Sigh. Why do you trolls always ignore the distance thing. My laptop is a different distance from my face than my phone or a tablet...
I'm not saying i agree with the guy you replied to but i tend to have them all at about the same distance. Do you really hold your phone closer to your face than a tablet? If your eyes are so bad that you need to do that then a retina display probably makes no difference anyway. If i'm sitting down with a tablet it sits about as far from my eyes as a laptop screen does when i'm using that.
So what you're saying is that you believe a monopoly to be a case where one party has a competitive advantage of some kind? Well firstly that's not correct and moreover certainly not the case here, for example in the tablet market Apple has far more marketshare and more money than Microsoft anyway. Just because you can afford to do a loss leader product doesn't mean you have a monopoly or are abusing a monopoly position. It isn't illegal to have a competitive advantage, in fact virtually every market in existence you'll find one party has a competitive advantage over others.
Things will be much much worse for my classmate, if Daddy decides that he wants to invest some money into my own venture. He can pay for advertising that I might not be able to afford. He can pay for the best tools and equipment. He can offer higher wages to anyone thinking of working for my classmate.
But - you wouldn't think of this situation as a "monopoly", would you? What exactly would you call it?
No, of course not, because it isn't a monopoly, it's reality. You think you have some entitlement to a completely level playing field? That all your competitors should be forced stoop to your level so they don't have any kind of advantage over you? Do you not understand the very basic concept of a free market economy? In any case how is your situation in any way analogous to the situation with Microsoft? It's not even relatable. The tablet market is well established and Microsoft isn't a part of it. Apple has all of the advantage with marketshare and cash, no other tablet model even comes close to touching the iPad's dominance in the tablet space and even then it's not a monopoly.
You may stick with strict interpretations of law. I'm looking at a larger picture, one which the DOJ should be looking at, instead of narrow and strict interpretations.
No, it's the basic definition of the word.
Microsoft OS's run on more than 90% of consumer computers. More than 90% of school age children for the past 15 years has been exposed to a Microsoft environment. In fact, most "computer science" classes have nothing to do with "science", instead being nothing more than learning how to navigate a Windows-centric business environment.
So they have a monopoly on desktop/laptop computers, that doesn't give them a monopoly in all other markets they choose to enter, as defined by the term 'monopoly'.
Anytime a corporation has billions of dollars with which to leverage itself into a "new market", you are seeing abuse of monopoly.
Wrong, that's not a monopoly in any way, shape or form, and is clearly not what the word monopoly means.
Haven't run into any Unity3D, have they made anything i might have heard of?
Unity3D is an engine. But of course there is also the extremely popular Steam platform which is much higher visibility and even high profile titles like Neverwinter Nights. And of course thousands of small utilities all over the net for various things.
One of the first things i do after installing the new hardware is to see if any of their software needs updating and frankly i have yet to see one since i quit including.NET by default come back with.NET installed in programs and features, I just haven't.
Your anecdotal evidence does not seem typical, not to mention the.Net framework is installed by default on any >= Vista install anyway and isn't in Programs and Features and can only be 'turned off' (but not really uninstalled) using the Turn Windows features on and off.
There is this statistic which comes from things like Windows Update telemetry and represents the percentage of Windows PCs that use Windows Update that have.Net installed.
Alternatively there is the statistics from the DriverGuide visitors but they are over 18 months old now.
And of course Mono comes on Ubuntu installs by default too as many apps have a dependency on it.
In this case, Microsoft is most assuredly a monopoly.
No, a monopoly isn't a term with which you label a company, it's related to their position in a particular market. Microsoft has a monopoly position in particular market.
Coming out with a "loss leader" may very well be "monopoly abuse".
Not in a market in which they have no position. Many companies use anti-competitive tactics, for example Microsoft was chastized by the DoJ for their use of private APIs in their software giving them a competitive advantage on their platform, Apple has a similar usage of private APIs for their software on iOS that they prevent developers from using. It's legally valid in Apple's case because they don't have a monopoly, the behavior is the same though.
Since I despise Microsoft, I'll choose the light in which I view the matter, thank you.
As in i'll incorrectly apply the term 'monopoly' in such a way that it enables me to make my point. Terms don't just mean whatever you want them to mean, and in this case 'monopoly' most certainly doesn't mean what you think it means.
Actually it costs them more to develop their own binary drivers in house, than it would to open source them and allow third parties (including the kernel devs) to take up some of the slack...
How exactly? And please don't just suggest they get free labor with no overhead by just opening up to contributions.
The idea that you won't be able to compile your own kernel modules because of Microsoft's locked booter is a novel and interesting concept.
But the bootloader isn't locked, you just turn off secureboot. It's only locked on ARM devices, like most Android tablets and all iPads are so the locked bootloader is hardly a Microsoft invention. Naturally if you want to use UEFI SecureBoot you would have to sign the kernel, but that's the nature of secureboot.
That's funny. We used to emulate x86 on a 40MHz SPARC to run Word and similar apps; and that was emulating the whole of Windows and the underlying hardware, not just the application.
A GHz-era ARM should be plenty fast enough to run apps that aren't excessively CPU-intensive; most of the time when interacting with everyday apps the CPU is idle waiting for the user to do something, so there's plenty of CPU power available even with a 10x or more slowdown for the emulation.
Ever used the Android simulator on a desktop PC? That simulates all the hardware and runs Android atop it and it runs like crap.
No, the Z2580 is a dual-core part with hyperthreading. But in any case who really cares about cores? It's like the MHz wars all over again, the fact is it is comparing 2 completely different architectures.
and only for phones and this discussion is about tablets.
Is there some crucial difference where a phone SoC cannot be used in a tablet?
Name someone OTHER than the enterprise that is using.NET?
Anyone who uses the Unity3D engine, which is extremely popular across multiple platforms. And there are many smaller projects but of course they pretty much all include the required runtime or web installer in the application installer so the user wouldn't need to know anyway.
Because i frankly quit supplying.NET on new builds and reinstalls over a year ago and haven't had a single complaint yet
Why would anyone complain? Unless they are running.Net applications that don't either include the runtime or a web-installer (which the VS installer project, NSIS, InnoSetup, etc... all do) the user won't even know about.Net until the application asks them to download it, and even then why would you be the recipient of a complaint for that?
Wrong, in fact both exist CLI (Common Language Infrastructure) and CIL (Common Interface Language), and given his usage he obviously means the latter, so I'd say if anyone is a moron, it's you.
If Microsoft does not port the.NET runtime to Windows 8 on ARM, allowing apps compiled from C#/VB/C++ to CIL to execute on either supported hardware platform
Worms are not authorized to run, by definition. Not being signed changes absolutely nothing.
So in answer to your original question yes, i really believe that the OS will refuse to run a worm because it is not signed, not because it's a worm (the OS won't know that) but because it is not signed and the OS is designed to not run unsigned code.
This is the advertised price that nobody will pay. Instead they will go to manufacturers and say
"Hey, those are nice Android tablets you're making there. How's about you stop making them completely and we'll give you WinRT for a much more competitive price?"
Why would they do that? They get a license fee on most of the Android devices that get sold, they certainly don't want to stop that.
Isn't this the same strategy they used quite successfully to keep manufacturers from making Linux machines?
I don't think so, for example Dell and HP were selling Ubuntu PCs for quite some time, I believe Asus was as well but AFAIK these didn't sell well and they were dropped, BestBuy had something similar too but not sure which OEM they were from, same result though.
You also see it at top notch hardware. Windows being that expensive, you won't see it at top hardware, just at garbage.
Except that the defined hardware requirements in the certification prevent that, you won't see it on crappy budget hardware. Same reason you don't see Windows Phone on really low end hardware.
The day after a "crack" or whatever hits pirate bay so end users can install linux or android over the microsoft install, the refund disappears.
So you actually believe people would buy a Windows ARM tablet, pay the extra for the Windows license then go through the trouble of breaking the secureboot so you can install Android (or any other OS) instead of just buying an unlocked Android tablet? What moron would actually be that stupid?
Yeah, it would. And bundling the Office while increasing the price of the OS is guaranteed to double the interest of governments into prosecuting them.
You do realise they don't have a monopoly in the market Windows RT is in and that their monopoly product isn't tied to Windows RT hence Windows RT doesn't leverage x86 Windows' monopoly in the desktop x86 market at all. So there is no basis for any anti-trust suit.
They're all vying for the same consumer dollars, regardless of how their income is derived.
Not to mention that from the consumer's perspective the product is essentially the same, a tablet device with a pre-installed operating system specific for that hardware.
Why would you need AV? This won't run existing x86 applications - including malware - and the walled garden approach means it's no more susceptible to such malware than iOS or an XBox. Do you actually know what Windows RT is?
No more of a niche than USB. Everything's wireless these days and if you need USB or Ethernet or VGA or DVI or Displayport or digital audio it seems they just suggest you use a dongle, seemingly Thunderbolt.
the highest resolution you can get now is effectively 1440x900 - it's the native resolution of the non-Retina Display 15 inch model and the resolution emulated by the Retina Display model.
No, because you can select screen resolutions up to 1920x1200, the screen is rendered at the full 2880x1800 and the scaled down to the selected screen resolution. 1440x900 is just the default.
Slashdot Mirror
Sigh. Why do you trolls always ignore the distance thing. My laptop is a different distance from my face than my phone or a tablet...
I'm not saying i agree with the guy you replied to but i tend to have them all at about the same distance. Do you really hold your phone closer to your face than a tablet? If your eyes are so bad that you need to do that then a retina display probably makes no difference anyway. If i'm sitting down with a tablet it sits about as far from my eyes as a laptop screen does when i'm using that.
Just because you can afford to do a loss leader product doesn't mean you have a monopoly or are abusing a monopoly position. It isn't illegal to have a competitive advantage, in fact virtually every market in existence you'll find one party has a competitive advantage over others.
Things will be much much worse for my classmate, if Daddy decides that he wants to invest some money into my own venture. He can pay for advertising that I might not be able to afford. He can pay for the best tools and equipment. He can offer higher wages to anyone thinking of working for my classmate.
But - you wouldn't think of this situation as a "monopoly", would you? What exactly would you call it?
No, of course not, because it isn't a monopoly, it's reality. You think you have some entitlement to a completely level playing field? That all your competitors should be forced stoop to your level so they don't have any kind of advantage over you? Do you not understand the very basic concept of a free market economy?
In any case how is your situation in any way analogous to the situation with Microsoft? It's not even relatable. The tablet market is well established and Microsoft isn't a part of it. Apple has all of the advantage with marketshare and cash, no other tablet model even comes close to touching the iPad's dominance in the tablet space and even then it's not a monopoly.
You may stick with strict interpretations of law. I'm looking at a larger picture, one which the DOJ should be looking at, instead of narrow and strict interpretations.
No, it's the basic definition of the word.
Microsoft OS's run on more than 90% of consumer computers. More than 90% of school age children for the past 15 years has been exposed to a Microsoft environment. In fact, most "computer science" classes have nothing to do with "science", instead being nothing more than learning how to navigate a Windows-centric business environment.
So they have a monopoly on desktop/laptop computers, that doesn't give them a monopoly in all other markets they choose to enter, as defined by the term 'monopoly'.
Anytime a corporation has billions of dollars with which to leverage itself into a "new market", you are seeing abuse of monopoly.
Wrong, that's not a monopoly in any way, shape or form, and is clearly not what the word monopoly means.
Haven't run into any Unity3D, have they made anything i might have heard of?
Unity3D is an engine. But of course there is also the extremely popular Steam platform which is much higher visibility and even high profile titles like Neverwinter Nights. And of course thousands of small utilities all over the net for various things.
One of the first things i do after installing the new hardware is to see if any of their software needs updating and frankly i have yet to see one since i quit including .NET by default come back with .NET installed in programs and features, I just haven't.
Your anecdotal evidence does not seem typical, not to mention the .Net framework is installed by default on any >= Vista install anyway and isn't in Programs and Features and can only be 'turned off' (but not really uninstalled) using the Turn Windows features on and off. .Net installed.
There is this statistic which comes from things like Windows Update telemetry and represents the percentage of Windows PCs that use Windows Update that have
Alternatively there is the statistics from the DriverGuide visitors but they are over 18 months old now.
And of course Mono comes on Ubuntu installs by default too as many apps have a dependency on it.
In this case, Microsoft is most assuredly a monopoly.
No, a monopoly isn't a term with which you label a company, it's related to their position in a particular market. Microsoft has a monopoly position in particular market.
Coming out with a "loss leader" may very well be "monopoly abuse".
Not in a market in which they have no position. Many companies use anti-competitive tactics, for example Microsoft was chastized by the DoJ for their use of private APIs in their software giving them a competitive advantage on their platform, Apple has a similar usage of private APIs for their software on iOS that they prevent developers from using. It's legally valid in Apple's case because they don't have a monopoly, the behavior is the same though.
Since I despise Microsoft, I'll choose the light in which I view the matter, thank you.
As in i'll incorrectly apply the term 'monopoly' in such a way that it enables me to make my point. Terms don't just mean whatever you want them to mean, and in this case 'monopoly' most certainly doesn't mean what you think it means.
Can't we just be grateful that Microsoft shills continue to post on /. so that we can all have something to bitch about?
Microsoft shills? Wow, now even someone confusing Smart Glass with Project Glass is called a Microsoft shill...getting a bit ridiculous now aren't we?
Actually it costs them more to develop their own binary drivers in house, than it would to open source them and allow third parties (including the kernel devs) to take up some of the slack...
How exactly? And please don't just suggest they get free labor with no overhead by just opening up to contributions.
The idea that you won't be able to compile your own kernel modules because of Microsoft's locked booter is a novel and interesting concept.
But the bootloader isn't locked, you just turn off secureboot. It's only locked on ARM devices, like most Android tablets and all iPads are so the locked bootloader is hardly a Microsoft invention.
Naturally if you want to use UEFI SecureBoot you would have to sign the kernel, but that's the nature of secureboot.
That's funny. We used to emulate x86 on a 40MHz SPARC to run Word and similar apps; and that was emulating the whole of Windows and the underlying hardware, not just the application.
A GHz-era ARM should be plenty fast enough to run apps that aren't excessively CPU-intensive; most of the time when interacting with everyday apps the CPU is idle waiting for the user to do something, so there's plenty of CPU power available even with a 10x or more slowdown for the emulation.
Ever used the Android simulator on a desktop PC? That simulates all the hardware and runs Android atop it and it runs like crap.
from what I've seen Medfield is only single core
No, the Z2580 is a dual-core part with hyperthreading. But in any case who really cares about cores? It's like the MHz wars all over again, the fact is it is comparing 2 completely different architectures.
and only for phones and this discussion is about tablets.
Is there some crucial difference where a phone SoC cannot be used in a tablet?
They're doing "losing money on XBoxes" pretty right indeed.
Xbox has been making a profit for nearly 5 years now in spite of the problems they had in the early hardware.
Name someone OTHER than the enterprise that is using .NET?
Anyone who uses the Unity3D engine, which is extremely popular across multiple platforms. And there are many smaller projects but of course they pretty much all include the required runtime or web installer in the application installer so the user wouldn't need to know anyway.
Because i frankly quit supplying .NET on new builds and reinstalls over a year ago and haven't had a single complaint yet
Why would anyone complain? Unless they are running .Net applications that don't either include the runtime or a web-installer (which the VS installer project, NSIS, InnoSetup, etc... all do) the user won't even know about .Net until the application asks them to download it, and even then why would you be the recipient of a complaint for that?
First, it's called the CLI, not the CIL.
Wrong, in fact both exist CLI (Common Language Infrastructure) and CIL (Common Interface Language), and given his usage he obviously means the latter, so I'd say if anyone is a moron, it's you.
If Microsoft does not port the .NET runtime to Windows 8 on ARM, allowing apps compiled from C#/VB/C++ to CIL to execute on either supported hardware platform
I thought we already learned this from all the Wii homebrew cracks.
Just because one (or many for that matter) system was compromised doesn't mean every system that only runs signed code is flawed.
Worms are not authorized to run, by definition. Not being signed changes absolutely nothing.
So in answer to your original question yes, i really believe that the OS will refuse to run a worm because it is not signed, not because it's a worm (the OS won't know that) but because it is not signed and the OS is designed to not run unsigned code.
Here's my theory.
This is the advertised price that nobody will pay. Instead they will go to manufacturers and say
"Hey, those are nice Android tablets you're making there. How's about you stop making them completely and we'll give you WinRT for a much more competitive price?"
Why would they do that? They get a license fee on most of the Android devices that get sold, they certainly don't want to stop that.
Isn't this the same strategy they used quite successfully to keep manufacturers from making Linux machines?
I don't think so, for example Dell and HP were selling Ubuntu PCs for quite some time, I believe Asus was as well but AFAIK these didn't sell well and they were dropped, BestBuy had something similar too but not sure which OEM they were from, same result though.
You also see it at top notch hardware. Windows being that expensive, you won't see it at top hardware, just at garbage.
Except that the defined hardware requirements in the certification prevent that, you won't see it on crappy budget hardware. Same reason you don't see Windows Phone on really low end hardware.
The day after a "crack" or whatever hits pirate bay so end users can install linux or android over the microsoft install, the refund disappears.
So you actually believe people would buy a Windows ARM tablet, pay the extra for the Windows license then go through the trouble of breaking the secureboot so you can install Android (or any other OS) instead of just buying an unlocked Android tablet? What moron would actually be that stupid?
Yeah, it would. And bundling the Office while increasing the price of the OS is guaranteed to double the interest of governments into prosecuting them.
You do realise they don't have a monopoly in the market Windows RT is in and that their monopoly product isn't tied to Windows RT hence Windows RT doesn't leverage x86 Windows' monopoly in the desktop x86 market at all. So there is no basis for any anti-trust suit.
They're all vying for the same consumer dollars, regardless of how their income is derived.
Not to mention that from the consumer's perspective the product is essentially the same, a tablet device with a pre-installed operating system specific for that hardware.
Do you really belive that the OS will refuse to run a worm because it is not signed?
Why wouldn't it? It only runs signed code, whether it's a worm or not makes no difference.
because of the OS' bloat
What OS 'bloat'?
and the need for AV on Microsoft products.
Why would you need AV? This won't run existing x86 applications - including malware - and the walled garden approach means it's no more susceptible to such malware than iOS or an XBox. Do you actually know what Windows RT is?
Why would they want to carry that around?
Why would you want to carry any size laptop around?
Ethernet? A niche need in this day and age.
No more of a niche than USB. Everything's wireless these days and if you need USB or Ethernet or VGA or DVI or Displayport or digital audio it seems they just suggest you use a dongle, seemingly Thunderbolt.
the highest resolution you can get now is effectively 1440x900 - it's the native resolution of the non-Retina Display 15 inch model and the resolution emulated by the Retina Display model.
No, because you can select screen resolutions up to 1920x1200, the screen is rendered at the full 2880x1800 and the scaled down to the selected screen resolution. 1440x900 is just the default.