You can go to a log cabin with one piece of installation media, no activation code, and 20 computers, and have 20 fully-functioning machines the next day.
<bias mode="personal">That's only true if you exclude Apple from your statement.</bias>
I have always used OEM. Reinstall works perfectly, and you can upgrade anything you like. The only thing is if you upgrade something big like the motherboard, you won't be able to internet activate any more. You can still activate over the phone, however. The only times I had to speak to an MS rep instead of using the automated system, I explained that I upgraded my hardware and they said "OK", then helped me out. MS is actually really good about that stuff in my experience.
Legality of the license aside (never bothered to read it, honestly), Microsoft has always been really good about letting you activate an OEM license on new hardware. The internet activation will generally fail after the first time, but the phone system works well - and if they do wind up making you talk to a real person, I have never had one of those reps refuse to help.
The reviewer says "Nintendo should dramatically slow down and focus on one or two new Marios for each console generation," but that's what they are doing. DS: one game. Wii: three games (one 2D, two 3D). 3DS: two games (one 2D, one 3D). Wii U: one game (that we know of, undoubtedly there will be a 3D iteration). With the exception of Galaxy 2, they seem to be releasing one of each game per console. It's only a question of platform release timing that has so many coming out this close together.
Samsung didn't copy Apple. Anyone with half a brain can tell the difference between Apple's products and Samsung's products. Apple isn't defending themselves against some mythical infringement of their rights, they are the aggressor here. They deserve to go the way of SCO for what they are trying to do to the landscape.
I suppose mere existence is a rather dirty trick from Apple's POV. The rest of us, however, see it like it is: an unfair attempt to squelch competition in the smartphone sector. Not that I think that it'll happen (the judge hasn't exactly acted impartially so far), but Apple deserves to get smacked down very hard for the bullshit they're pulling these days.
The OS X interface is also horrible, albeit better than the abominations we see now designed for touch screens. Apple's insistence on that idiotic single menu bar is the sole reason I will never use Mac OS, nor recommend it to anyone I want to have a decent user experience.
I disagree. I have purchased, in the past year, two motherboards, a video card, and a Transformer tablet from Asus. All have performed perfectly, with no issues whatsoever.
There's a pretty wide variety, in my experience. For example, Elder Scrolls games are extremely moddable. Civ IV has some amazing mods for it, and one can make mods for Civ V. Most games that were developed with console as the lead platform don't support modding, but there are still enough games that do to give you some variety.
And he did. Apple was accused of "censoring" references to Amazon. Censoring means the removal of objectionable content, nothing more (as the dictionary helpfully told us). Thus, what that parses to is "Apple was removing references to Amazon because they found them to be objectionable"... which, incidentally, is exactly the meaning which was trying to be conveyed.
The word was used in a manner which was wholly appropriate, and people read more into it than the word means. Your argument that the author is responsible to this is basically like saying it's my fault if I write an article declaring the sky to be blue, and people interpret it as being a defense of neo-Nazi propaganda. The author is responsible for the message sent, but only to a point. If the author of a message used the language in a standard way, they can't be held responsible for people injecting their own subjective meaning on top of that.
"Bad" is entirely subjective. I don't really consider censorship by someone in Apple's position that much more preferable to government censorship. It is still better, but not by some large margin. Anyways, the original context didn't misuse the word. If people connote things that are much worse than the word merits, that's not the original author's fault.
People keep throwing around the word "censorship" like they think they know what it means, but it's obvious they don't. Censorship is when the government restricts your speech. Even if every single one of her claims is true, she is not being censored.
Well, Merriam-Webster's site says this.
Censorship:
1. The institution or practice of censoring.
Censor:
To examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable; also: to suppress or delete as objectionable.
Nothing about the term requires that it be applied to the government. So, you're wrong. And while Apple certainly has the legal right to censor content that appears in their marketplace, it's pretty shitty of them to do so, and people are absolutely right to call them out for it (provided that the claims are true).
Maybe you legally can't, but when you're talking about a design patent, you should damn well be able to. The devices on the show didn't work, of course, but they showed off a coherent design.
It's only naive if you operate under the illusion that other companies don't engage in similar behavior. Refraining from engaging in said behavior is not naive, it's acting in a reasonable and ethical manner.
I did use it, and I did evaluate it with objectivity. I don't hate Microsoft, in fact, I like most of their products. This one is an abject failure, however. Microsoft is so hell-bent on trying to capture the mobile market that they either don't know or don't care about the shitty experience they're forcing on desktop users in the process. I tried Windows 8, and will never use it again. I'll stick to UI paradigms that weren't designed for completely different input devices, thanks.
I don't think it's a shill post (which, on this site, is really another term for "someone who said something positive about a product/company I don't like", nothing more). I do disagree. The desktop is fine (it's the same as ever), but I find the start screen to be a complete train wreck on a traditional computer. It's completely unsuited to navigation with a mouse and keyboard, and is transparently designed to promote Microsoft's bottom line, rather than a positive user experience. I would have to literally get paid to put up with it.
Slashdot Mirror
That would only prove where the phone was, not where the person was.
You can go to a log cabin with one piece of installation media, no activation code, and 20 computers, and have 20 fully-functioning machines the next day.
<bias mode="personal">That's only true if you exclude Apple from your statement.</bias>
I have always used OEM. Reinstall works perfectly, and you can upgrade anything you like. The only thing is if you upgrade something big like the motherboard, you won't be able to internet activate any more. You can still activate over the phone, however. The only times I had to speak to an MS rep instead of using the automated system, I explained that I upgraded my hardware and they said "OK", then helped me out. MS is actually really good about that stuff in my experience.
How about you get off your high horse?
Legality of the license aside (never bothered to read it, honestly), Microsoft has always been really good about letting you activate an OEM license on new hardware. The internet activation will generally fail after the first time, but the phone system works well - and if they do wind up making you talk to a real person, I have never had one of those reps refuse to help.
They're not. Everyone just buys the OEM license right now anyway, so this won't really affect profits.
The reviewer says "Nintendo should dramatically slow down and focus on one or two new Marios for each console generation," but that's what they are doing. DS: one game. Wii: three games (one 2D, two 3D). 3DS: two games (one 2D, one 3D). Wii U: one game (that we know of, undoubtedly there will be a 3D iteration). With the exception of Galaxy 2, they seem to be releasing one of each game per console. It's only a question of platform release timing that has so many coming out this close together.
Samsung didn't copy Apple. Anyone with half a brain can tell the difference between Apple's products and Samsung's products. Apple isn't defending themselves against some mythical infringement of their rights, they are the aggressor here. They deserve to go the way of SCO for what they are trying to do to the landscape.
I suppose mere existence is a rather dirty trick from Apple's POV. The rest of us, however, see it like it is: an unfair attempt to squelch competition in the smartphone sector. Not that I think that it'll happen (the judge hasn't exactly acted impartially so far), but Apple deserves to get smacked down very hard for the bullshit they're pulling these days.
No, Apple wants prevent competition from entering into or existing in their space. That is what they are doing.
The OS X interface is also horrible, albeit better than the abominations we see now designed for touch screens. Apple's insistence on that idiotic single menu bar is the sole reason I will never use Mac OS, nor recommend it to anyone I want to have a decent user experience.
I disagree. I have purchased, in the past year, two motherboards, a video card, and a Transformer tablet from Asus. All have performed perfectly, with no issues whatsoever.
Well, Apple has that lawsuit going on right now... so I don't think they've learned any lessons from this yet.
There's a pretty wide variety, in my experience. For example, Elder Scrolls games are extremely moddable. Civ IV has some amazing mods for it, and one can make mods for Civ V. Most games that were developed with console as the lead platform don't support modding, but there are still enough games that do to give you some variety.
You're always on the hook to say what you mean.
And he did. Apple was accused of "censoring" references to Amazon. Censoring means the removal of objectionable content, nothing more (as the dictionary helpfully told us). Thus, what that parses to is "Apple was removing references to Amazon because they found them to be objectionable"... which, incidentally, is exactly the meaning which was trying to be conveyed.
The word was used in a manner which was wholly appropriate, and people read more into it than the word means. Your argument that the author is responsible to this is basically like saying it's my fault if I write an article declaring the sky to be blue, and people interpret it as being a defense of neo-Nazi propaganda. The author is responsible for the message sent, but only to a point. If the author of a message used the language in a standard way, they can't be held responsible for people injecting their own subjective meaning on top of that.
How? The original author used the word in an entirely appropriate way. Explain how it's their fault if someone misinterprets them.
"Bad" is entirely subjective. I don't really consider censorship by someone in Apple's position that much more preferable to government censorship. It is still better, but not by some large margin. Anyways, the original context didn't misuse the word. If people connote things that are much worse than the word merits, that's not the original author's fault.
People keep throwing around the word "censorship" like they think they know what it means, but it's obvious they don't. Censorship is when the government restricts your speech. Even if every single one of her claims is true, she is not being censored.
Well, Merriam-Webster's site says this.
Censorship:
1. The institution or practice of censoring.
Censor:
To examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable; also: to suppress or delete as objectionable.
Nothing about the term requires that it be applied to the government. So, you're wrong. And while Apple certainly has the legal right to censor content that appears in their marketplace, it's pretty shitty of them to do so, and people are absolutely right to call them out for it (provided that the claims are true).
Maybe you legally can't, but when you're talking about a design patent, you should damn well be able to. The devices on the show didn't work, of course, but they showed off a coherent design.
It's only naive if you operate under the illusion that other companies don't engage in similar behavior. Refraining from engaging in said behavior is not naive, it's acting in a reasonable and ethical manner.
I did use it, and I did evaluate it with objectivity. I don't hate Microsoft, in fact, I like most of their products. This one is an abject failure, however. Microsoft is so hell-bent on trying to capture the mobile market that they either don't know or don't care about the shitty experience they're forcing on desktop users in the process. I tried Windows 8, and will never use it again. I'll stick to UI paradigms that weren't designed for completely different input devices, thanks.
I don't think it's a shill post (which, on this site, is really another term for "someone who said something positive about a product/company I don't like", nothing more). I do disagree. The desktop is fine (it's the same as ever), but I find the start screen to be a complete train wreck on a traditional computer. It's completely unsuited to navigation with a mouse and keyboard, and is transparently designed to promote Microsoft's bottom line, rather than a positive user experience. I would have to literally get paid to put up with it.
I thought exactly the same thing. He has nothing to apologize for, Windows 8 is bad. It has one of the worst UI designs I've ever seen.
I might have, but those drives are my storage for media, ISO files, etc. I don't really need speed from them.
I have one or two WD greens in my storage array (which is RAID 5) right now. Have for years, and they've been fine.