Re: Proof?

@Big John: "Increased droughts and flooding have been shown to be caused by desertification (chopping too many trees). As for flooding, that's mostly down to the building of river levees that prevent rivers from occupying their natural floodplains, now occupied by houses. The levees drive the river crest to unprecedented heights, where they finally breach the levees and cause massive damage. Increased weather damage is to be expected with the rising population, and the tendency to build in risky but pretty areas like coastlines."

So, human activity then? Glad to see you've finally grasped that one.

"ActiveX got its deservedly dismal reputation because Microsoft did not do this, so you ended up with arbitrary code from untrusted sources running with all the (usually administrative) privileges of the logged-on user"

A common misconception. ActiveX actually had more support for security than NPAPI (the only real alternative). The difference was the Microsoft's tools made ActiveX control creation and consumption very, very easy. As a result lots of non-web applications were built from ActiveX controls without any consideration for what that meant in terms of the risk that they were inadvertently exposing to the web. If VB5 had marked ActiveX controls as unsafe for scripting by default and made it just a tad harder for web development, it would have never have developed the bad reputation in ultimately did.

They were allowed to implement ActiveX, it is after all just a bunch of COM interfaces and COM was an open standard. The real problem with other platforms supporting ActiveX (security concerns of native code aside) was that almost any native code worth writing ends up with dependencies on underlying OS functionality, because that aside your might just as well be using JITted JavaScript.

This is the problem that doesn't really go away with PNaCl, although it's clear here that Google's strategy is to create a world of Chrome-only web applications, paving a way for Chrome OS only webapps and ultimately a closed web controlled by Google.

Re: @AC - Slow news day...?

It's not news. But what tabloid journo hack could possibly overlook the opportunity to use variations of "'The Force' called in to break up angry Star Wars fans" headlines?

Re: Genius from MS

What Google are conveniently ignoring is that if you use the HTML5 mobile app they're suggesting WP8 users should switch to, you also don't get any advertising. So the (unbelievably hypocritical) argument they're pitching about protecting content owners right to ad revenue is also complete nonsense.

Re: Desktop 'dumped'?

@skelband: Well the first thing you do when you get into Windows is typicallly to launch an application, unless you're one of those folks who turns on their PC just to admire the desktop wallpaper. Given that, doesn't starting with the application launcher open make rather more sense than starting with it closed and basically requiring a redundant mouse click just to open it?

Re: So the solution...

@AC11:38: "Use a standard and you'll be fine or create it using a free alternative such as Libre Office then anyone can view it for free if they have an internet connection and a few minutes to download and install the software"

Um, Docx (and the other modern Office files) are ISO standards. I know the freetard brigade like to pretend they aren't, but that doesn't make it true. Google's document renderer may be a bit crappy, but maybe you should whinge at them to be a bit more standards compliant, eh?

Re: Can I have some of what the author is having?

@PaulR79: "If you compare Android now to Windows Mobile near the end then Android comes out far ahead on usability, that UX thing you mentioned."

If the only thing you can compare Android to, in order to make the UI look favourable, is an obsolete old OS which everyone agrees had a crappy UI, then I can't help but think you're making the author's point even better than he did.

Re: Desktop 'dumped'?

@Avalanche: "So saying that Microsoft dumped the desktop is an exaggeration."

As is saying they're "bringing it back", given that the coming changes are most definitely not just putting the Windows 7 shell back. The Ribbon is staying, the Start Screen in place of the menu is staying, Windows Store apps are staying.

Re: IE6 is being patched?

Because Microsoft committed to a support lifecycle for XP during which they will provide security fixes for it. IE6 was included in XP and therefore is subject to the same promise of support. Just because Microsoft would like it gone as much as anyone, doesn't change the fact they are still obliged to honour their commitments.

Re: This update affects all versions...

The only "rewrite" of Windows in it's entire history was the introduction of Windows NT, no matter what massively misinformed people on the internet might suggest. Every other version has been built upon a previous in some form or another.

And for the hard of thinking, the "Longhorn Reset" which lead to Vista was *not* a complete re-write, the codebase was merely rolled back to Windows Server 2003 SP1 and development restarted.

There's already a Kindle app for both Windows 8 and Windows Phone, so they don't really need to do anything. However it's pretty obvious that there is a market for digital books that is potentially a high profit sector, so why not move into that space too?

Re: 1+1 = ALL?

@Gordon 11: "So broad, cross-platform browser support means writing for one more specific browser?"

That's the web for you. You still have to work around the bugs in browsers if you actually want things to work. And Chrome has just as many bugs as other modern browsers (there are more Chrome-specific hacks in JQuery than there are for IE10, for example)

Re: Anything new going on?

@Ken Hagan: The Start Menu is gone, it's not coming back. The only thing being pondered in Redmond is whether to concede slightly and put a button back in the bottom left corner of the desktop to open the Start Screen. This introduces as many problems as it solves, because you still need to train people to aim for the lower left corner if they're running Metro apps, because the button still won't be there then.

Re: We told you it was shit

@Peter Simpson 1 "Why can't we have both ribbon AND traditional menus?"

Because then every feature has to be added in both places, training manuals have to incorporate both methods and the product test matrix expands exponentially. And almost nobody chooses anything but the default setup.

Re: Microsoft's strategy is FAILING

They aren't "reverting to the classic UI" - they're putting a Start button back. Note, that is not the old menu, clicking it will still bring up the Windows 8 Start screen. It's a visual indicator and nothing more.

Probably because the costs involved in migrating to Linux are many times greater than simply upgrading to the latest version of Windows. Just because the software is free, doesn't mean you can simply swap to it without incurring massive costs.

The general idea that you can simply disconnect from the network and all the problems of old OS's go away is epically naive, though. The potential security issues is but one very small component in the reasons why sticking on an obsolete and unsupported platform is a terrible idea.

Re: Got to ask

Microsoft have very clear published support roadmaps, which form a contractual obligation for many of their clients. They don't just obsolete things on a whim, that's more a Google thing.

Re: An opportunity for AV companies

@phiz: So on the off chance that some government might just possibly be able to compromise a cert auth, we should instead allow anybody to spoof applications by having no signing process at all? It's not a case of "every signed app must be implicitly trusted", but instead "anything not signed should be treated as potentially compromised"

There would be nothing to stop app authors also providing their own verification mechanisms if they're really that worried about a CA being compromised. And the minute a single CA was identified as being compromised in any way, it'd pretty much kill their business off.

Re: skeuomorphic has 1 big advantage

More importantly, by using skeuomorphic designs you constrain yourself by the limitations of the physical design you're aping. Digital systems are capable of much richer interaction but you need to break free of old metaphors in order to take proper advantage.

Re: Race to bottom: Tax Lawyers beating bankers

@Shagbag:

1) He does, however, benefit from there being less sick people around, reducing the possibility of him catching disease. So yes.

2+3) Everyone benefits from a better educated society. We invest in other people's education (and not just ours or our own children) because the overall benefit to society.

4) Most of these stories of £1m+ properties etc are fabricated/distorted to persist the belief that anyone receiving any kind of benefit is an ignorant, wasting, sponger. However, the counter argument, FWIF, is that it is harmful to society overall to create pockets of wealth and pockets of destitution. So pushing less well off people out of areas like London (which is where most of these heavily over-valued properties are) is not necessarily beneficial to the nation as a whole.

5) Again, we invest in children because, in the long run, it is beneficial to society as a whole if children get the best possible start in life.

The real issue with a 'fair share' when it comes to companies like Google though, is that they are using various UK services and infrastructure that are paid for by UK taxpayers in order to make their profit. What they aren't doing though, is paying their contribution to keeping these going. That is what makes the behaviour of tax avoidance "immoral"

Re: An opportunity for AV companies

Windows has had various warnings against running/downloading unsigned binaries for years. However the freetard brigade have consistently whined that it's all part of some grand conspiracy against them and part of some devious plot to extract money out of them.

Re: "Got a Windows XP end-of-life plan?"

@Turtle: "And by the way, because Microsoft is going to stop supporting XP, does that mean that anti-virus companies are going to stop supporting it? Most of the support that I need for XP - and I don't need much - is supplies by vendors other than Microsoft."

Probably. Once a version of Windows goes EOL it's not long before application and tool vendors start to drop support to. Given the size of the XP user base, I'd imagine many (though probably not all) AV vendors will probably keep support around for maybe a year or so past XP EOL, but it certainly won't be forever.

Re: My plan?

@Yet Another Anonymous Coward: I assume you aren't old enough to have been around when NT4 went EOL. Many companies tried precisely that strategy, because heck it probably won't matter. And pretty much every one of them ended up spending a lot more trying to bail themselves out of the hole they dug themselves into when things started to go wrong than they ever would had they taken a considered and planned approach.

Re: Marketing scare mongery

@Tezfair: "I have one customer that still uses Server 2000. It amazes me that its not died, but it still works, its not exposed to the internet, so where's the problem?"

If you know that it can easily be replaced by a currently supported OS, probably not much. If you have no plan whatsoever, and no real idea of what work will be involved if you had to replace it with something new tomorrow due to a catastrophic failure, then the problem ought to be blindingly obvious.

Re: "those that have operated under the radar of IT"

@Pascal Monett: It's incredibly stupid. Yet the number of businesses out there that function because "Bob in accounting made a really useful spreadsheet" is higher than most IT pros would care to admit. It's frightening how quickly and deeply business processes can become dependent upon such "user created applications." If IT folk aren't even aware of their existence, and often they aren't because users don't want IT "interfering", then these can become a potentially massive liability.

Re: Advice on software from a banker?

@Charlie Clark: The questions you raise are the important ones, yet the ones that most people here seem to have completely missed. It's not about "Oh I won't get malware because of X, Y and Z", that's only a minor side-effect of XP's EOL. Continuity of business means you need a plan of how things are going to work if, for example, you end up having to buy new PCs, which you won't be able to get XP on and may never get drivers for either. Likewise if some new piece of software you need comes out that also drops support for XP and suddenly you find yourself stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Failing to have a proper strategy in place to migrate away from XP in business (whether to another version of Windows or something else entirely) is incredibly foolish. Burying your head in the sand and pretending it's all fine usually is.

Re: Installation easier with Linux

If you can't roll out a Windows box, install all the required corporate applications, reconfigure any custom settings and install every required patch without manual intervention, you're doing it wrong.

Re: Plan 9 from Planet Obvious: XP -> Linux Mint + sandboxed XP VM

@Eadon: How exactly does XP in a VM remove any of the problems associated with continuing to run XP? And why would anyone introduce voluntarily introduce new problems from running/managing a Linux network when every user still has to run XP as well?

As usual, you're living in some deluded dream world where you imagine every problem just goes away because you'd like it too.

Re: True but misleading

@Alan Edwards: "I'm more concerned that only 62% have a password on their wifi router."

True, though I wonder how many of the remaining 38% just have no idea. Most routers that have shipped in the last 5 years at least have shipped with a secure setup by default. Many people will have just entered the password once and then forgot all about it (or even used the push-button secure config that many have) and so may have incorrectly assumed they don't have security turned on.

@mark63: The trouble with a formula type approach, is that if the formula is too obvious (e.g. prefixing it with ebay, paypal, google, etc) then there is no real difference to having the same password everywhere. And if it's not obvious, then, well it's not going to help when it comes to remembering things.

Like many people here, I have a bunch of "I don't really care so I'll share the password" type of sites, where a compromised password probably isn't the end of the world. There is always the danger with that though, because somebody might find a route to exploiting it further that you hadn't considered.

Re: Android permissions design

@JEDIDIAH: "I should be able to do something like I do with noscript. ANY app is banned from sending text messages unless I say otherwise. Doesn't matter what it asked for during installation"

The problem with that is, whilst it sounds great in theory, it just doesn't work in practice. It means app developers have to test every single possible combination of permissions and work out how to alter functionality appropriately depending upon what random subset of permissions they are granted. The really good developers might be able to do this, but it costs a lot in testing and development time and most people will never bother about it. Meanwhile the other developers will simply let their app crash in every case where the permissions are altered (or in the malware case just pester the user to re-enable the permission until they do so).

It's much better to encourage users not to install apps that have overly demanding permission requirements, because that encourages developers to reduce the requests to the minimum possible. There is, perhaps, scope for allowing a developer to specify a subset of "optional" permissions that are only necessary to support some extra functionality, but since the only devs that would use that are in the "good guys" category, it's debatable whether the added complexity for end users is really worth the effort,

Re: Did he really shave his head?

Nope, that's still boldly, as in make a bold statement. Bald with an 'a' is about having no hair.

Re: Build it and they will come?

I'd be genuinely shocked if they charge for Blue. It simply doesn't make sense from a business perspective. They need devs to develop for the Windows 8 Store and that means they can't afford to fragment the platform this early in it's lifetime. Blue needs to be ubiqituously installed on Windows 8 PCs if the Store, which is a potentially bigger cash stream, is to succeed.

Re: Win8/Office365 driving customers away fromMicrosoft.

@Fihart: If you'd said "I've used PCs for years and when my friend asked me to help them with Windows 8, which I've never used, I found it difficult", people might have listened. However when you describe things that simply don't happen, or berate the removal of things like My Computer (which hasn't gone anywhere), then people unsurprisingly assume you're just making stuff up based on what you've read on the internet.

See how that works?

Re: Office 365's licensing model

@TheOtherHobbes: "But who - outside Redmond - can't see that there's going to be a stampede towards Open/Linux/Etc on the desktop"

At a guess, everybody who has heard this claim repeatedly for the last decade or so, without any evidence of this so called "stampede" ever happening. But hey, you carry on telling us all that "Next year is the year of Linux on the desktop" and we'll all just quietly pretend not to be giggling at hearing the same thing repeated year on year.

Re: On a slightly more serious note...

@Adair: "Linux seems to be evolving far more rapidly and flexibly than a closed system like Windows or OSX can ever hope to achieve"

Presumably that is why the big discussion is over whether to dedicate resources to NUMA or Power Management support, both of which have been extensively supported by NT for a decade or so now.

Re: Rephrasing the question - can I run the businesses I support on LINUX?

@Barnie: "Sharepoint in particular is one of the products that make it extremely difficult to remove Microsoft Dependencies."

Translation: There isn't anything in the FOSS world that comes close to competing with SharePoint. See also Exchange.

Re: Sale of Goods Act trumps Google bs

You can sell the physical object, you can't necessarily transfer the right to access the services required to make it functional. And Google have no legal requirement to let you do so.

Re: And yet, and yet ...

Of course you can. You can also run a delivery business using nothing but a clapped out Ford Anglia. Whether it makes sense to do so is largely dependent on your specific circumstances.