How in some of the other video's the Kuratas is driving through town and you see some people hardly taking notice to it. They almost seem to think "and there goes the weekly robot, good, now I can cross the street".
1878 posts • joined 19 Dec 2010
How in some of the other video's the Kuratas is driving through town and you see some people hardly taking notice to it. They almost seem to think "and there goes the weekly robot, good, now I can cross the street".
If only most webapps would have been written a lot better.. I'd rather have seen a global PHP SQL "layer" where the admin gets to chose the eventual backend which provides the database functionality than the specific per-engine support we have now.
Because then I would have replaced MySQL on all my webserver months ago, yet I can't.
+1 here as well.
Its truly amazing how fast the service provided by AdBlock updates. I recently got confronted with a company which had completely redesigned its website and as a result most of the contents got lost. As it turned out; AdBlock was blocking this.
So; after trying to determine what exactly was causing this (and failing) I prepared to send feedback. "Please wait while we're updating all subscriptions to make sure...". Page reload and wham. Working.
And I just updated no longer than a week ago ;-)
I kept my PS3 and what do you know? At times it even manages to keep my gf entertained :-)
Actually that's not the problem...
I never put too much trust in a company, only the functionality of what they deliver and the agreement under which they operate. That's why I made sure that the phone as I got it met all my requirements, I would like more functionality but I don't need it.
Main point is: if Microsoft keeps this up they're never going to get a foothold in the mobile market. Ever. And that kinda bugs me at time because they have much more potential than this. Even if it sometimes blows up in their face during launch :-)
I'm not impressed, not in the very least.
Now, before I continue let it be very clear that I'm quite happy with my Omnia W and unlike some other WP7.5 owners on several Windows Phone fora I have no intention what so ever to suddenly get rid of my phone. IMO that's plain out stupid; when I picked it up I knew exactly what it could do, its current features are all I need so... Why bother ?
But that doesn't mean I'm not quite disappointed but most of all heavily under impressed with Microsoft on this front. If this is how they're trying to win the mobile market then they're doing a horrible job IMO. No; I'm not referring to this "update" which basically only consists of a lot of cosmetic changes, one I'm most likely going to skip entirely.
I'm referring to all the commotion with the introduction of Windows Phone 7 concerning the hardware; How Microsoft, in a certain way, lied to us. Well, not really lying of course but they sure gave out a lot of impressions which now turn out to be hardly as important as they claimed. Because when it came out Microsoft set very strict minimum requirements which any hardware should meet if its manufacturer wanted it to be a Windows Phone. Sure, I know all those requirements got adjusted in no time after, that's not the point.
The point being is that with their reputation on the Windows platform (buy Win7 in 2007, keep on using it until 2018 with continuous updates easily) they set a tone with all those requirements. Something which now turns out to be completely bollocks. Also the various statements on how they felt sorry about having to drop Windows Mobile completely, but now they would do better.
The way I see it WP7 is now basically dropped completely as well.
Why is it that Apple users can run later versions of their mobile OS on older hardware and Microsoft users cannot, even despite all those hardware requirements? It makes no sense. It would have made sense if Microsoft wouldn't have started getting so uptight over their precious minimum specifications.
Still... I would be pleasantly surprised if Microsoft would now provide a free developer unlock for WP7.5 users so that we can at least build our own software for it. But... I'm afraid that's most likely wishful thinking. After all; on the mobile market its money first, users second...
"Nope, my view's based on using Ableton as well as watching other use Pro Tools and Logic."
Without version numbers that means very little. Development on these environments (and many others) has seen some tremendous changes over the past years.
...is IMO the way the European patent system appears to be sliding down towards the "retarded" level at which the American patent system is currently sitting.
Ok, in this case I think its borderline for me. I can somewhat, with some difficulty, imagine how anyone would consider the next photo to pop in & pop out to be a specific feature. But patent worthy ?
I think its more surprising how fast Google catches up these days ;-)
Now its these tidbits which makes El Reg stand out from the crowd such as, say, Slashdot. In my opinion of course.
Although I can fully understand the need to get people together and address topics such as "Windows 8 shipping" and all sorts of that stuff I always consider those boring. To me its just yet another bunch of people talking about yet another common topic.
As said; this is something I'm looking forward to because it IS important to have this in order (in some countries this is even demanded by law!). And the fact its a topic which, the article says itself, many people hardly seem to care about makes it all the more interesting for me.
Cool, can't wait!
(disclaimer: yes, obviously it helps to be self-employed and as such have different interests)
Never get a v1.0 from Microsoft, unless you're willing to be confronted with bugs and other nastyness.
This is merely the latest example.
I think you hit the nail on the head.
The official word on that feature is that it uses your online storage space to save your Win8 settings which will then be retrieved the moment you log onto another Win8 desktop. That will make sure you always get your own desktop. Storage space which conveniently sits outside your common SkyDrive and which, so far, seems totally inaccessible to you.
Something which I consider to be very dubious. I mean; if /my/ data gets stored online why am I not allowed to see what gets stored? Heck; why can't I *remove* my stuff ?
Convenient is it that the moment you want to use their store and all that you'll have to sign in with your Live (now "Microsoft ID"). And all of a sudden all your stuff ends up on some mysterious part of the Internet.
And if only they managed to do a good job here, not even that!
When I started to test Win8 I used a dynamic Naruto Shipuuden theme on the desktop. Quite cool because it really showed how I felt (the picture with Naruto standing behind a fence of barber wire while he cuts his hand holding one of the wires): Imprisoned and incapacitated.
Dynamic... so other pictures are there too.
So; when the Win8 official release hit TechNet I gave that a try too. And amazingly enough; my desktop had the same theme and the same background as when I used the commercial preview. Out of the box. Yet only 1. My dynamic background had now turned static.
And the void? Well, that remained as vague as ever.
I think something really stinks here, and it aren't my feet.
Some retailers (and a lot have absolutely no idea about IT) also bought in heavily because they simply followed the whole Microsoft doctrine.
Well, that and the opportunity to make a good profit; buy now, sell /much/ more expensive later....
The fact alone that Microsoft only looks at sales figures, no matter to whom they sold it to, says enough.
I smell deja-vu.
If Apple were to try and invoke their "patent rights" to sue some European company for abusing "their" logo then I'm pretty confident that the case will be laughed out of court.
Really enjoyed this one, and can wholeheartedly agree.
And even though I personally still consider OS/2 Warp (3) & Merlin (4) to be the more extensive environments at that time I also think one cannot deny that Microsoft has done one very important thing right with its Windows environment (apart from the many mishaps and other ickyness which also occurred): the strict design.
Sure; here and there Windows can be picked up as a little bit messy, but its not as if they had to re-design the whole OS structure time and time again (although they did do a few kernel rewrites). With that I'm not referring to the GUI which has seen many changes over the years (including the most heard annoyance regarding programs and options being moved to new places) but the underlying structure.
When Microsoft started with, for example, their management console (mmc.exe) they designed it in such a way that it could be extended, which also happened over the years. And even though it sits in the background and most end users have no clue what it is, the msc "management files" still sit in their comfy home of system32, as they have been from the start.
Microsoft has done a lot of things wrong, and bluffed their way through several encounters, but I also think its fair to state that they managed to set up a rather solid foundation. Which I think may very have added to the eventual success of Windows.
Although OS/2 was obviously better :-)
Seriously though: OS/2 Warp Server (which I kinda missed in the articles) IMO really was way ahead of its time. User management? You could do that the same way you setup folders; from the templates section. Which would also give you a very easy way to pre-customize your objects before creating new ones.
iow: check the properties of an object in the "templates" folder and customize it to your needs. For example; you could set the folder type to "pictures", thus if you created a folder by dragging its object from the templates folder it would always create a folder which view type would be set to "pictures".
Now imagine this same functionality with user accounts. What's that? Annoying to drag an object with the mouse, then having to go to the keyboard to fill in the details, then back to the mouse again to drag in another object (if you had to create several) ?
Indeed; that's why there were also shortcuts available. No need to have your hands leave the keyboard, at all.
aaah, the good ole days. Sure; user management on Windows isn't bad either. But try to setup a default user profile /without/ reading the help screen. It can be found and done, but hardly as easy as "Oh, a user template amongst all the others? Lets customize it!".
Bit of ironic isn't it ?
In the beginning Microsoft also weren't very good at doing stuff themselves, instead they used their money to purchase other firms and incorporated them into their own products. Sometimes these others were competitors which also provided commercial based solutions, so the 'damage' for the public was minimal. Other times they ended firms which did provide stuff for free, that used to suck pretty bad.
Google claimed to do "no evil" and somewhat show how it "should be done". Now look where we are....
Personally I'd rather have Microsoft in comparison to Google. Not because they're less evil or such than Google, but because they never made it a secret about it how they operated. Google otoh...
Microsoft is also trying from time to time to persuade you to use your real name in their Live services (now "Microsoft ID") but are much less intrusive.
So far the major change is that you can no longer have single word names, you need 2. So instead of being ShelLuser I'm now ShelLuser on MSN. Simple and to the point ;-)
Apart from that MS only sends you an email sometimes. Google otoh... Every once in a while they come up with annoying popup banners the very moment I try to comment on a video.. "ARE you sure you don't rather want to use your own name?". time and time again.
Google is much more oppressive and intrusive here.
"One downside is the battery, at 1650 mAh, might barely get you through a day.".
Is that because of the hardware or because WP8 has become much more demanding?
Because on my WP7.5 Samsung phone, "merely" 1500mAh, I can easily last 1.5 day if I keep all my smartphone features turned on. When I'm in and around the house I tend to turn those off because I don't need e-mail on both my PC and my phone, and then the livespan easily goes up to 2 - 4 days.
Pretty alarming figures to me.
So now the EU states that the ITU lacks transparency ?
HA, now that's a good joke if I ever heard one. Look where that statement is coming from, sjeesj. The same EU which one one hand claims that it won't further provide economic support for certain countries, only to easily 'lower' debts or actually provide millions, if not billions, of extra cash a few months later. For no other reasons other than "it was required".
Sure; the EU members can now expect an increase in costs for approx. 70 million but hey!
Yeah, a VERY open and transparent body this EU is. One which really sets the right example.
Although I agree with you that it can be done; where does that leave Microsoft's core feature wrt 2012; the by default desktop-less installation? Worse; where does that leave remote administration?
The only reason I repeat this particular issue is because I honestly think that 2012 has a lot of potential. If only they would hurry up and backport the admin tools...
Its not only my heavy disdain for the metro void here, but also because I think its much more likely that there are more Win7 desktops to be found in an environment where a new 2012 server is about to be placed. I don't see admin teams updating to Win8 merely because its the only way to admin the server remotely.
So yeah, in my opinion it almost seems as if there is a bit of arrogance at work here. Everything seems to be put to work to try and get Windows 8 out there, no matter what. And THAT is what bugs me the most here. Microsoft used sit WAY above that.
Windows Server 2008, release date 2008 (obviously). It wasn't fully aimed at remote administration as 2012 is, yet was shipped out of the box with WinRM 2.0 (Powershell). And they still backported these features, also onto 2003 and up. In no time!
Also important to note; obviously you could admin 2008 using Win7 out of the box and more easily (PowerShell) but that backporting (see above) also allowed this kind of advanced access straight from XP. Even though at that time Win7 had already established itself as the de-facto new "liked" Windows.
Server 2008 came out, Win7 obviously natively supported the critter but in no time did MS make sure XP could /fully/ cope too. In no time meaning no more than a few weeks (iirc).
Even though they could also have said: "Nah, XP admins should get win7 or get used to remote desktop sessions when using 2008". They didn't.
THAT is what upsets me so when it comes to 2012. I get the feeling this is more about pushing Win8 down our throats than delivering the (IMO) optimal admin experience which MS has always done so far.
You'd need Win8 to administer it because the admin tools haven't been backported yet.
And I for one do NOT consider the idea of a desktop fully crammed with every available msc file for easier access to be a very appealing admin setup.
And yes; I know that in theory you should also be able to cope with PowerShell. I say in theory because no matter how much I admire both the provided capabilities, as well as its general versatility, there are plenty of times where an MSC file (read: desktop admin application) is a lot quicker to operate than a rather large commandline instruction. Esp. if you need a function which you don't very often use.
This is why I hate translate tools, that's hardly proper German.
You want something more in the line of: "Schatz, Ich wollte deinen Tod so angenehm wie möglich machen..".
I beg to differ.
In fact; what I totally fail to understand is how so few people seem to recognize that Gangnam Style proofs something very important beyond any reasonable doubt.
The fact that you can make money by actually giving away your music, your performances of said hit, and even allow people world wide to witness one your concerts live, and for free. While the attendee's themselves obviously had to pay for it.
Gangam Style wasn't only one of the most played video's, its also one of the most downloaded songs. People grab it from Youtube, retouch the sound a bit and the rest of the noise is worked out by the massive array of filters which every mp3 player has these days.
In fact; during several broadcasted live concerts it became very obvious that for many people there was only 1 number which counted to them when it came to PSY: Gangnam Style. They didn't even quite care for the rest, even though (but that's personal) I think some of his other work is also quite good.
Those people are more than satisfied with downloading 'Gangnam Style', putting it onto their players, and they're done.
And even despite that, even though the attention solely focusses around 1 and 1 only single song PSY gives it all away, people download like crazy and he STILL is capable to make money out of it.
So what does this tell us about the current music industry, hmm? BREIN, ICANN, and all you other freedom censoring sons of -censored- -censored- ? Isn't this actual proof that you're not protecting anyone's rights, you're merely oppressing the population like the -censored- kinds of power mongers you are in my opinion?
If PSY can do it; why can't others? And no; I'm not talking about scoring a world hit like this, those odds aren't quite high. I'm talking about still managing to make an income while your crown jewels are being put up for download? Heck; while you're giving them away yourself, for free!
THAT is Gangnam Style really showed us here.
Op Op Oppa GANGAN STYLE! *BOOM*
"Installing OS/2 wasn’t very hard, but you couldn’t guarantee it would work on your hardware, and at about a thousand bucks a go this was an expensive experiment."
Sorry, but that's not entirely true. There were plenty of lists supplied which provided in every detail which hardware components were and which weren't supported. It was relatively easy to look this up before you started. Even the IBM OS/2 website was very easy to use when it came to finding these lists (which was pretty much amazing considering how a lot of other information was burried between huge amounts of totally confusing links and pages).
Still; if your hardware (-components) was (/were) mentioned as being supported then 9 out of 10 cases it would easily work. The only time I had major issues with OS/2 was when I actually bought myself an IBM (iirc an Aptiva) with the sole purpose of running OS/2 on it. I mean; if I got myself a /real/ IBM computer, surely it should do wonders with OS/2? Guess again!
Which was partly my own dumb fault; I assumed IBM cared. Which IMVHO is what really killed OS/2; IBM themselves. They didn't seem to care one bit. Take the Aptiva; did it come with OS/2 drivers? No; only Win95. The 486 Compaq I once had supplied drivers for just about anything; /including/ OS/2 (not directly but on demand; I recall purchasing a huge amount of drivers and support software; 3 boxes of 3.5" disks which also included plenty of OS/2 drivers).
I even contacted IBM support with this (considering how I was entitled to support through purchase of my new PC). Needless to say, but they didn't quite manage to get beyond "We think it should work...".
But its the weirdest thing; on the other hand IBM did quite a bit of good. I for once was very impressed how Sun's Java (back then a rather new environment) had found a rock solid home within OS/2. Not sure about OS/2 3 ('Warp') but Merlin (the one with the nice pull down menu) supplied Java right out of the box. That was impressive for those days, at least IMO.
There IBM did manage to do the right thing; Java support really managed to extend the stuff one could do with OS/2; now you weren't merely "limited" to your common DOS batch, OS/2 cmd or Rexx scripts. (not that you were really limited; man... I still vaguely recall the stuff one could do in a cmd file. Sjeesj!).
No, if only IBM would have cared a bit more; imagine OS/2 under the supervision of IBM as an open source project, but not in a way where it would only cost IBM money (like Sun did), but in a productive fashion... That could have easily become a power player which could have gone toe to toe with Windows today.
IMVHO of course.
No thanks, votes will do ;-)
Seriously; if that helped you, why not press the green arrow as a way of saying 'thanks' in El Reg style?
If you make sure you "pre-anonymise" your data so that even you have no clue what you're uploading then there will be no way these agencies can find out!
Of course a downside could be value of said random data, but hey; at least its anonymous...
Ok, a little more seriously: the real solution should be obvious enough; if you require privacy then why share your information in the first place?
Both Google (YouTube) as well as Microsoft (Microsoft ID) are both currently doing their best to persuade me to use my real name and information. Google is a bit more intrusive than MS on this, but even so; they're both persistent.
And I keep telling them "forget it". Right up to a point where I might go "Screw it" (YouTube) but we're not there yet. How many people do allow themselves to be suckered in only to wonder a few months later how its possible that their name seems to end up all over the place ?
Privacy starts with yourself.
I think the main problem with some games is the massive amount of DLC. And also in such a way that it seems as if you're going to have to buy into this sooner of later if you really want to enjoy all merits of the game, depending on the game of course.
But I've also been looking at Tokyo Jungle for a while but then noticed the /huge/ amount of extra's available. Needless to say but that gives me a totally different impression of said game; I can't help wonder how long gameplay can really last without purchasing any DLC.
In fact; I even predicted that I'd be impressed the very moment this situation would last for a few years in the very same article by El Reg. Because now they've not been so keen with saving money by moving to an OSS environment, they've actually been wasting a whole lot of the taxpayers money. Great work!
I think the cause of the problem is twofold.
First, I think their main problem was that they went "OSS because....". They didn't look into their situation to pick the best tool for the job, no, instead they heard a magic word called "open source" and so they went "open source" because it would save them lots of money. That's bound to fail. Go open source because its the best or a good tool for the job, don't go open source only because you want to in order to 'save money'.
Open source isn't a magical environment which can save all your problems.
Second, and I think many people overlook this, is inter operability. Sure; when I compare MS Word 2010 to LibreOffice Writer then they can pretty well go head to head. I never did bother with a one on one comparison because I'm not that interested, because both environments have their strengths and their weak spots.
However... While the LibreOffice components (Writer, Sheet, etc.) work excellent individually they can't match the interoperability which is available with MS Office 2010 at this time. They're getting there, but not quite yet. Meaning? I have an address list which sits in Outlook, and I want to write a letter in Word. I can easily setup a template which can retrieve the information straight from Outlook and use it immediately in Word.
I can have an Excel sheet embedded in Word (I know L.O. can do this too) but in a way that it will remain up to date with the information in the Excel sheet itself (this feature I'm not too sure off). But once again; there's also nothing stopping me from setting up a routine which utilizes the Excel sheet as a sort of database to retrieve the info from there and automatically set it up in Word.
And that's only talking inter-operability within Office. This is a setup standard in Windows, not merely Office. Meaning? If I want to control Acrobat from within Word I can since Acrobat provides the APIs for it, if I want to setup a smart document which needs to check the kind of printers I can; it has an API for it, if I want to get registry access from within Office to connect Office to a 3rd party program (information exchange) then I can because there are APIs for it.
THAT is the kind of inter operability which currently isn't present within L.O.
For personal use all of this is major overhead; but for business use it can help you setup constructions which can save hours and hours of work; thus /really/ spare a whole lot of money.
Let me be very clear here: This fail isn't an Open Source fail, not in the very least. Its a bunch of politicians who heard the magic word without having a frickin' clue what they were talking about.
My hope is that the German taxpayers won't stand for this; this is a huge waste of the taxpayers money....
Instead of making their web applications look and feel more like their desktop applications (think Office 2010) Microsoft took, in my opinion, the cheap way out. Instead they turned the desktop applications into something one could easily associate with a web application.
Apparently ignoring the fact that web applications, also because of their minimal interface, offer but a fraction of the functionality which the desktop apps provide. This functionality isn't merely something you can measure with what the software can or can't do; another very important aspect is the user interface.
They had a relative mature interface, chose to cut it short instead of expanding on it and this is the result.
I for one am hardly surprised.
I see direct parallels with the moment Vista shipped. In the beginning we also got reports about "Expected sale figures" and stories about "Large amounts of Vista being shipped" (to where? customers or retailers?) and so on. And we all know how that ended.
Of course its good that El Reg reports stories like these, but one has to wonder; is this really news? In the sense of something which no one (apart from the boys in Redmond of course) could see coming ?
Wake me up when Windows 9 is in the making ;-)
True, which is also why I think Server 2012 has much potential.
However; all the remote administrative tools are currently only available for / on Windows 8 and haven't been ported to previous platforms yet (at the very least to Windows 7). Which is IMO another fail; and also the reason why, at the time of writing, server 2012 administration is completely tied in with the dinkey toy interface.
Not very appealing IMO.
What were the development costs?
Is that when a company has made $awesome_hardware_which_everyone_should_have you hardly ever see one of their own staff working with it. This isn't only commenting on Microsoft, but other companies too. Its a given.
Back in he Compaq days the iPaq was advertised as one of the greatest thing to have but you'd never see the CEO walking around with one. And there are dozens of examples like this.
The moment where I see Ballmer carrying around a Surface and also actually /using/ it to, for example, take notes during a press conference or something then I maybe believe in some of Microsoft propaganda. But until that time first things first; like waiting for version 2 which doesn't start showing wirering in the keyboard after a few weeks of use.
If you're thrown into a job it can be exciting but it may also leave you unprepared because you never got in touch with the guy / woman before you who might have explained some tricks of the trade.
Even so; I can only hope for her that its commonly known in Redmond that you should be very careful with the combination of Ballmer and chairs. Here's hoping she played enough dodgeball in her youth :-)
What I consider the most compelling reason to make sure what you're doing is that you're using a virtual instance which runs on one or more servers. When the Feds (or any other global police force) suspect foul activity they usually get warrants to inspect, investigate or confiscate an entire server.
Very nice if that server happens to be something running a dozen virtual clients on top of it and one of them is yours.
Sure, boxes shipped. To customers or to sale departments (retailers)? Because well; that was inevitable given the fact that companies are eventually forced into this anyway because MS will sooner or later stop the sale of Windows 7.
I'd be more impressed with sale figures from individual resellers.
"A new unified API would be the means to do it: developers would write a Metro app and it would run across a range of Microsoft devices. So although Microsoft was non-existent in tablets and barely visible in smartphones, developers would be obliged to make it their third choice.."
And of course these developers would have to pay to even get the opportunity to actually develop applications for their smartphone (without any option to try on the real thing, even if you want to use your own phone, before you buy).
And once you have your killer application ready then best prepare yourself to pay Microsoft again because while you now can place your application on the marketplace; Microsoft wants to have their cut of the deal as well (which in all honesty is fair since you're using their infrastructure, but within the context of already having to purchase an expensive subscription in order to actually being able to develop something...).
Then there's of course the tie-in with Windows 8 for some development environments. I would have to purchase Windows 8, invest hours in setting the whole thing up on my PC and require a steady dose of medicine to keep my blood pressure low as I actually try to work with this monstrosity.
Are we there yet? Not quite... Paid apps. on the MS marketplace can't be submitted to all markets. Cyprus? Forget about payouts, even though its a European country (part of the European Union). WTF?
Greenland? Nope. Iceland? Nope. Iraq (wasn't that liberated according to the media?)? Nope.
Here's a really funny one: Liechtenstein? Monaco? Can't target those, check out the List of regional info for Winphone development.
"developers would be obliged", well, you don't say....
"Malware that successfully bypassed Windows Defender was capable of opening backdoors to allow hackers to remotely control the attacked x86 PC, intercepting keystrokes, stealing online gaming credentials, and more."
There's one bit of information I'm always missing with researches like this: what kind of user account and user profile was used? Because the end user can matter a lot when it comes to system security and breach of that security.
2 extreme examples... Although Windows 7 sets up an admin account for you to work with by default (and relies on UAC to block unwanted system changes) its not how I like to work. Instead I lowered my accounts privileges to that of a normal user (I'm on Windows 7 Professional btw; this also provides user account access), removed the password from this account and instead added a password to the global system administrator account. Resulting in the obvious situation that my user account has no write access to system parts of the system partition (C). I can't dump something in c:\program files, I can't do much in c:\windows; the only places I have full r/w access to are my own personal data directories as well as the stuff on the non-system partition (D).
The moment I want to do something beyond my capabilities I either have to raise my privileges (start a raised console ("run as administrator") for example or simply await a UAC prompt. After which I need to type a password and then can perform the required changes.
Needless to say; I'm pretty confident that not much malware which might be capable of bypassing Security Essentials will also easily be capable to install itself. Unless of course it fully runs within user space and doesn't require any extra credentials; but mentioning of stuff such as keyboard monitoring makes me think otherwise. My account credentials simply wouldn't allow me to do this. (unless of course they're actually exploiting local root exploits or local backdoors, the article doesn't quite say).
Another extreme example is a friend of mine who clicks before reading. Sounds dumb, it is dumb, but that's the way he works. When he sees a website popup he's clicked it before you could say "I don't think that looks trustworthy". He'll even go as far as mindlessly clicking "yes" on UAC messages, sometimes even jokingly mentioning that "Oh, Windows needs to ask me if Bill Gates can go to the bathroom, sure; do what you have to do".
Needless to say: its also the kind of friend who calls me every once in a while to ask me if I could help him make his "PC run faster". At one time I even managed (well, stuff like adaware & spybot managed) to remove 584 cases of malware, spyware, tracking cookies and other kinds of crap from his PC. Although his switch to Windows 7 has managed to slow that process down quite a bit.
Needless to say that my user credentials and user profile (the way I work) is bound to stop a lot of crap even whenever that is capable of bypassing my virus scanners. Whereas my friend... With such a user profile I don't think it would even help if his virus scanner (or "protection suite") would be capable of blocking everything. Whenever there's a trojan provided chances are high he'll invite it right over by clicking "yes" ("sure I'd like some new software, lets have it!").
AS SUCH.... What kind of user profile is used during such virus tests? With modern Windows (Vista, 7, 8) its almost inevitable that the user will get a system warning somehow. So do they simply assume the user simply clicks yes all the time or....
These days I simply call it the void ;-)
It sucks up your money (marketplace, win8 purchase, extra time spend to do stuff), sucks up your time and it basically sucked up our beloved start menu and parts of our desktop too.
The only thing is that its usually not black.
Agreed, although for me it does matter where its being used. In Office I really like it. Sometimes I keep it visible (Word, Excel), in other places I simply don't want to lose so much room (Outlook, OneNote).
In other programs however (when trying Explorer in Win8 for example) I didn't particularly like the Ribbon. But as you said: hide it and its gone. Out of your face.
Within Office 2010 I like it... You can either use keyboard shortcuts, "Ribbon shortcuts" (press alt once and you see what I mean) or simply use the Ribbon.
I can fully understand that people who were completely familiar with the menu (and its structure) can have some issues finding the options they need. But for me (not so familiar with the menu and its structure) the Ribbon structure made a lot of sense. There's logic being used: I want to insert something in my Word document? I click the 'Insert' tab and there it is: from inserting empty or premade pages to inserting pictures, illustrations, graphics or headers, footers or symbols. Creating an contents section? Its not something you insert; but something you make: a reference. So click on the 'Reference' tab and presto: from inserting contents or indexes right to footnotes, endnotes (also references!) right down to marking items or adding cross references.
And the option to customize the Ribbon is also a very welcome one. After using MS Office for approx. 3/4 of this year now I have plenty of options I use the most. Some end up in the "quick tool bar" and for the more "complex" (and often used) options I simply made my own Ribbon section. Now I hardly have to switch between "Start" or my own section.
Sure its not perfect; I also have had moments when I was searching for one specific option which I couldn't find. But is that really something only happening with the Ribbon ? I doubt it....
The early adopters, you know; the people who are currently still using Windows Phone 7.5 which contains a Skype app which can't run on the background?
Do we get some kind of update too or is MS simply going to thank us for all the valuable user input and the fish?
Problem with the VS 2012 Express stuff is that you're still somewhat tied to Windows 8, which is something I'm really not looking forward of using.
So instead of that stuff I'd sooner recommend grabbing one of the VS 2010 Express versions instead. Works excellent on both Windows 7 or Windows 8 (if that's your thing).
You don't even have to deal with the "Desktop version" nonsense (personal opinion) but instead can focus on language; are you going to use C#, VB or C++ ?
"Way worse than .NET (the Microsoft Java clone, way more messed up than Java itself)."
Uhm, you do realize that .NET is nothing more but a framework which can be used to gain easier access to specific Windows components? Its not a programming language and most certainly not a Java clone.
What you're referring to is C#(.NET); a programming language which can be used to write applications which fully utilize the .NET framework, comparable to the way a Java program is build upon the Java runtime. And indeed; in a way C# mimics Java.
But don't forget that you can also use Visual Basic as well as C++ to build .NET applications. Heck, MS' own application server (IIS) even provides .NET support for ASP build webpages.
Which of course will also feature lots of singing and dancing.
Unfortunately for the poor shop owner the anti-DDoS methods of the State (government) turned out to be far more effective ;-)
Better yet; its free too! (well; apart from the taxes people have to pay of course).
"The problem is that there are a lot of people in the economy, finance and banking that simply don't have a clue."
I think that's true, but you're forgetting a second very powerful motivator here: greed.
Of course banks are excited about the introduction of a well known brand or company on the stock exchange. Because don't forget that with every transaction you make (buy or sell) your broker gets a piece of the 'pie' too. So if there's a chance that brokers can actually sell thousands of stocks then its bound to excite; the trade alone will generate quite some revenue for them.
That is why you should be very careful with what news or advice you're going to follow when it comes to introductions to the stock exchange (introductions which, no matter the brand or company, are always high risk). Most banks (or brokers) will hold double agenda's; its a given.
In Holland we had such a stock exchange tragedy as well, the company in question was World Online. When they prepared to get onto the market they were actually backed up by several well known national banks. It turned into a disaster, which makes you wonder about the stakes involved for those banks.
My take on the matter is that you should never underestimate what greed can do.
Your story seems plausible if only it wasn't for the huge reserves countries have which they can't seem to get rid of due to the low prices. Worse yet: food (components) like butter, sugar, grain which doesn't sold at auctions is simply destroyed "because". No matter how much quantity it concerns.
This is what is happening in a small country like the Netherlands so I'm pretty sure its happening on a larger scale or in other countries too.
As such: don't forget about the /huge/ overhead which we currently have yet don't use. Of course you won't find stories like these in common media, but if you look into these specific subjects (the trade between farmers and the state for example) I'm pretty sure you'll be shocked.
As such; I don't really think your story holds much truth. There's too much overhead which is currently simply destroyed without the common population even knowing about it.
Welcome to the modern financial world....
(yes; I agree this is disgusting)
"Will Santa be working overtime to shift Win 8 kit? No. Yes! Maybe"
Rumour has it that Microsoft donated (yes, you heard right) a whole Windows 8 infrastructure (dozens of PC's running Windows 8 Professional and Office 2012, and a server with Windows Server 2012 on it) and even helped Santa replace his old stuff (though unfortunately it was never revealed what Santa was using).
But here's the thing... Rumour now has it that Santa's now working major overtime just to try and meet his schedule. Unfortunately the old guy doesn't seem to know how you can make shortcuts on the desktop or the taskbar because he tries to copy stuff from the metro void. To make matters worse; he even seems to have a tendency to get lost in the metro void everytime he starts it.
Here's hoping Santa will still make it in time for Christmas eve....
(man, that would make a really cool geeky Christmas story IMO ;-))
As much as I respect some of the things Microsoft does there's one thing I've learned over the past years when dealing with Microsoft products...
You should never get a version 1.0 product from Microsoft; whether its hardware or software is totally irrelevant. That is; unless you're willing to play beta tester and are prepared to deal with several flaws which most likely are going to surface (some pun intended).
And I'm not saying this to badmouth MS; I'm saying so because this is exactly what MS history has shown us, time and time again. MS Expression 1.0 (website editor somewhat based on Dreamweaver)? 1.0 has potential but was full of bugs and often crashed. The current version (4) has become much more stable and is actually quite usable (and enjoyable if you're into this stuff). Windows Vista first release? Windows XP first release? Windows 7 first release? They all got their service packs and from there on things became a lot better.
More recent hardware examples? Windows Phone 7? The first release didn't even have a task scheduler; while Outlook is very useful (IMO) for task management; the first release of the Windows Phone didn't bother to support it. Only the first major update (7.5) brought in task support. And even that is still lacking because while you can sync your appointments and contacts over the Internet with Outlook (or other software) you still can't do this with task lists (not even with Windows Phone 8).
Microsoft ergonomic keyboards anyone? Their current versions are pretty slick and useful, but I've heard just too many complaints about earlier versions to include as an example too.
Of course not all their v1.0 products are 'bad'. But history does show you that if you pick up a v1.0 you're taking certain risks to be confronted with design flaws and other bugs.
As such; I'm not really surprised here.
With the cylinder attached to the phone it becomes quite bulky. A lot of people carry their phone in their pockets, something I don't see happening with such a cylinder attached to it. Which brings me to: if due to the cylinder the phone ends up in her purse; then what is the added value in comparison to carrying a can of pepperspray?
Another thing which strikes me as a bit inefficient is that you have to "snap onto its back a cylindrical housing that contains a pepper-spray cartridge. Rotate the cartridge into firing position, aim your Cupertinian smartphone at the menacing miscreant, press the actuator button". With a simple spraycan you grab it from your purse, pull of the protective lid and then simply press the nozzle.
When you're in a panic situation I don't see people easily capable of rotating something into a "firing position" before usage. What I see them capable of is pulling off a lid as quickly as they can and then pressing a nozzle as hard as they can while aiming the pepper spray at their attacker.
When you're in a panic situation you usually don't think straight; things need to be quickly available and as easy to use as possible.