Those are a bit like trying to write a letter with a pencil eraser sized pencil point. The capacitive nature of the screen requires a large enough connection point and that's not anywhere near as fine as a stylus.
I'm saying, if you are on a volume licensing plan from Microsoft, you pay the fee for a desktop, regardless of what OS is installed on it. You get licenses for everything. Upgrading your OS doesn't incur any new license fees. You're not paying for a license for Windows XP, you're paying for a Client OS License, whatever OS you choose to run.
The motion computing tablets are $2000+ dollars... not exactly the same thing. Tablet PC's in that price range have been around for a long time.
The Q1 is part of Microsoft's Origami platform launched several years ago, and never really took off because of poor battery life and weight problems in the devices, not to mention resistive touch screen sucks.
The Archos 9 i've been keeping my eye on, but it lacks 3G. At 5 hours, it's battery life is so-so, but it's the best of the group at a good price point.
That's not entirely Microsoft's fault. The technology to make a satisfactory tablet at a satisfactory price point hasn't been there until recently. Apple had been sitting on this for years... it wasn't until everything came together that the iPad made it out the door.
Yes, what microsoft is late to is the "affordable and usable" tablet market. Tablet PC's were great, but they had poor battery life and were horribly expensive. Origami devices were priced better, but they still had poor battery life (largely because there weren't any good low power touch displays of the right form factors at the time, they mostly used Auto industry GPS panels which were not energy efficient) and they used resistive touch sensitive displays which really performed poorly.
Remember here, the iPad is less than a year old. It's relatively new, based on technology hardened by mobile phones to provide the capacitive displays for a cheap price.
However, capacitive displays work poorly for many tablet uses because people want to use a stylus to draw with them, not their finger. It's been a trade-off. Also, the recent availability of higher performance, lower power CPU's has made this happen as well.
Microsoft is late, in that they didn't recognize this market would take off until apple made it quite popular.
Well, to be fair... Microsoft demo'd a lot of features in Longhorn back in 2002 that apple copied and was able to get to market with faster (due to Micorosoft's major screwups in developing Longhorn). Microsoft showed stuff like 3D Window managers with wobbly windows, instant search, etc.. long before they were in other products like Compiz/XGL or OSX.
So in some ways, microsoft does innovate a great deal, but they're often slow to get practical products to market.
Microsoft has always been slow to adopt new technologies until they've been proven. They like to see other peoples mistakes and learn from them (though they don't always do so). As the saying goes, you can tell the pioneers by the arrows in their backs.
However, addressing the "trainwreck" article.. it's rather stupid comments...
"Why include a “CTRL-ALT-DEL” button on the device’s chassis unless you expect the software to crash on a regular basis?"
What century is he living in where c-a-d still reboots a computer? It's used for several tasks these days, like.. oh, i don't know.. LOGGING IN?
"What’s with having a mechanical button to activate a virtual onscreen keyboard?"
Maybe because onscreen buttons may be obscured by apps running?
"but an unmodified version of Windows 7 on a small touch screen translates into icons roughly the size of theoretical particles"
Obviously he's never used Windows 7 on a multi-touch screen. You can use multi-touch to pinch-zoom the icons to whatever size you want.
That's what causes a "trainwreck in the making?" Stuff that he simply doesn't understand.
Actually, I really don't get these numbers. (not your numbers, but the official ones).
Every site i have access to, which covers a broad spectrum of non-technology sites shows IE usage still in the 70's to 80's.
I think this must be counting mobile browsers, because that would explain a large increase in chrome usage, which means that IE's (or firefoxes) actual numbers aren't changing that much, but since so many new chrome based devices have entered the market, the total share size has grown.
While i can understand the argument that you might want to use different proxies with different web browsers, most people don't function that way. Most people use the same proxies for everything. As such, setting proxy information in one place, OS wide is more efficient. Chrome is doing this so they can take advantage of Group Policy settings
"The wonderful thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from" - Grace Hopper
"The worst thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from" - Virtually everyone else
Standards are supposed to be "fixed" things that don't move. But never in the history of web browsing has that been the case. There has always been "old" standards and "draft" standards. Nobody seems to want to use the old standards, but is hot to implement the latest draft ones... but the draft ones are always changing.
And your same argument can go back all the way to Windows 95. Why are offices running XP when 95 and office 95 will provide no measurable difference in their work output?
There are a lot of reasons, apart from not being able to buy 95 anymore.. security, stability, more fine grained control of the desktop by administration, reduced administration costs, security of data in laptops with bitlocker, and i could probably go on and on with various business reasons to do the upgrades that have nothing to do with improving worker output.
I'm not sure what you mean by "give MS a bunch of licensing fees". Any large company is likely on a volume license program, and that license program gives them access to any OS they wish to run. If they swap a computer from XP to 7, they pay no additional licensing fees, it's all part of their yearly volume licensing costs. Same thing for office, exchange, sql server, whatever.
Now, granted, it's not free to do the upgrade, that costs man hours, or potential retraining. But licensing fees is not an issue at all, and when people bring them up.. it's just a strawman.
Services should never be set to interact with the desktop, ever. Microsoft recommends against it, it's deprecated, and it's only there for legacy purposes. That's what allowed Shatter to be so successful.
Even so, it still doesn't function as you are suggesting. UAC only gives you access ot things you otherwise would not have access to, it does not prohibit access to anything that isn't already prohibited. Simply put, what you are suggesting is impossible. There is some other problem.
Server core doesn't have UAC because you can't run UI applications, so duh.. yeah, why would it need something to protect against something that can't be run anyways?
Non-server core *CAN* run arbitrary applications, that's why it needs UAC. For example, many developers run Server versions as their desktop that they develop on. Also, terminal servers allow normal users to log in and run applications.
Your insistance that UAC isn't needed on servers is at best short sighted, and at worst completely bizarre.
Again, it doesn't "detect" anything. In order for a UAC dialog to pop up, the application has to request it. It doesn't happen automatically.
What's more, background services and task aren't subject to UAC, only interactive tasks that interact with the desktop.
So, in other words, it's impossible to "request" elevation if there is no user logged in, that doesn't even make sense. If there is no user logged in, then that means the application can't even run if it's an interactive app. If it's a server app, then UAC doesn't apply because it's not interacting with the desktop.
You seem so hopelessly confused about things are blaming UAC for things it' can't do.
I suggest you read up on UAC and what it actually does, and how it actually works before continuing to blame it for things it can't cause.
Sorry, that's not how UAC works at all. In fact, there is no way UAC can cause what you're describing.
UAC doesn't "block" anything, it's not a script block, it doesn't "engage". It's on all the time.
UAC allows rights elevation, it does not cause rights removal.
The way UAC works is that the user, by default, has no administrative privilges, even if they are an administrator. When a user needs to perform an administrative task, UAC raises the users rights for that task, and that task alone. The rights for that task stay elevated until the process terminates.
Slashdot Mirror
Those are a bit like trying to write a letter with a pencil eraser sized pencil point. The capacitive nature of the screen requires a large enough connection point and that's not anywhere near as fine as a stylus.
XCode is "everything" because, frankly, it's not a very extensive environement. Visual Studio Express provides more functionality than XCode does.
I'm saying, if you are on a volume licensing plan from Microsoft, you pay the fee for a desktop, regardless of what OS is installed on it. You get licenses for everything. Upgrading your OS doesn't incur any new license fees. You're not paying for a license for Windows XP, you're paying for a Client OS License, whatever OS you choose to run.
If you want to write an app that runs in the background while you do other things you care.. for instance, a media player.
Microsoft gives you Visual Studio Express, free of charge.
The motion computing tablets are $2000+ dollars... not exactly the same thing. Tablet PC's in that price range have been around for a long time.
The Q1 is part of Microsoft's Origami platform launched several years ago, and never really took off because of poor battery life and weight problems in the devices, not to mention resistive touch screen sucks.
The Archos 9 i've been keeping my eye on, but it lacks 3G. At 5 hours, it's battery life is so-so, but it's the best of the group at a good price point.
That's not entirely Microsoft's fault. The technology to make a satisfactory tablet at a satisfactory price point hasn't been there until recently. Apple had been sitting on this for years... it wasn't until everything came together that the iPad made it out the door.
Yes, what microsoft is late to is the "affordable and usable" tablet market. Tablet PC's were great, but they had poor battery life and were horribly expensive. Origami devices were priced better, but they still had poor battery life (largely because there weren't any good low power touch displays of the right form factors at the time, they mostly used Auto industry GPS panels which were not energy efficient) and they used resistive touch sensitive displays which really performed poorly.
Remember here, the iPad is less than a year old. It's relatively new, based on technology hardened by mobile phones to provide the capacitive displays for a cheap price.
However, capacitive displays work poorly for many tablet uses because people want to use a stylus to draw with them, not their finger. It's been a trade-off. Also, the recent availability of higher performance, lower power CPU's has made this happen as well.
Microsoft is late, in that they didn't recognize this market would take off until apple made it quite popular.
Sharepoint has a lot of flaws to be sure, but it gets the basic concepts right and the processes, such as integrating with their office suite.
Well, to be fair... Microsoft demo'd a lot of features in Longhorn back in 2002 that apple copied and was able to get to market with faster (due to Micorosoft's major screwups in developing Longhorn). Microsoft showed stuff like 3D Window managers with wobbly windows, instant search, etc.. long before they were in other products like Compiz/XGL or OSX.
So in some ways, microsoft does innovate a great deal, but they're often slow to get practical products to market.
Microsoft has always been slow to adopt new technologies until they've been proven. They like to see other peoples mistakes and learn from them (though they don't always do so). As the saying goes, you can tell the pioneers by the arrows in their backs.
However, addressing the "trainwreck" article.. it's rather stupid comments...
"Why include a “CTRL-ALT-DEL” button on the device’s chassis unless you expect the software to crash on a regular basis?"
What century is he living in where c-a-d still reboots a computer? It's used for several tasks these days, like.. oh, i don't know.. LOGGING IN?
"What’s with having a mechanical button to activate a virtual onscreen keyboard?"
Maybe because onscreen buttons may be obscured by apps running?
"but an unmodified version of Windows 7 on a small touch screen translates into icons roughly the size of theoretical particles"
Obviously he's never used Windows 7 on a multi-touch screen. You can use multi-touch to pinch-zoom the icons to whatever size you want.
That's what causes a "trainwreck in the making?" Stuff that he simply doesn't understand.
Many people wait to deploy standards until they are ratified. They don't want to have things break because the standard changes.
Just because sites support some level of HTML5, doesn't mean their HTML4.x or xhtml support will go away.
Actually, I really don't get these numbers. (not your numbers, but the official ones).
Every site i have access to, which covers a broad spectrum of non-technology sites shows IE usage still in the 70's to 80's.
I think this must be counting mobile browsers, because that would explain a large increase in chrome usage, which means that IE's (or firefoxes) actual numbers aren't changing that much, but since so many new chrome based devices have entered the market, the total share size has grown.
While i can understand the argument that you might want to use different proxies with different web browsers, most people don't function that way. Most people use the same proxies for everything. As such, setting proxy information in one place, OS wide is more efficient. Chrome is doing this so they can take advantage of Group Policy settings
I guess you're the only one.
If by "about to" you mean "in 10 years".. ok... HTML5 isn't even scheduled for ratification until next decade.
"The wonderful thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from" - Grace Hopper
"The worst thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from" - Virtually everyone else
Standards are supposed to be "fixed" things that don't move. But never in the history of web browsing has that been the case. There has always been "old" standards and "draft" standards. Nobody seems to want to use the old standards, but is hot to implement the latest draft ones... but the draft ones are always changing.
Neither did I. Learn something new every day.
I do like "godmode" though.
If you did decide to rewrite your management scripts in powershell, you'd likely find them to be about 1/10th as complex and much better performing...
If you have a large number of scripts that support a large number of computers, then the cost saving in runtime alone would justify it.
And Powershell works in XP as well, nor is there any plans that i'm aware of to do anything other than improve Powershell.
It's a very powerful tool. But, if you'd rather keep building houses with a hammer rather than a nail gun... be my guest.
Start Here
Then Go here
Shitloads of new technology.
And your same argument can go back all the way to Windows 95. Why are offices running XP when 95 and office 95 will provide no measurable difference in their work output?
There are a lot of reasons, apart from not being able to buy 95 anymore.. security, stability, more fine grained control of the desktop by administration, reduced administration costs, security of data in laptops with bitlocker, and i could probably go on and on with various business reasons to do the upgrades that have nothing to do with improving worker output.
I'm not sure what you mean by "give MS a bunch of licensing fees". Any large company is likely on a volume license program, and that license program gives them access to any OS they wish to run. If they swap a computer from XP to 7, they pay no additional licensing fees, it's all part of their yearly volume licensing costs. Same thing for office, exchange, sql server, whatever.
Now, granted, it's not free to do the upgrade, that costs man hours, or potential retraining. But licensing fees is not an issue at all, and when people bring them up.. it's just a strawman.
Services should never be set to interact with the desktop, ever. Microsoft recommends against it, it's deprecated, and it's only there for legacy purposes. That's what allowed Shatter to be so successful.
Even so, it still doesn't function as you are suggesting. UAC only gives you access ot things you otherwise would not have access to, it does not prohibit access to anything that isn't already prohibited. Simply put, what you are suggesting is impossible. There is some other problem.
Server core doesn't have UAC because you can't run UI applications, so duh.. yeah, why would it need something to protect against something that can't be run anyways?
Non-server core *CAN* run arbitrary applications, that's why it needs UAC. For example, many developers run Server versions as their desktop that they develop on. Also, terminal servers allow normal users to log in and run applications.
Your insistance that UAC isn't needed on servers is at best short sighted, and at worst completely bizarre.
Again, it doesn't "detect" anything. In order for a UAC dialog to pop up, the application has to request it. It doesn't happen automatically.
What's more, background services and task aren't subject to UAC, only interactive tasks that interact with the desktop.
So, in other words, it's impossible to "request" elevation if there is no user logged in, that doesn't even make sense. If there is no user logged in, then that means the application can't even run if it's an interactive app. If it's a server app, then UAC doesn't apply because it's not interacting with the desktop.
You seem so hopelessly confused about things are blaming UAC for things it' can't do.
I suggest you read up on UAC and what it actually does, and how it actually works before continuing to blame it for things it can't cause.
Sorry, that's not how UAC works at all. In fact, there is no way UAC can cause what you're describing.
UAC doesn't "block" anything, it's not a script block, it doesn't "engage". It's on all the time.
UAC allows rights elevation, it does not cause rights removal.
The way UAC works is that the user, by default, has no administrative privilges, even if they are an administrator. When a user needs to perform an administrative task, UAC raises the users rights for that task, and that task alone. The rights for that task stay elevated until the process terminates.