Re: W. T. F. !
Don't they take it a step further these days and leave the whole laptop on the bus/train?
701 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2012
"it had to create an additional build of the browser plugin specifically for Microsoft's Internet Explorer after the version made for other browsers – such as Mozilla's Firefox and Microsoft's Edge – wouldn't install properly for IE."
Hasn't that always been the case? IE uses the ActiveX plugin, and Mozilla uses the NPAPI plugin. Of course the NPAPI plugin won't install properly for IE - it was never intended for IE....
I had a fun Nvidia card once. Think it was an MSI one, bought from Scan (or Dabs - I can't remember), but for some reason it was deemed ok for it to have the "Pre-release firmware - not for resale" stamped in its BIOS. End result: No full screen acceleration. Software or full-screen window was fine. Outright full screen - it just died and crashed the machine.
Windows 7 works fine with UEFI - so long Secure Boot is turned off. It also refuses to boot the installer if SB is turned on. Saying that, 8.1 and 10 work fine with SB off. My box dual boots Mint 17.3 and Win10 Education (it was free via Dreamspark). Both of which play nice with Secure Boot. However there are two reasons I don't use it - I can't be bothered derping about to get rEFInd signed so Secure Boot doesn't throw a wobbly, and it doesn't like my Radeon 6850 X2, even with the GOP ROM flashed onto it.
You mean their *time limited* free upgrade offer, which expires on the 29th of this month? It was always stated that users of certain 7 and 8.1 SKUs would be able to upgrade for free for 12 months from the original release date, and anyone wanting to upgrade after the exipiry date would have to pony up the going currency in their area?
If you want a non-upgrade edition you still have to pony up said currency to purchase the install media and/or license key to download the iso from the store. That's never changed.
Problem is, if you use another OS, you have the problem of getting a decent app store going, and employing an Android runtime to get the decent ones - which is what Blackberry tried in BB10 and Jolla did with Sailfish. Both didn't go well - why bother with a phone that has a compatibility layer when you can get one that runs everything native?
Would be much less hassle, and increase greatly uptake if they went with something that runs Android apps natively.
If you can create a new mobile OS, and combine it with an app store that can rival that of iOS and Android, *and* convince devs to port their apps to it, you'd be in business. Which is what MS tried with Windows Phone and that didn't go all too well either.