upgrades are necessary are less common than in the old days.
Buy a £250 console and you get 4-5 years of life out of it...
"and are still able to play the latest games with the same user experience as everyone else. Try that with a PC and most (note, not ALL) modern games and you'll be lucky if it's even going to work in noddy graphics mode 3 years down the line."
Well, no. While this was true maybe 7+ years ago, today a midrange PC from 2006/2007 can still run latest games at full HD resolution and with high details. Since consoles have become the main development target many multi-platform titles run just fine on an older rig.
One of my PC is quite old, with a CPU comparable to a Core 2 Quad @ 2.6GHz and a Radeon 4870. Still runs latest games like Skyrim, Max Payne 3 or Borderlands 2 with better graphics than my Xbox 360.
- It's true, the START MENU is coming BACK to Windows 8, hiss sources
- iSPY: Apple Stores switch on iBeacon phone sniff spy system
- Pic NASA Mars tank Curiosity rolls on old WET PATCH, sighs, sniffs for life signs
- How UK air traffic control system was caught asleep on the job
- Google embiggens its fat vid pipe Chromecast with TEN new supported apps