Re: $50 compensation from from Microsoft Must be spent at
How is it a scam? They sent people $50 worth of credit at their store, good for a year. Scams cost you something. This gives you something.
4544 posts • joined 26 Jul 2008
How is it a scam? They sent people $50 worth of credit at their store, good for a year. Scams cost you something. This gives you something.
I'm sure it looks funny to the author, but to those of us who manage fine on Windows 8 and don't find it confusing or disorientating, it just seems contrived.
"Well Linux is versatile. Android has very little to do with the Linux you would want to have on your desktop. It's dumbed and locked down, and only uses Linux as a kernel for it's own Java-based system."
However, it's influence is so great now that Android extensions are now being back-ported into the kernel.
"Yes. That would be products like Microsoft Small Business Server. It isn't available to me. It has been cut. They are pushing cloudy products like Office 365. It appears (from my small corner, which is small business), to be the end of Windows."
Yes, they're pushing the new products, but you could just get Server 2012 for your business, yes? That does everything that Small Business Server did (and more) doesn't it? And you can still buy non-365 Office. That's not going to go away any time in the forseeable future. MS will still sell you products that meet all the functionality of previous products.
"We have already been cut off"
What does this mean? Are you meaning that MS products aren't available to you?
"I however insist that the files are able to be stored exclusively locally. Office should not be software as a service, but instead should run as an app on my company's local servers. Microsoft has no business storing my files on their servers."
Agree with this, but Skyrive that comes with your personally bought device that you or I might buy in a shop is intended for us, not enterprise or business. A proper enterprise operation (imo) will be hosting their own cloud. I.e. they run a Server 2012 install (or more). The thing some people miss is that Skydrive is a default. It doesn't mean you can't replace it with your own cloud. But agree with your post - it's just I've seen people here talking as if Skydrive were some integral and necessary part of Win8.
My main problem with MS's Azure service, is that last time I checked (would love to find out they've changed it but not aware they have), they couldn't guarantee that they would run a server purely in the EU. Which means American data protection laws. Which means no data protection as far as I'm concerned. Could be wrong.
"Maybe he is not as clever as he thinks he is."
Nor as informed. He makes the argument that Win8 is "irrelevant" because people are more focused on BYOD. And then ignores that Win8 has significantly more features and support for BYOD than Win7 did. BYOD in the enterprise is one of the design goals of Win8.
"The idea is to protect one's water supply, power infrastructure, banking systems.....if that requires some "attacking" probes to forestall a major effort on the part of the "mis-understanders of Islam", then so be it."
I'm stumped as to how attacks on Iran's installations with things like Stuxnet, help protect US water supplies, etc. All they seem to do to me is stoke up motivation for revenge attacks and legitimize attacks on infrastructure.
"So Win8 SP1 is likely to have an 'upgrade' that stops this working, as an urgent security issue of course."
You're always making damning predictions like this. I ought to start collecting them. You have been reliably unreliably predicting doom for ages. When the Surface was announced, you pronounced it "vapourware". Then that it would be late if it ever did appear. Then you declared that it would hopelessly overheat. When I pointed out that it actually had this really nice all-round vent seam, you irritably posted how it wouldn't be waterproof. Seriously. Stop making predictions of failure just because you would like to see something fail.
Also, your little misinformation about having to re-purchase apps from Microsoft for each separate device -wrong.
You can install a purchased app on up to five devices and the app can be available to all user accounts on those devices. If you want to drop a device from the list and so the app can be put on a sixth PC, you can just de-select the previous device from the list for that app and you're done. I think five devices is reasonable and you certainly don't need to "buy apps several times".
"I am warming to Windows 8, but it seems to me that allowing desktop apps to run on a tablet will only discourage active software development on the metro side."
I think you're wrong and I'll explain why. I think it is necessary to allow Desktop apps to run on the tablet because at this stage, people still have a lot of unadapted programs they're attached to and the ability to run these is a selling point that MS have and Apple don't. So they want to keep it. But I also don't think it will discourage development of MUI apps because developers know that when they write their software as a MUI app, they're no longer able just to sell to Desktop PCs and the higher-end tablets. They're also able to sell to Windows Phone 8, lower-end tablets, Xbox - basically a much wider market. If a developer can code their program for MUI, then they probably will.
"but if you are developing a Windows game, wouldn't you try to support everyone who has Windows 8 installed, including the vast majority on non touch desktops and laptops?"
Yes. This I agree with. But the question is how hard is it to support both? I'm thinking of trying out some Windows-based programming for variety and it looks like there's a fair bit of thought gone into the APIs to make it possible to work with both without it being too horrible.
"but that in certain conditions ( Intel not ARM) allow you to also run MS Office."
You can run Office on WindowsRT. The number of people who will struggle because it doesn't do VBA is small. The preview version of Office will do 98% of what most people want and if you have the paid version of Office, this will probably fill in the rest, barring the VBA. Even the VBA part will eventually be worked around as it does support the new model of Office plugins that people are expected to use going forward (it's much nicer and more secure for a start).
"BUT THE MAJORITY of users do not care about running office on a tablet. I have various office applications on my android Tablet and Phone and honestly it is a PITA using them for this purpose, everything is very fiddly. OK with a keyboard and a mouse things become easy"
Most users did not care about having a tablet before tablets became easy and light with the iPad. If people can use Office on their devices then that frees them from carrying a tablet and a laptop. You contradict yourself first saying it's a PITA, then saying it becomes easy with keyboard and mouse. The Surface is a hybrid - it comes with the keyboard and mouse (trackpad) for the cost of a few extra millimetres on the tablet's thickness. Well worth it, imo.
"they are already seem happy with what they currently have."
In other words, 'people seem very happy with the 64KB of RAM.'
"I'm half expecting to see in windows 9 only being able to install software that has been bought from the windoze store and approved by microsoft,"
If that happens, I'm going back to Linux for my main OS. You're not the only one who dislikes some of where this is going. But my main concern isn't the costs. It's censorship. MS have already stated that they will not sell any "adult" material in the store. Apple do the same. It's the smallest step in the world to go from that to political of social censorship.
No black helicopter. Censorship is happening now.
"I thought Gartner was more intelligent than this. Guess I better reevaluate what I read from these guys."
Probably best to have read the original article rather than the Reg's summary. The reason the author has pulled his post is probably because he saw the Reg linking to it. Especially after last time where they wrote a big howling piece about how Gartner had called Win8 "bad" when it was actually one Gartner employee's personal blog and the original rather long article generally liked Win8 but used the word "bad" in one place for one thing and if you don't believe me, the author has a piece up somewhere saying how angry they were that tech news sites took that one part of his piece out of context and tried to blow it up into some big deal.
You have it muddled. AMD have produced an Android interface that lets you run Android apps on Windows8. This *is* pretty cool, but I don't think we know yet whether it will include ARM devices (I suspect not). So it's not "Windows 8 users on any device" (probably).
That said, there are around twenty-thousand apps in the Windows store already because Win8 can use WP7 apps. And it's going to shoot up very fast. Also, the article writer is ridiculous to try and draw parralels between Firefox add ons and apps for Android, or the MS or Apple stores. It's a browser. They are OS's. Different roles, capabilities and needs, minor overlap. Stupid comparison.
"Still a sinking ship. Time to put your wallet where your mouth is, shills."
Aside from being needlessly offensive and probably fairly groundless, it's also bone-headededly misunderstands what a "shill" is. The point of a shill is that they get paid by the company, not that they rush to give that company money. "Shill" is not another word for fan. It's an allegation of secret payment for what someone says.
We're in the midst of a massive and world-wide economic crisis. And Google took a slight hit on profits making only a couple of billion instead of couple and a half billion they made last time. And you conclude confidently that "the advertising business is going down the shitter". Congratulations - you make the short-term thinking panickers on Wall Street look like sober models of considered assessement by comparison. And that's not an easy feat!
Google will be fine.
Dalton is a fine actor with a good presence. But I don't really remember his Bond films very well. Roger Moore is my favourite. He once described his own acting style as "Left Eyebrow. Right Eyebrow".
"...that I'm paying Netflix £5.99 a month to stream hours high definition video to my PC and mobile, and paying Spotify a tenner to stream music to my PC and mobile, that are a fraction of the size "
Aside from it not being purely about bandwidth costs (movies and music are more complicated than that), most people with those subscriptions probably wont spend all day watching movies, but they will spend all day listening to music. Offline storage might impact that, but people will quite merrily download hundreds of songs, but they'll grab a movie or two a week to watch.
I have a 24" monitor positioned about 30" away from me and it's 1920x1200 resolution (actually, I have two). 1366x768 at 10.6" That's 80 pixels per inch wide on the monitor and 128 pixels per inch wide on the tablet. Need to allow a little leeway because I'll be holding a tablet about half the distance to my face that I will a monitor, but if I sit that distance from my monitor it still looks fine. So I don't know if the screen on the SurfaceRT is good, bad or brilliant (there's a lot more to screen quality than resolution) but it's certainly possible that the screen is fine at 10.6" without being 720p.
There are also downsides to massive resolutions as well. The battery in the iPad3 is massively larger than the iPad2, but operating time is roughly the same. That's because the screen eats a lot more power. Apple could have had a really long battery life for the iPad3 but they chose screen resolution as their selling point instead (rightly so). Also, it takes considerably more processor power to run a much higher resolution. Take a mid-range graphics card and run a modern game at a low resolution - fine. Now whack it up to the highest resolution, say 2560x1440 and watch frame rates drop, or have to lower other settings to compensate. Low-power mobile devices don't normally have a lot of processing power to waste. What would you rather have for example? A fast refresh rate or a higher resolution? You want both of course which brings us back to the only realistic answer - there are a lot of factors in a screen and what you really need to do is try a screen out and see how it looks. But in answer to your question there's no reason why a 10" screen at lower than 720p can't be a very good screen.
"The rumours were £200 for the RT ones."
The stupid rumour from an "anonymous source" that had no support or evidence and was followed by a legion of people everywhere the rumour appeared saying that it was a stupid rumour. No-one who knew anything thought that anything other than wild and unfeasible speculation.
"WinRT a full blown OS? hmm not so sure about that."
Okay. You posted it - so what definition of "full blown OS" excludes WinRT but includes things like Win8, OSX, Linux.
"Its untested, untried, and effectivly the same price as the ipad. So they might as well get the ipad. "
For someone making an argument that the Surface will fail even if the cognoscenti like it, because it's not what the "person on the street likes", you show a weak grasp of how "the person on the street" thinks. They don't analyze past performance much or consider the company's history. They walk into a shop and play with it or watch a video or play with a friend's and say: "that's cool. I want that one."
The ones who analyze in excrutiating details, are us
Fandroid is a derogatory term. But I don't think it's generally considered to mean any Android user. It just means fanatics who rail abuse at other OSs or those that like them. All groups have such people. It doesn't reflect most of the userbase.
"$499 w/o keyboard. $599 with. Seems straight forward to me."
Ah, you're just de-selecting the keyboard and then re-adding it and saying it's a £100 for the pink keyboard. It sounded like you were saying it was £100 more for colour. Standard cost of £479 with keyboard. £498 with coloured keyboard. If you remove the keyboard and just order the tablet part, then it's £399. But I don't imagine many people will do that. It turns it into a cheaper iPad a bit if you don't get the keyboard.
The more I think about this, the more I realize that matching the iPad penny for penny, means there's no ambiguity about what factors we're assessing. It's a straight-up match between iPad and Surface to compare features and build. It's pretty much an out and out statement saying to the world: "we think we're better."
"This is true but the version of Office people have is seen as a status symbol."
You definitely need to find a better crowd to hang out with.
In case anyone is seriously thinking of trying this, you wont be able to install Linux on the SurfaceRT for a number of reasons. Don't buy one thinking you'll be able to. It will probably be technically possible to install Linux on the SurfacePro, but it will be quite a while before people get the drivers up to speed for the new hardware. If you want to try this with any of the Win8 hybrids, get an OEM x86 one and be prepared to have problems if you're one of the early people to try this.
That'll happen when the Sun rises off the West coast of Ireland!
You'll have better luck with the OEM manufacturers. The chances of MS putting in a whole lot of extra work to help out their business rivals are... low.
"True. Sadly, they won't get full fat office on MS' tablet either."
Well they will in three months when the Pro version comes out. And OEMs have theirs ready to roll this month. We've yet to see how cut down MS Office is on WinRT also. We know that it lacks VB Macros. But it does support the new iteration of macros which are the web plugins which are more secure going forward.
Ballmer did publically state that they were keeping their options open whether they'd decide to do more Surface devices, but it's no good hitting someone with a stick if they think you can't do it a second time. His comment was exactly the sort of thing that fits with just using the Surface as a pace-setter. Those people who are talking about this being priced to fail (click-bait headline, I'm looking at you), or worse, those who expected it to be much cheaper despite no evidence and statements from MS to the contrary, I'm filing alongside those "analysts" who predicted wildly over the top sales figures for the iPhone5 on its release and then announced it had failed expectations when it "only" sold 5million in the first few days. If it "failed expectations", maybe you just got it wrong with your analysis. Same here. It's priced alongside the iPad as it was always said by MS that it would be.
What's interesting is that they have priced it exactly to the iPad. They clearly think two things - one, that the snap-on keyboard, better connectivity and OS trump the iPad's better screen and SIM-card slot and OS. I'd like the screen of the iPad3, but I don't need it. Plus the Surface aspect is better for widescreen media. For me *personally*, the SurfaceRT is better. So MS have got it right for a lot of people (I'm not statistically going to be the only person with these priorities).
But the second thing MS have done is pretty great tactical maneuvering. Apple are certainly not going to raise their prices - they already are targetting the upper end of the market and presumably have priced at what that demographic will bare. So if they want to adjust pricing, say perhaps because they need to due to increasing competition from MS and Android, because they want to rearrange their pricing lineup with a new mini-iPad or even just to reflect the state of the economy, the only way is down. What do people think if a rival brings out something for the same price as your device and you lower your prices? Yes - they think your product is inferior. Apple make good quality hardware but they charge you more for it. They can get away with the "Apple Tax" because they are seen as the superior product by those who buy them. This image of being the brand for the elite is one of the most valuable assets Apple has. If they lose it - they'll take a disproportionate hit to their sales because unlike PCs, image is a part of Apple's appeal. Justifiable so far because Apple do make good hardware (I'm just not an OSX or iOS fan). But if that image slips - it will hurt them.
By nailing their prices to Apple in such a brazen in-your-face way, MS are really giving Apple nowhere to adjust their pricing, which is a bad thing when you're trying to fine-tune sales. It's also the loudest possible shout of "Bring it on" that MS could make short of doing a series of "I'm an iPad, I'm a Surface" style adds. (Which would admittedly be pretty funny).
I don't think MS actually want to make the Surface a major part of their business model. I genuinely think that they are using it mainly to make a really good impression with Win8 and to beat the OEMs into raising their game. The pricing and the amount they are rumoured to have ordered made, plus Ballmer's statements about just wanting to sell a few million, support this.
Not sure where you got the extra £100 for a pink keyboard. The standard one is black. To get colour it will cost you £19.99 more to get one of the brightly coloured ones. Still not good, but not the £100 you reference. Possibly you are comparing the cost of the version where you specifiy you don't want a keyboard and counting the reduction and then adding in the cost for a pink one.
Also, whilst as per usual we Brits get ripped off, note that in the USA they don't print the Sales Tax in these prices so you can add about 20% to the US dollar list price you see which makes it not as bad. As the article points out, price of SurfaceRT with black keyboard is the same price as an iPad3 without any additions (comparing 32GB models). For 64GB versions, the prices are again the same though I'm not sure why you'd need the 64GB Surface as much as it comes with micro-SDXC and USB functionality so it's easy to bolt in extra space. On the other hand, the iPad3 takes a SIM card which the Surface doesn't.
Am disappointed I have to wait for the Pro version to get proper stylus support.
If a group of pre-pubescent schoolgirls dressed normally briefly dancing in a completely ordinary way (they're just doing gangsta poses and stomping - hardly Beyonce wiggling) seems sexual to you, you have a sick mind.
"You *like* feeding the trolls, don't you!"
I am genuinely interested in anything to do with OS security. It overlaps with areas I've been developing in. If RICHTO is simply saying that WinRT is more secure than iOS because it is brand new, then they are probably right but it's not very intersting nor something to WinRT's credit. If they have something interesting to say about the design, I am curious. It should certainly be much more secure than Win7 which is already very good. But I don't know much about iOS.
Okay, I'll bite - how is WinRT more secure than iOS? It isn't even out yet which makes it a little unfair to start comparing.
He should be tried here, as he should have been long ago. But the years of misery inflicted on him so far already need to be taken into account in any sentencing.
I also seem to recall that we have different criteria and sentencing for what he did than the USA? Anyone?
So you'd be happy for Britain to be known forevermore as Thatcher-Land? Or Tony Blair's Kingdom?
"It gives you away. +10^3!!! You made my day! Are you yourself writing kernels, Mac OS X? NT? So writing code, according to you, for Linux or, say, NetBSD kernel projects is an easier job?Taking much much higher portability of the latter two."
Where the Hell did you get that from? I wrote "how difficult it is to write even just a moden OS's kernel". Modern OS covers everything from Windows 7 to Solaris. I just wanted to exclude things like DOS or OS/2 (even these aren't small projects). Go and look at kernel.org and spend even half an hour looking through what goes into the Linux kernel. Then you will appreciate that you shouldn't make casual comments dismissing the work of people who write the OSs that are in use today. It's a massive job to create any of them and you make comments about not being able to keep up. Just staying on top of changing hardware is a massive job, let alone introducing new features. I have literally no idea what you think I am "giving myself away" or where you got the completely made up nonsense about my saying writing for Linux is an easier job. I was trying to get across to you that it is a hard job and you running down developer's efforts because you don't like a company is out of order.
"The main thing is that in proprietary projects developers are a proletariat, so the managers who often write nothing at all are the ones that make decisions (Darwin is not proprietary, I don't have any problems with it either)"
Firstly, you are obviously not aware that managing a large (or even small) software project can be a lot of work and that it can be entirely appropriate to make decisions without being a developer. It is not always a developer's job to know which features are most in demand from a customer or to keep track of what resource is available for different projects. Again, you're very quick to dismiss people's jobs.
Secondly, this again has nothing to do with Secure Boot. I say it's wrong to downvote facts because you hate a company. Your only responses have been to pile on reasons why you hate Microsoft in the mistaken belief that if you can show they are evil enough, it's okay to call non-evil actions evil (and by inference, condemn me for pointing out that they are not). That's just silly. You prefer an actual evil to be done so that you can show people they are evil, than for them not to do an evil in the first place - i.e. you are arguing that it is right to downvote corrections showing an evil wasn't done. That's madness.
"Okay, I see you trolling for Microsoft quite often, why is that? Do you work for them or your job depends on them?"
How am I trolling? I just posted a factual correction and got massively downvoted. If there's any trolling going on here, it's you who keep launching unprovoked attacks at companies you hate or anyone who dares to point out an error in someone's criticism of them. And no - I've never worked for Microsoft nor expect to.
"You got me wrong, I didn't question your experience"
You began your reply to me with: "Even taking your own word on your decade of using Debian (Ubuntu etc) " in italics. It's not even relevant to my original post, so it just sounds like you're trying to cast doubt on my word.
"I just find it next to impossible to remain neutral towards Microsoft or even feel positive about them."
RIght. Which is my point. People are downvoting a factual, sourced post which shows Linux is not being restricted, and they're doing so because their reaction is not positive because Linux isn't being blocked, but dislike of the post because it shows a party they are not neutral toward as less evil. The reaction of a normal person to finding something bad hasn't happened, is a positive one. The reaction of the downvoters (incl. you) is disappointment or anger. For such people, the need for the party they hate to be evil outweighs the actual desire for that party to do good. When you prefer someone to do evil rather than good, your hatred of them has gotten the better of you.
"Well, I guess, Chikatilo must have had a good opinion of himself too."
No idea who or what Chikatilo is but it's the second time you've brought it up. Searching brings up a Russian serial killer though. Are you now likening Microsoft to serial killers? Do you have any idea how ridiculous and maybe even offensive, that would sound to people outside of small anti-Microsoft echo chambers like The Register?
"Apple and Microsoft can't keep up with their competitors and resort to very similar dirty campaigns"
You've just named the two most successful OS producers in the world as those that "can't keep up with their competitors". You mean in technical features? Do you have even the remotest idea how difficult it is to write even just a modern OS's kernel? Have you ever worked on a project that size? Have you ever actually looked at what new features MS have come up with for Windows over the years? Why don't you do that before you dismiss without looking the work of thousands of skilled developers.
"Okay, secure boot is a nuisance and another *dirty* means against competitors"
Is the above just an article of faith with you that you feel you don't have to actually support? It has been shown that no PC is going to have a problem with Linux because of this. Will you be on here posting the same comment when Android devices start using Secure Boot? Will you be angry when CentOS comes as a signed kernel and uses that as a sales point over their competitiors?
"A number of machines with weird BIOS settings/features are already quite unfriendly to everything non-Windows"
UEFI is not BIOS any more than a car and a horse are the same thing. And what settings are you referring to, specifically? I'm okay with technical detail so when you make a comment like this, please feel free to specifically say what BIOS feature has caused you a problem. In fact, I insist. Otherwise I will not be convinced as I have Debian and Ubuntu running fine on two recent motherboards right here.
"I'd not waste my time in attempting to pull this nail out even if it was rusty."
It seems based on your desire to vote down inconvenient facts, that you'd go so far as to try and stop other people pulling out the nail if you could.
"I'd not waste my time in attempting to pull this nail out even if it was rusty."
"Even taking your own word on your decade of using Debian (Ubuntu etc) and the Microsoft related naivety doesn't undo many many bad things Microsoft has(ve, as in British) been doing for (the very) same decades."
Yes, it may be difficult to believe but I distinctly remember using SuSE Linux 6.4 as my primary OS so yes, I have been using Linux for over a decade. And I was using UNIX and Solaris some time before that. As to "Microsoft related naivety", I was talking about Secure Boot. You are self-confessedly objecting to my correcting someone because you would prefer the party you dislike to look bad. That is called prejudice or bias. And you are now writing to explain why you feel that even if MS haven't done a bad thing in this instance, you feel justified in voting down a factual correction because you consider them to be evil. And you really don't see that as morally wrong? To try to vote down true facts because you would prefer the party you don't like to actually be doing something wrong so that others will feel the same way you do, rather than actually take satisfaction in the fact that there isn't a wrong here and that the earlier poster was wrong about Linux being restricted?
Thanks, but I have my priorities right, imo. I see Linux not be restricted by something (indeed, I hope to see it take advantage of the new technology in the enterprise), and that makes me happy, not angry that I have had ammunition taken away from me.
Seriously, when you find yourself resorting to bizarre character attacks, such as quoting and italicising my career history and implying I'm lying (especially when my argument isn't based on my experience in the slightest, but on actual sourced references I provided), when you start making arguments that involve "kinship of black souls" or suggesting Apple and Microsoft are drawn to each other because they see their "evil likeness", it's time to take a step back and re-assess if you're a fair and objective person.
"This is all the more important for Linux distributions with their much higher vulnerability counts than Windows OSs"
It's not "much higher". It's about 5-10% higher. And it's counterbalanced by the fact that Linux users have a much higher technical level of expertise on average (any given Windows user or Linux user might be the same, but the Linux user base doesn't usually include all the additional technically ignorant people that do use Windows and Apple alongside us more savvy users).
That said, your point is correct in that in theory someone could use a signed Linux loader to load malware into Windows. I personally find it unlikely that anyone who is able to install and manage Linux would be unable, or even discouraged, from doing so by having to change one minor setting and disable Secure Boot. But the LF and Canonical seem to believe so. They may be right.
"You got my downvoting for this phrase and the zeal of whitewashing the charcoal."
Someone says Secure Boot is MS stopping Linux without this workaround. I point out that this is not the case with explanation as to why. A rational person who wants Linux to do receives the correction with pleasure because it means Linux isn't being held down. A person who is less interested in results but gets off on the company they dislike being shown to be evil and the entity they like being shown to be good (if you're oppressed, the logic says you are the good guy), regards my post as a bad thing because it shows what this article reports on isn't the negative thing that the original poster portrayed it as. So yes, I'm perfectly comfortable saying that those who downvoted my original post actively want MS to be oppressing Linux. I've just explained why. For such people, it's less about Linux doing well, and more about feeling they are right.
And you put yourself among those people.
"aaa whaaaa someone downvoted me.. mummmmmmmy!"
You miss the point - the problem is not that someone downvoted me - that's just a personal thing that doesn't affect anyone. The problem is that indicates some people would prefer to feel victimised rather than actually learn they were wrong. Linux - or indeed any other OS - doesn't benefit from that sort of support.
"Announcing bad news is guaranteed to bring out the downvotes..."
That's the point. It's *good* news. Unless you actively want MS to be oppressing Linux. In any other regard, my post is a good thing for Linux as far as Linux users are concerned. And Windows users generally don't care if Linux does well because they don't see it as a problem for them. I posted a clear fact, with source and got downvotes. Almost certainly, based on the general tenure in the posts here, because it contradicted someone who was saying that MS were doing something bad for Linux.
"or is it that the key for Linux would simply make installing it more convenient (not having to go into the BIOS)?"
This last bit. You can simply turn off Secure Boot on a PC and not need the signed boot loader, but Ubuntu and the Linux Foundation have gotten themselves one so that the user doesn't have to go into the UEFI interface (UEFI is a successor to BIOS) because they believe that it might discourage users from trying out Linux. I'm trying to resist making a "back in my day" style comment about Linux users who would be discouraged by having to change the equivalent of a simple BIOS setting, but maybe things have changed and it really would put some off. Personally, I think they should just be grateful they don't have to hand-edit lilo.conf *grumble grumble kids today grumble* ;)
"What is so hypothetical about this? Do you think it is wrong for an operating system manufacturer to hold sway over a hardware manufacturer?"
Well, the question you ask is hypothetical when it comes to PCs because the devices are not locked to a particular OS manufacturer and MS require any manufacturer to ensure that they are not under threat of withholding Win8 certification from them. So that is what is hypothetical.
"Why would Microsoft subsidise the cost of a netbook? What is in it for them? Do you think it is coincidence that Toshiba wouldn't sell me an NB200 without an OS? I'll tell you this .. that I personally can think of no other reason that an OS manufacturer would put money behind the sale of hardware unless it was for the reason of keeping competitors off that platform."
Again, I point out that this has nothing to do with Secure Boot, that neither the NB200 supports it (it's not even a UEFI device) nor the OS (XP or 7) can use it. Do I think it's coincidence that it's only sold with Windows on it? No of course not - marketing decisions don't just happen by coincidence. I imagine it's mainly because, as Asus found, the market for PCs delivered with Linux on them was so small to not really be worth the extra support and bureacracy and that they also got hassle from people returning them because the buyers were ignorant that PC does not mean Windows. And this is the case for nearly all mainstream sold PCs, not just this one that you say MS subsidized. I also have to ask what you actually mean by MS subsidised the cost of the laptop. Taken literally, it seems to imply that money was flowing from MS to Toshiba, which seems unlikely. Should I read you as saying MS charged Toshiba less? That is quite common - large sellers always negotiate their own deals and these are often quite closely guarded secrets, so I want to know what the terms are that you say MS made Toshiba not sell blank devices.
"I have no proof, but that is my personal opinion."
It's possible. But as I've shown, there are also other explanations even though you stated you couldn't think of any. So we don't know if it's really the case or not, it's just hypothetical and as it's hypothetical it may not be appropriate for you to get as angry about it as you don't know whether it's the case or not.
Most of the rest of your post is just general comments against Microsoft and I don't know why you're directing them at me as I was talking about Secure Boot. I am not Microsoft. I'm just someone who understands how Secure Boot actually works. If you're going to reply to my post about Secure Boot, you should be addressing Secure Boot, not just using my comment as a platform for general anti-Microsoft attitude because the latter is not really a reply to what I was talking about.
"WHY does MS think that it is OK for i86 to be allowed to be turned off, while ARM can't? That's one question I've not yet heard convincingly answered."
I commented on this elsewhere. We don't know - it's not even out yet. But ARM devices are less generic beasts than x86 devices - the software is a lot more closely written to each individual device. (If Linux has only just built a generic layer for ARM, then I can only guess how far behind Windows is). In short, I don't know but I guess they are seen more like phones where the product is a closely-integrated hardware+software designed and sold (and cruicially, budgeted for) as a single saleable thing, rather than as one thing (hardware) that comes with another thing (software). At least I presume that is the mindset. Basically, it's the same model Apple use with the iPad and some Android devices. You're not supposed to rip it apart for the parts. It may be that these are priced on the expectation that the installed OS will remain there. E.g. the iPad is priced as is because Apple expect to make money from people buying apps for it through the store. If it were generic hardware, it would be more expensive. Don't know on that front, but this is my guess for the motivations.
"Nobel Peace Prize has been going downhill ever since they gave one to Arafat."
Arafat was in 1994. Kissinger preceded him by over twenty years.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018