Many OEM's offer no crapware boxes at higher prices. It is the bottom end that is loaded with that junk. Microsoft Signature machines are mid range consumer machines with a tuned OS and none of that nonsense.
Apple at the time of release is generally cheaper than a comparable HP, Dell for a new model, but not always. I see your comment below. You probably aren't comparing the same hardware. For example Apple screen are color accurate, you have to go up models from Dell to get that.
In general though if it has been that long then you wouldn't like being with Apple. It is not just paying more for the hardware, it is paying more for connectors, paying more for software... If value is really really important to you Apple will upset you. The culture is not value oriented it is quality oriented.
I agree completely on strategy but the issue is not advancing to mobile but to preserve consumer / small business desktop. Their position is not unassailable. Apple already owns the high end. Android and iOS tablets are chewing up the low end, and Windows is being squeezed. Right now Android / iOS is not a threat to most desktops but by 2017.... They need to have advanced the platform quickly, but they have a conservative and cheap user base who isn't going to like rapid advancement.
The main reason Metro sucks is:
a) Quite often people don't have modern hardware to run it on. b) Quite often people are using Win32 applications and not Metro applications
They didn't want to polish the experience thoroughly, they didn't have time. What they wanted was an OS sufficiently stable so that parts manufacturers and OEM's could deign hardware around the new interface.
Please Microsoft Lynx, Dynamics, SQL Server... are quality products winning share based on their usability. Office has been dominant in a world of cheaper alternatives for 20 years because it is the all around best solution.
They make plenty of quality products. As for DR-DOS.... DR-DOS was good. I used DR-DOS 5, but MSDOS 5 + QEMM + DESQVIEW was way better. I tried DRDOS 6 but that wasn't nearly as good. DRDOS was good, Microsoft was unethical but at the end of the day Windows won because it offered the all around best solution. I wish OS/2 had won, I think Microsoft was unethical but at the same time IBM was conflicted and incompetent.
What amazes me is that(at least at time of writing) they don't even offer a group policy setting that lets their whiny corporate customers set all their definitely-not-touchscreen boring typingboxes to go directly to desktop by default.
Why would that amaze you? It makes perfect sense. By not allowing that they put pressure on their corporate customers to upgrade their desktops to Windows 8 hardware, which makes it possible for them to take advantage of Windows 8 features, which makes them want to shift to Metro versions of applications....
Think about the problem from Microsoft's perspective and not your perspective. Microsoft needs to take a customer base that is cheap and conservative and get them to make a platform shift to hardware that is more expensive and that will change the way they work. Step 1: Get an OS that supports old paradigm and new paradigm Step 2: Get hardware that supports supports old paradigm and new paradigm Step 3: Get applications moved over to the new paradigm.
Though it is stupid on M$'s part to not have the option to revert.
No it is not stupid. If there were an option to revert then there wouldn't be friction with using old fashioned Win32 applications under Win8+ and no demand from customers to have Metro support. Making Win32 available but unpleasant is exactly the right sweat spot to encourage the shift that Microsoft seeks. Just because you don't agree with their objectives doesn't mean they are being "stupid" in achieving those objectives.
Well these all have far fewer abuses but fewer ain't zero: Hindu's: caste system Buddhist: Myanmar muslim persecution Taoists: Emperor Wuzong persecutions (though admittedly they have a great record)
I don't know if you mean '26 or '58. From the early 60's we have had really good flight safety in the US 10-40 accidents per million departures and that is with an ever growing average length of flights. Most accidents being minor... So the FAA is fighting something that doesn't meaningfully exist. If the FAA proposes highly unpopular regulations in place of popular ones its budget is going to get cut further. I don't see how that helps things.
I agree the FAA has few inspectors and their budget has been cut too much. Republicans suck, no argument. On the other hand I also think congress should snap the FAA hard on BS regulations and make it clear that their broad scope of authority comes with an expectation of proper use.
I'm considering UEFI hardware. So we are down to the changeable and unchangeable. On the TCPI chip it was changeable, usable (i.e you could do computations with it) but not directly readable and that's the best. So yeah, point taken I was being inaccurate.
Pays how? There are exists people go out them. Most people are fairly experienced in leaving places via. holes in walls called doors.
GP's argument there was a non minuscule chance where the difference of ten percent of the people knowing the exact safety instructions makes a meaningful difference. If the crew is unavailable to handle an evacuation then the evacuation isn't running smoothly and generally it is no longer the safe one the GP was talking about.
No, but there needs to be balance and compromise. The FAA needs to be a range of options which take into account various people's risk vs. convenience weighings. That might mean a "safety rating" that is variable. That might mean putting the burden of proof on the FAA when it comes to high loss of convenience low loss of safety regulations.
Oh I agree. I think like most regulatory bodies the FAA represents the industry's longer term interests against it's shorter term interests. And I think most airlines understand that and like that. Agree with everything else about the FAA soothing the public's irrationality.
I don't have any evidence for the broader mission than their actions and the fact that the US government is always rather pro business across the board. But regardless certainly the senate can change their mandate and they seem to believe the FAA is erring.
As far as independent, I don't see that at all. The Fed, the Social Security administration.... seem far more independent. What major government policy has the FAA contradicted or worked against? What major effectual policies have they instituted that don't have congressional support?
OK take that one. An engine fire starts and the crew calls out "everyone in seats 13 on up move towards the front exit, everyone in 14 on back to 22 towards the middle exit and everyone in 23 on back...". OK 65% understand what to do and the other 35% just follow the herd. What's the big deal?
Even if your only concern is safety, one thing that definitely interferes with safety is a developing practice of people considering airline regulation too onerous and ignoring / circumventing it. If we reach a point where even 15% of the public supports just breaking the rules the FAA has serious problems. Their odds of being about to get 12 people to convict on smoking in the bathroom or using a cell phone or carrying liquids on a plane in your underwear or... diminish. And their ability to effectively regulate falls.
Moreover, I think you are wrong on a matter of fact here. Their mandate isn't just safety it is also the health and growth of the airline industry. One of the things that interferes with that health and growth is flights being unpleasant experiences for the customers. And flights have gotten much much worse (though much much cheaper) over the last generation.
The issue is, at least for the US Senate which has raised this issue, whether they need a broader mandate. The existence and popularity of skiing and hunting prove that not all Americans weigh safety as highly as the FAA does.
During takeoff and landing I want passenger attention focused on following instructions in the unlikely event of a problem, not zoning out with headphones stuck in their ears.
Then ban headphones. Though, generally if there is a problem during takeoff and landing, passengers following instructions doesn't matter too much.
Liberty doesn't always come first. Liberty gets balanced all the time against other interests. There wouldn't be FAA regulation of what goes on between private ticket holders and private airlines at all if liberty always came first. They would just leave it up to the airlines. The airlines don't want that though, because they don't want ultimate responsibility they want shared responsibility.
The FAA is way too cautious about safety in a rational universe. But note that every time a plane goes down and few hundred people die it makes national news, often for several days. Which means the public weighs flight deaths much more heavily than deaths from heart attack or car accidents or poor nutrition. We live in a representative democracy and the FAA is irrational because the public is.
The most obvious way, is you pay a signer for a key. So for example you compile up your own Linux kernel to use with Slackware or whatever and you pay, $79 to Microsoft and they sign your kernel for you you load it and move on. Linux shim.... has been complex because the idea has been to create some way to bypass the process rather than follow the process.
There most likely will soon be some of the Asian manufacturers as signers. They may use different schemes. They might for example use something like Apple's developer's scheme which use a key which makes use of CPUID so you just submit the checksum + CPUID of the system you want to install on and bang a custom key for that machine. And that could be free.
GPLv3 would only attach to a distributor. As long as Microsoft signed but didn't distribute it is hard to see how the license attaches to them at all. That being said it does sound like tortuous interference, helping someone commit a tort against another party. So they could still be sued but I suspect they would win.
In any case, clearly the intent of the GPLv3 is to prevent this sort of thing and you make an excellent point about Microsoft honoring the intent.
Slashdot Mirror
Many OEM's offer no crapware boxes at higher prices. It is the bottom end that is loaded with that junk. Microsoft Signature machines are mid range consumer machines with a tuned OS and none of that nonsense.
If you don't like crapware Microsoft offers no crapware tuned systems: http://www.microsoftstore.com/store/msstore/en_US/pd/productID.235559700
Apple at the time of release is generally cheaper than a comparable HP, Dell for a new model, but not always. I see your comment below. You probably aren't comparing the same hardware. For example Apple screen are color accurate, you have to go up models from Dell to get that.
In general though if it has been that long then you wouldn't like being with Apple. It is not just paying more for the hardware, it is paying more for connectors, paying more for software... If value is really really important to you Apple will upset you. The culture is not value oriented it is quality oriented.
I agree completely on strategy but the issue is not advancing to mobile but to preserve consumer / small business desktop. Their position is not unassailable. Apple already owns the high end. Android and iOS tablets are chewing up the low end, and Windows is being squeezed. Right now Android / iOS is not a threat to most desktops but by 2017.... They need to have advanced the platform quickly, but they have a conservative and cheap user base who isn't going to like rapid advancement.
The main reason Metro sucks is:
a) Quite often people don't have modern hardware to run it on.
b) Quite often people are using Win32 applications and not Metro applications
Once (a) and (b) change the "sucks" part changes.
I assume they don't have touch screens and didn't want to get one. Microsoft should have made Windows 8 touchscreen semi-mandatory.
They didn't want to polish the experience thoroughly, they didn't have time. What they wanted was an OS sufficiently stable so that parts manufacturers and OEM's could deign hardware around the new interface.
They've fixed the keyboard. They now offer 2 choices of keyboards: "type cover" (normalish laptop keyboard) and "touch cover" (surface keyboard).
Please Microsoft Lynx, Dynamics, SQL Server... are quality products winning share based on their usability. Office has been dominant in a world of cheaper alternatives for 20 years because it is the all around best solution.
They make plenty of quality products. As for DR-DOS.... DR-DOS was good. I used DR-DOS 5, but MSDOS 5 + QEMM + DESQVIEW was way better. I tried DRDOS 6 but that wasn't nearly as good. DRDOS was good, Microsoft was unethical but at the end of the day Windows won because it offered the all around best solution. I wish OS/2 had won, I think Microsoft was unethical but at the same time IBM was conflicted and incompetent.
What amazes me is that(at least at time of writing) they don't even offer a group policy setting that lets their whiny corporate customers set all their definitely-not-touchscreen boring typingboxes to go directly to desktop by default.
Why would that amaze you? It makes perfect sense. By not allowing that they put pressure on their corporate customers to upgrade their desktops to Windows 8 hardware, which makes it possible for them to take advantage of Windows 8 features, which makes them want to shift to Metro versions of applications....
Think about the problem from Microsoft's perspective and not your perspective. Microsoft needs to take a customer base that is cheap and conservative and get them to make a platform shift to hardware that is more expensive and that will change the way they work.
Step 1: Get an OS that supports old paradigm and new paradigm
Step 2: Get hardware that supports supports old paradigm and new paradigm
Step 3: Get applications moved over to the new paradigm.
We are in Step 2.
Though it is stupid on M$'s part to not have the option to revert.
No it is not stupid. If there were an option to revert then there wouldn't be friction with using old fashioned Win32 applications under Win8+ and no demand from customers to have Metro support. Making Win32 available but unpleasant is exactly the right sweat spot to encourage the shift that Microsoft seeks. Just because you don't agree with their objectives doesn't mean they are being "stupid" in achieving those objectives.
Well these all have far fewer abuses but fewer ain't zero:
Hindu's: caste system
Buddhist: Myanmar muslim persecution
Taoists: Emperor Wuzong persecutions (though admittedly they have a great record)
I don't know if you mean '26 or '58. From the early 60's we have had really good flight safety in the US 10-40 accidents per million departures and that is with an ever growing average length of flights. Most accidents being minor... So the FAA is fighting something that doesn't meaningfully exist. If the FAA proposes highly unpopular regulations in place of popular ones its budget is going to get cut further. I don't see how that helps things.
I agree the FAA has few inspectors and their budget has been cut too much. Republicans suck, no argument. On the other hand I also think congress should snap the FAA hard on BS regulations and make it clear that their broad scope of authority comes with an expectation of proper use.
I'm considering UEFI hardware. So we are down to the changeable and unchangeable. On the TCPI chip it was changeable, usable (i.e you could do computations with it) but not directly readable and that's the best. So yeah, point taken I was being inaccurate.
OK and how many more people die per year at 120 second evacuations vs. 90 second ones?
Pays how? There are exists people go out them. Most people are fairly experienced in leaving places via. holes in walls called doors.
GP's argument there was a non minuscule chance where the difference of ten percent of the people knowing the exact safety instructions makes a meaningful difference. If the crew is unavailable to handle an evacuation then the evacuation isn't running smoothly and generally it is no longer the safe one the GP was talking about.
No, but there needs to be balance and compromise. The FAA needs to be a range of options which take into account various people's risk vs. convenience weighings. That might mean a "safety rating" that is variable. That might mean putting the burden of proof on the FAA when it comes to high loss of convenience low loss of safety regulations.
Oh I agree. I think like most regulatory bodies the FAA represents the industry's longer term interests against it's shorter term interests. And I think most airlines understand that and like that. Agree with everything else about the FAA soothing the public's irrationality.
I don't have any evidence for the broader mission than their actions and the fact that the US government is always rather pro business across the board. But regardless certainly the senate can change their mandate and they seem to believe the FAA is erring.
As far as independent, I don't see that at all. The Fed, the Social Security administration.... seem far more independent. What major government policy has the FAA contradicted or worked against? What major effectual policies have they instituted that don't have congressional support?
OK take that one. An engine fire starts and the crew calls out "everyone in seats 13 on up move towards the front exit, everyone in 14 on back to 22 towards the middle exit and everyone in 23 on back...". OK 65% understand what to do and the other 35% just follow the herd. What's the big deal?
Even if your only concern is safety, one thing that definitely interferes with safety is a developing practice of people considering airline regulation too onerous and ignoring / circumventing it. If we reach a point where even 15% of the public supports just breaking the rules the FAA has serious problems. Their odds of being about to get 12 people to convict on smoking in the bathroom or using a cell phone or carrying liquids on a plane in your underwear or... diminish. And their ability to effectively regulate falls.
Moreover, I think you are wrong on a matter of fact here. Their mandate isn't just safety it is also the health and growth of the airline industry. One of the things that interferes with that health and growth is flights being unpleasant experiences for the customers. And flights have gotten much much worse (though much much cheaper) over the last generation.
The issue is, at least for the US Senate which has raised this issue, whether they need a broader mandate. The existence and popularity of skiing and hunting prove that not all Americans weigh safety as highly as the FAA does.
During takeoff and landing I want passenger attention focused on following instructions in the unlikely event of a problem, not zoning out with headphones stuck in their ears.
Then ban headphones. Though, generally if there is a problem during takeoff and landing, passengers following instructions doesn't matter too much.
Liberty doesn't always come first. Liberty gets balanced all the time against other interests. There wouldn't be FAA regulation of what goes on between private ticket holders and private airlines at all if liberty always came first. They would just leave it up to the airlines. The airlines don't want that though, because they don't want ultimate responsibility they want shared responsibility.
The FAA is way too cautious about safety in a rational universe. But note that every time a plane goes down and few hundred people die it makes national news, often for several days. Which means the public weighs flight deaths much more heavily than deaths from heart attack or car accidents or poor nutrition. We live in a representative democracy and the FAA is irrational because the public is.
I'd assume if you are regularly compiling your own kernels:
a) You make sure to get a system where keys can be disabled
b) You make sure to buy a system where you install your own keys
Which might mean you don't buy an off the shelf system first but rather choose your system around your requirement.
The most obvious way, is you pay a signer for a key. So for example you compile up your own Linux kernel to use with Slackware or whatever and you pay, $79 to Microsoft and they sign your kernel for you you load it and move on. Linux shim.... has been complex because the idea has been to create some way to bypass the process rather than follow the process.
There most likely will soon be some of the Asian manufacturers as signers. They may use different schemes. They might for example use something like Apple's developer's scheme which use a key which makes use of CPUID so you just submit the checksum + CPUID of the system you want to install on and bang a custom key for that machine. And that could be free.
GPLv3 would only attach to a distributor. As long as Microsoft signed but didn't distribute it is hard to see how the license attaches to them at all. That being said it does sound like tortuous interference, helping someone commit a tort against another party. So they could still be sued but I suspect they would win.
In any case, clearly the intent of the GPLv3 is to prevent this sort of thing and you make an excellent point about Microsoft honoring the intent.