1849 posts • joined 19 Dec 2010
They need to add an option to Windows 8 to make it work exactly like Windows 3.1 did - why should I be forced into using Microsofts crappy new "user friendly" UI when what they had before worked perfectly fine for me?
I know you're joking but quite frankly that is exactly what they should have done. Because when Windows 95 came out, which basically introduced the start menu to the masses, it still retained the option to use progman.exe, and that feature has been included with more modern Windows versions for a long time. Some people fell back to that but eventually everyone picked up on the start menu.
But I do believe that this is the main reason why Windows 8 is the catastrophe it is today: people aren't given a choice, so they''re simply making one themselves by not getting involved with Windows 8 at all.
2 click access to device manager, uninstall programs, control panel, System, and so much more.
Unless you're a user like me who uses a non-privileged user account. When I run certain msc files I need to raise my privileges. On Windows 7 this means right click on the option and "run as administrator". With this great Windows 8 that has become impossible because you're already using a context menu (you need to right click to access this menu) yet one which only starts msc files without being privilege aware.
Therefor on Windows 7 its a meagre 3 click option for me: click the start menu, right click (for example) "my computer" and click "manage". Due to my privileges and because I'm trying to access 'my computer' the system automatically picks up that I need to raise my privileges.
And well; because the control panel sits in my start menu as a menu option I too can reach all these with 2 clicks (start -> hover -> click).
Do almost anything faster
Like what? When working on Windows 7 I heavily use the "recently started programs" section which dynamically changes based on the software I often use. This allows me to almost every time use 2 clicks to start the software I need the most. Better yet: because it's dynamic I don't have to do a thing myself.
Try that with Windows 8.
"At the risk of a bazillion downvotes: This is exactly, pretty much word for word what was said when XP came out by many many people (myself included)."
With one huge difference: XP still provided a working progman.exe, so if you really didn't like the start menu and wanted to go back to the way it was you could.
People had a choice in the matter, even if it did require some in-depth understanding how this stuff works.
Visual Studio 2013?
"The company revealed on Tuesday the availability of Windows Server and System Center 2012 RT, Windows Intune and SQL Server 2014 and Visual Studio 2013.".
Not quite correct. As you can read on Microsoft's techblog they announced the upcoming build preview of Visual Studio 2013, that will be available at the end of the month.
Visual Studio 2013 itself is expected to be available later this year, according to that same blog that is.
Because they would most likely expect a little display of courtesy back. But for some reason I doubt that Google would consider it a bonus if Snowden started to advertise for them ;)
".. they are talking to him in an uncomfortable room about all he knows about the NSA."
Or he's freely giving them any information they want (and as much as he can produce) in exchange for safety on the terminal, to be raised with a scheduled direct flight.
That would be the most likely scenario in my opinion. He's already an unwanted person, so he basically has nothing to lose any more.
I pity the fools who read this news and pick it up as a confirmation that one operating system is better than the other.
"For the most part, in IT, the bad guys won."
I think it's not so much an issue of "bad guys" perse, but more so of people who have little to no affinity with ICT and the tech sector as a whole, and thus only approach things from a business perspective. And business can sometimes be ruthless, but that's just the way its supposed to be in my opinion.
Even so; I think it's that lack of understanding which makes those guys look like "bad guys". Simply because if you know their product by heart and then ask them something about it, even if its not too specific, they more than often cannot answer your question because in the end they know jack shit about it.
That's most likely also why the author could describe a situation where he could talk to the CEO without any marketing drones around. Simply because this CEO knew what he was talking about, thus didn't need any drones to shield him from specific questions.
Based on what I read so far I bet this was also the kind of guy who would easily tell you that he didn't know about a certain issue and only because of that would need to refer you to one of his colleagues. Compare that to what you get these days during presentations when people ask critical yet fair questions...
One question remains though..
"One of the big barriers to using cloud computing is a lack of trust," she said. "People don't always understand what they're paying for, and what they can expect."
But is that caused by a lesser degree of competence from these people, or because some Internet based companies can get away with just about everything? Often in the EU, more than often, do you get to see Internet "ghost" firms which will gladly accept your money but won't deliver any services.
And the worst part (though I can only comment on my local situation of Holland): 9 out of 10 cases the police has no or hardly time for cases like this. Especially because it's usually petty theft and resources to trace these culprits would be quite hefty... Over here the latest report surfaced last week: a few Dutch and Belgian people had booked a vacation with an Internet firm, and that firm is now all of a sudden "gone" and so is their money.
So is this about the companies? Or about an, often EU led, government which refuses to give its citizens the protection they're entitled to and basically try to let others deal with all that?
You like hard questions? ;)
"The hardest question to answer is the simplest: why make the move from Server 2003 to Server 2012?"
Well, I think I can top this one with an even better question: "Why make the move to Server 2012 with its dinkey-toy interface, while you can still get Server 2008R2?".
Not only will the price of purchase be lower, you'll also get a product which was designed to be the direct upgrade for 2003, thus making the upgrade process a whole lot easier per definition. Another thing to keep in mind is the product itself: 2008 has been around for quite some time now, so you can be sure that a lot of the "out of the box" bugs have been addressed by now. Server 2012? Considering the very poor reception it gets I have my doubts there.
Finally there's an even bigger issue to keep in mind: the dreaded End Of Life issue which we're addressing right now. Windows Server 2008R2 extended support ends in 2020, as can be seen here (link to lifecycle page of Microsoft support).
The Windows Server 2012 EOL date on the other end only adds a meagre 3 years, it's support ends in 2023 as you can see here.
Sure, time is money. But not having to deal with the dinkey toy interface that was Metro is also worth a lot of money to a lot of systems administrators. There is much more to this story then "merely upgrading".
In my opinion companies are much better off picking 2008 over 2012.
I disagree for many reasons. The first being the obvious one: people pay to be able to trade on the stock market. So where the article says that in some transactions millions were lost, the other side of such situations is that there were also plenty of people who made lots of money out of it. Its the beauty of the stock exchange in my opinion: almost everything works both ways.
Another aspect is the damage itself. What damage exactly? Trading or investing on the stock exchange involves taking certain risks. You can try to regulate all you want, but its those risks which allow people to either make or lose lots of money. Regulating only means postponing the inevitable.
And that's problem number two: If you regulate the amount of trades people can make you're not only blocking possible losses, but also blocking possible profits. Because having the option to purchase many stocks in one go is a good way for a trader / customer to invest and for the company which sells those stock to make some profit out of this.
And it's those profits why most people trade on the stock exchange in the first place.
"Oracle had earlier forecast software sales growth of as much as 11 per cent, but the actual figure was just 1 per cent, bringing the total to $4bn in new software sales."
I can't help wonder if this would include software sales from Sun (and in my opinion Sun had plenty of quality software for sale besides Solaris).
Because if this would be true then for me it would be the perfect example as to how far the oracle arrogance can go.
I mean; every former Sun customer knows that the moment oracle took over prices were raised almost two folded, and even higher after that. I was lucky and had the option to bail, I know many other companies weren't that fortunate.
So I can't help wonder.. Because if my assumptions are right I wouldn't be surprised at all if we can look forward to a steadily decrease in software sales, going down as it goes and if I had anything to say about it eventually hitting rock bottom, hopefully with a bang too.
And for the record: No, I don't like oracle at all.
Both the article as well as the development. Although I'm very sceptical about the continuous "we're running out of IPv4, the Internet blows up tomorrow" (and nothing happens the day after) I still think it's a good thing that some companies (and projects) started paying serious attention to IPv6.
I'm somewhat proud to say that very soon all of my customer websites (and my own of course!) will be accessible using both protocols.
Either way, I think it's quite refreshing to read a story which shares both the strong and weak points of a new development. I was especially interested in your (author) display of interest in the possible potential. Because in my opinion a lot of Microsoft developments show high potential, in a lot of cases its poor marketing (and "after-sales") which turn it into a disaster.
No offense but...
I want to have as little to do with Google as possible.
And only once you start thinking about how that might be done will you realize "how deep the rabbit hole goes".
This.. I was thinking the same thing.
Many people overlook something very nasty yet also very important with console gaming: stuff changes over time.
I think that's a very dangerous (and sometimes unwanted) development, but seems to happen all over the place. My best (but dated) example is a PS3 game called "Gran Turismo 5". Its a very cool racing game, but when I bought it most races had a grid start, I loved it. In the mean time someone apparently didn't agree and now almost every race has a rolling start, something I really do not enjoy at all. Of course this happened half a year or so after purchase, so even if I wanted to (I don't) I couldn't get a refund.
But the same thing happens on your consoles. Although it doesn't bother me at all the PS3 used to have an option which allowed people to install an "other" operating system. That functionality has been removed over time; even consoles can change.
So before anyone starts countering your argument I think they should keep this in mind as well; with consoles you can't be sure that the thing you bought will continue working as you expected it to.
What a load of nonsense...
"It seemed so plausible, but for most of us the savings never arrived. Why not?"
That heavily depends on the market. The article sounds as if you're targeting the whole industry, and if so it would be a clear sign of ignorance.
We're not saving eh? Ok, then let me spell something out for you.
In the old days you could only opt for either website hosting (getting your own private, but limited, webspace) and if you required more the only available options left were either hiring a server, or getting one of your own and make that available somehow.
The differences are even visible today. Take GoDaddy. They provide dedicated servers for you to use. Of course a decent one (8GB memory, 2x 1TB HDD, 10TB/month data traffic) will cost you approx. E 160,- / month at the time of writing.
GoDaddy also provides Virtual Private Servers and that shows a clear difference. Although the specifications are often lower you also pay a lot less. In this case a 'Deluxe' server would cost you approx. E 50,- / month. So you could easily opt to getting 3 servers instead of one.
So now you can get a full (virtual) server of your own to do as you like, while paying a whole lot less when you get yourself a physical server.
How is this not saving? How more obvious than this can it possibly get?
Sure, I know what's up. The article most likely talks about companies with in-house servers who more than often now get into contact with virtualization options but won't save a dime if they don't know how to use it. But that's not what the article told us, it basically addressed the whole market.
In the end it depends on the situation at hand if you'll be able to save up or not. The tool doesn't make the solution, it can only provide one. But that doesn't automatically make it the right solution for every problem.
At least it's good for something...
All those "business analysts" are having the time of their live, selling their "wisdom" to anyone who wants to have it.
"It is legally bound, under higher laws which it has acceded to, as part of its United Nations obligations, to accept the transfer of political refugees to the country which granted asylum,".
Makes me wonder what those higher laws actually are. But if he feels this way; why not start a prosecution?
I think he's totally off though. Because if you look closely you'll see that there still is no "official" system in place which regulates the use of immunity. For example; because of the immunity of ambassadors and their cars they normally also don't have to worry about parking violations. As a result plenty of diplomats basically allow their cars to be placed "where possible", even if it's officially not allowed.
Yet there are also many countries which don't tolerate such behaviour and demand that their own embassy personal pays up for their own traffic tickets. And there are also host countries which use alternative means to enforce the law. In Holland it's not uncommon for a diplomatic car to get towed away. They can't search it but it seems they can move it out of the way.
Or what to think about embassies which hire personal from the host country but immediately make it clear that they can't count on immunity because they're not citizens of the main country?
A small example, but one which clearly shows that there currently is no specific ruling in these matters. Some countries are very strict with upholding diplomatic relationships (not paying for traffic fines) whereas others couldn't care less about "pesky details".
As such, I think Mr. Assange is doing some wishful thinking here, but he seems to be completely off.
Could it be?
All chasing after Bruce Willis perhaps, imagine the disappointment when they finally realize that it was all a movie and not in the least based on the real thing ;-)
"What I can do with Android, however, which I cannot do with iOS or Blackberry or Win Phone 8 - this: I can download the Android source code, inspect it for spyware, modify it to remove it if I wish, compile it and put it on my phone."
Can you really now?
That strikes me as a bit odd, considering that 4.2 has been released almost one year ago.
It's going to be awesome, yeah sure....
When governments start regulating stuff they hardly understand you'll get regulations which the involved sector will hardly understand. And that often results in major annoyances (or worse) for the group which rights those regulations should protect in the first place.
Take a look at the "cookie law"; it's a perfect example. Basically the law states that websites need to warn visitors before they come into contact with tracking cookies ("trackers"). But this regulation does not include cookies which you might need to keep your website running as optimal as possible.
Despite of that most companies basically approached the whole thing with "better to be safe than sorry" and made it involve every cookie on their website. And can you blame them? Because one could argue that every cookie can be used to track people; at the very least you can pick up from which domain they originated (or said to originate).
And as a result we now get to click 'yes' on almost every website. And to make sure they don't track you it's often stored in a cookie with a short expiration date so you can keep clicking yes, which has quickly became user annoyance number 1.
So when that researcher says that: "end users were already preparing for the new rules of the incoming regulation" I think he drew the wrong conclusions. End users aren't getting ready to sue the heck out of the market, I think they're getting ready to browse the web without getting annoying "cookie banners" on every site they visit.
Someone forgot to kill the parent process. That's the only sure way to get rid of defunct processes.
But in the end..
There's always a huge difference between a computer program or a real person. Quite frankly I think that if people really have this kind of problems with their social live they're better of relying on friends or family. If that isn't an option then professional help.
Because actually conversing with a real person will actually make them feel comfortable with the process, because it's real. I don't think this compares at all to a computer simulation.
How about global moving? ;-)
Global warming won't work any more I think because that has lost some credibility as of late.
But we definitely need something new so that we can start expensive investigations into it for the greater good of the children. And the best part with this name is that "moving" doesn't even have to involve the plates, you can easily make something up as well.
"When to say I quit..."
Rule 1: When you already have something else.
Unfortunately there are too many people who overlook this and manage to get themselves into major problems because of it...
Why not make a real statement and use (for example) PostGreSQL instead?
Each to his own, but it would have left a little more impression with me than simply going for the "best mysql compatible dba out there".
Very reassuring that Java is being used in many banks
And the ones which don't more than often resort to ASP.NET. You're point being?
Re: Getting on a bit
Begun the search for more money has.
Leave this to the manufactorer: NOT the government
I have a Windows phone (WP 7.5), which I happen to like too, and guess what? It already has such a feature which I can also chose to turn on or off: "Find your phone". It sends my phone identifier to Microsoft, optionally along with some other information I can opt in to send them (search results, spoken text results, etc.).
The next part is my Microsoft account or ID. I can attach my phone to my Microsoft account thus giving me direct remote access to my phone using their Windows phone website.
This access can then be used for all sorts of things. I can browse their app store using my PC and after I decide that I want something I can tell it to send the app to my phone straight away. But I can also tell my phone to ring, lock or even format (erase) itself.
Why would I need the government for that?
I don't think this is for the better good; it's for their own good. Maybe I'm paranoid, could be, but I wouldn't be surprised if the next step would be attaching said kill switch to voice recognition software. You know: you're mentioning "let's bomb the bass tonight" and all of a sudden your connection is gone and 5 minutes later you got police all over you for suspicious activities... "But I was going to a dance party? Acid you know, stuff from the 90's?" "Oh, poison is involved too? Tell it to the judge you damn terrist!".
Well, here in Holland we already had idiocy like that in the past. "Rekening rijden" ("Driving by bill"), every car would need to be fitted with a GPS device (and they even said that's what it had to be) so that it could detect if you were driving on a road for which you had to pay.
The plan never made it, but it seems some politicians went up the ladder a bit.
I think we have every right to be concerned. Because what will be next? Once the politicians finally discover that such devices can also measure speed I wouldn't be surprised one bit if eventually some "political genius" cooks up an idea to have the devices track the speed of a vehicle and when it goes too fast you'll need to pay, no matter what.
Think of all the money they can save by not having to station police men alongside the road?
And when looking at Holland; I don't think those police officers will be placed elsewhere in the force so that they can now perform other, more important, tasks. Of course not; they will have to go because that is really going to help the government save money.
This may sound like far fetched science fiction to you, but once they start adding this big brother crap into the cars I'm quite convinced that it will only be a matter of time. As crazy as it may sound, I've seen politicians do even crazier stuff. Just because they're politicians doesn't make them smart people.
I went broad instead of going deep
That means not just learning the syntax of Java or C++, but why languages work the way they do
In other words make sure to lay out a good foundation on which you can continue building. A very solid and valuable advice, even though newcomers may think this to be extremely clichéd (and in a way it is). Another thing I'm missing out on (or maybe I overlooked it): A degree isn't necessarily a "get into the market for free" ticket. I've seen many examples where someone with a high end degree simply knew shit about the basics:
"Why would you want to declare a variable?".
"A trick question eh? Well, you don't have to if you're using C# or avoid adding explicit in VB".
"No, I want to know why you'd want to declare one first?".
Stuff like that always reminds me that you might be better off going for a broad approach. The reason I went for this route is because I'm a systems/network engineer (or administrator?) which means that you'll be doing a lot of different things. From helping people out with simple Word problems right down to setting up a firewall design, that's the kind of diversity I really like.
But to me broader is always better.
the different types of BYOD policy choice you can make, the infrastructure you need to build to support your policy, the problems of provisioning and access.
Infrastructure we need to build, or the infrastructure they want us to build? Considering where it's coming from I wouldn't be surprised if we get a story about how "analysis" (done by Freeform Dynamics obviously) has showed how "certain hardware components" which "surprisingly" happened to build by HP are just what the doctor ordered.
Depending on the kind of environment we're talking about I don't think there has to be much impact. Most Enterprise based wireless routers normally support multiple SSID's for example, and a whole lot of extra's to tune them (think about speed limitations, shielding of certain networks, hiding networks, etc.).
If systems administration is any good then I think they can apply basic risk assessment to such an environment to prevent disaster from happening. Most likely within their current environment as well.
Maybe I'm just being cynical here, but the real problem at hand would be convincing the upper brass. They're most likely prefer paying attention from "case studies by the experts". This will go double if said environment is merely following the hype-want-to-be.
It's just a plot...
be aware we've just moved offices
Just moved offices without a nice and cosy office warming party with all the commentards?
I think this is just an elaborate plot to hide the obvious truth from us ;)
Perhaps to make sure he'd keep his mouth shut. Oops! :)
"Law abiding citizens have nothing to fear (and everything to gain) from such a system"
Unless someone changes said law to include something totally outrageous (it wouldn't be the first time, esp. if you look at this from a world-wide scale) and then uses this system to enforce said law.
Now you're suddenly in trouble.
It has yet to be proven...
"Fragmentation amongst Linux distributions will be the killer blow", a critical comment which actually holds some truth because setting up software on Debian can be a completely different ballgame from doing the same on SuSE. But Linux is still going strong, ever so popular. Maybe other people can see clear signs as to why the fragmentation is extremely bad, I sure don't.
What about open source software as a whole? The fact alone that you can simply cast the magical "fork" work (and issue a quick cp command when no one is looking) was also reason for complaints. Software projects would fragment, this causing damage to the entire species.
I think that the OpenOffice project (deliberately mentioned) showed us otherwise. I think it's fair to say that the forking and fragmenting of LibreOffice may very well have saved the entire project.
If this really about a fair warning to all potential developers? Or a deliberate (and very transparent) scheme to put your own environment better into the picture?
A bit lame, don't you think?
One small mistake here..
The hackers gained control of the Big Red fan site and posted the information there.
And that's probably also what got them into trouble. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this move also disrupted the option to take further legal actions against the rapists. Although it may sound quite sickening and inappropriate in this case, the law normally still abides by "innocent until proven guilty".
Because although they may have found evidence I'm afraid that a lawyer will easily swipe it all under the carpet by merely insinuating that this group managed to gain "illegal access" to the computers thus "there's no telling if they actually got the material from there, or simply placed it there themselves". That's the kind of trouble you'll get yourself into.
And then a lawyer will most likely simply explain the website defacement as an act of aggression against the club and you have probably raised quite some doubt when dealing with a trial by jury (or so I think).
Its one thing to obtain evidence, using said evidence yourself will almost every time cause more collateral damage than you can anticipate. Its usually best to leak this and to make sure both the public as well as the justice system gets hold of it.
And the worst part of it all is that the rapists are most likely going to get away with it.
Well, I am a metal fan (sort off; I still like listening to some of the old stuff, but occasionally) and I think you're overlooking something. Usually it's not an ongoing 300bpm tempo but a lot of "beat bursts" (to give this a name).
In my opinion a very nice example of this would be "South of Heaven" by Slayer. The song as a whole sits at a very slow tempo (probably also the reason why many people kind of liked it, including non-metal or non-Slayer fans), but if you listen closely you'll hear several bursts which easily count up to 10 beats or so. Added up to the overall percussion (which maybe slow but still extensive) and I think you can easily reach these amounts.
Even though you're not listening to something "techno like" where there is a constant beat present.
And now all of a sudden I feel like digging up some of my old Slayer CD's :-)
The jolly roger, because metal fans like skulls :-)
It's been going on for ages, so why get angry about it?
No, otherwise I would have used other wording. It's been going on for ages, so why get angry about it now? Only because it hit global media this time?
Of course it's been going on for ages; however there is a big difference between being pretty sure something is happening but unable to prove it to those who might change their behaviour because of it, and actually having that proof.
As if you needed to look so hard. Just look at how the US treats the privacy of anyone who wants to visit their country. At one time they even made a demand to the EU that they wanted global access to the bank accounts of every EU citizen, or at the very least anyone who wanted a visa to travel there.
Of course there came trouble when other countries started to demand the same from the US, then it became a matter of privacy intrusion.
Which raises another question: why is it perfectly ok to tramp on the privacy of everyone else in the world yet it becomes a national scandal when the same thing happens to US citizens? Merely because the government is now violating US law or because things have changed because it's now happening to them as well?
That is something which somewhat bothers me with all this. It has been going on for ages and no one really seemed to care, and now all of a sudden it becomes an outrage?
You're late to the party
I think the author is overreacting. Understandable, because I suppose that I would too if you suddenly get the feeling that you only now discovered to been living a lie somewhat. For someone living outside the US like me it's easy to comment, I realize this all too well. And if you've been raised to be critical about your environment and not to blindly trust things it becomes easy to raise questions.
But even so; I can't help feel that your outrage is only based on what has made it to the global media. But the fact is that this has been an ongoing issue for a long time now, even way before the 9/11 attacks.
When a couple of friends and me were playing with the then rather new FreeS/WAN some of our US peers (who ran a home server) actually got some questions from some law enforcement agency because they had been showing "suspicious behaviour". This was around 1990!
The US is filled with paranoia in my opinion. And although I admire and respect the fact that you eventually opened your eyes and are now ready to make a statement, I also think it's wise not to overreact. Taking all your hosting away from US companies will only hurt those companies at first, even though they may also feel quite strongly about all this.
It's a start, sure, but if you really want to make a change I'd say also try to take this to the politicians. Because that may have longer lasting effects then simply opening your wallet and spending a little more on hosting.
Those haven't ever been secure.
Apart from the issue of different available locks (as mentioned by others) there is another aspect to consider. Making a mold from a car lock will be a lot more suspicious than simply trying to pick up electronic signals using a "blackbox".
Or: "Uhm, I lost my keys and the assurance doesn't cover it, so I'm trying to make a duplicate key?"
vs.: "Yeah, coverage is a biatch these days; I can hardly get any signal here, that's why I'm standing so close to your car sir.".
I also wouldn't mind
To see an actor who has done Dr. Who in the past to return once again, for example I personally thought David Tennant played a very good Doctor.
How many companies who are into this stuff due to the hype and not because it simply works for them have thought about the involved risk management. Because when looking at mobile devices such as cellphones I suddenly can't help wonder: "What would happen if the employee quits"?
The reason doesn't really matter here. But if such a co-worker has been bringing and using his own mobile phone then you'd better hope that you either hired a trustworthy / respectable person and / or that you made sure to include a section in the contract what the person can and cannot do with the information he acquired during his job, especially with information which is now stored on his / her phone.
Because what if this person decides to start a company of is at another employer and now decides to use the information on his own hardware to help out his new environment?
I think you're entering a huge grey area here. Because although one could argue that the person is now (ab?)using and profiting from information which isn't specifically theirs, one could also argue that the company involved was also profiting from the person when he or she was using his own equipment for company business, effectively saving the company money.
By the time the searches are rolling in it's too late.
I was thinking exactly the same thing. But then again, unless you're George Lucas of course, then you simply continue to
mess up "improve" your movies before each new DVD release.
It would appear
...as if Microsoft is becoming desperate.
My theory would be that they have invested quite a lot in the whole structure and are hoping to get some of that money back. I think this strategy isn't all that bad. After all: it's often better to make a small amount of profit on a lot of devices ("sales"), than it is to make more profit on something which sells less frequent.
Even so, I can't help wonder if the damage hasn't already been done. Let's face it; even if Windows 8 is quite usable on a tablet or a touch environment, the brand name has already been (heavily) tainted. And Microsoft has also already given in and admitted that it wasn't going as well as they proclaimed.
Then looking at the current rough financial climate: say a computer illiterate wants a tablet. What to get?
A (relative) cheap environment of which Microsoft themselves have already said that it had failed (do you really think those guys would remember that Microsoft was only talking about the desktop? I don't.), OR a slightly more (or less!) expensive device (Samsung?) running on Android which has already been chosen as one of the most popular environments?
You can only spend your money once, especially during these times, so you want to make it count..
Well, don't forget that according to Microsoft those same "user input channels" convinced them that the start menu had to go. Of course the results that followed made many wonder to which audience Microsoft had actually been listening, but even so that was their original story.
The really important question though...
Is if this Halo version is eventually going to be a patience and spider solitaire replacement...
And where whas she...
When Microsoft was pulling away Messenger. A, in my opinion, real innovating service (to some extend of course) in that it could be easily used on both desktop and telephone and was actually a very widely used service. Both for VOIP (like) services as well regular instant messages.
Yet all that had to go in favour of Skype where it seems that the only way to make "full" use of it is if you get yourself a premium subscription or buy into lots of Skype credits. Of course I did the total opposite; the moment Messenger stopped working I removed it and Skype and that was the end of it.
Now I'm looking for a feasible, non-intrusive, replacement. The webclient (Outlook.com) is somewhat usable, but not just quite a good setup.
What do 1.4 BEELLION transistors get you?
A headache thinking about the nearly endless switching capabilities.
Boooring, where is CDE?
First of all you hit a nerve with me by mentioning SunOS. Where you actually meant Solaris because that was the all-in-one operating enviroment, SunOS didn't include the X environment per definition. In fact; SunOS sort of got replaced by Solaris, up to version 4 it was actually based on BSD.
"Look at screenshots of long-dead early GUIs from the 1980s, such as SunOS or Smalltalk, and they don't even have features like menu bars or buttons on window title-bars at all"
Apart from the statement above Solaris *had* menu bars, if CDE was used. There were at least two graphical environments to chose from, by default OpenWindows, but as a counterpart we had CDE, which didn't provide one but several menu bars in the tray panel, one which inspired Xfce later on.
Don't cut Solaris short like this, please...
Needless to say but this undermines your statements. A statement which is flawed too:
"RISC OS already had its Icon Bar, but that doesn't have an app launcher or a way to switch windows."
And how exactly could Windows 95 switch Windows? Or are you now confusing windows with virtual desktops here, because Risc OS had plenty of options to use several windows side by side, in a way comparable to GEM.
Oh that's right; GEM... Even usable on CP/M and somewhat comparable to a mixture of Windows 3.1 and OpenWindows, which you claim wasn't prior to Windows 95.
Then how come that looking back at GEM reminds me heavily of a Windows hybrid?
I do agree with you on one thing though; it really seems as if the main desktop managers copied Windows. But there were plenty of environments which didn't, Xfce for example (before it became "cool" to use it, you know what I'm referring to).
- Review This is why we CAN have nice things: Samsung Galaxy Alpha
- Hey, YouTube lovers! How about you pay us, we start paying for STUFF? - Google
- MEN: For pity's sake SLEEP with LOTS of WOMEN - and avoid Prostate Cancer
- Vid BONFIRE of the MEGA-BUCKS: $200m+ BURNED in SECONDS in Antares launch blast
- Tim Cook: The classic iPod HAD to DIE, and this is WHY