I never said it wasn't inflammatory. It was. I don't disagree with the moderators.
Great, so the attacks to his comments were perfectly justified.
What is a founded opinion? One where one uses something, like say Microsoft adding subscription options to Office, to found an opinion, such as they might add subscription options to Windows?
He didn't quote that. He just blurred some random anti MS BS.
I had not seen these internal strategy memo links. Would you care to provide a citation?
You read and assume an awful lot that neither me nor Zymergy has actually said.
Please, go read his comments once more: "Sounds like another great reason to move over to OSX (or any flavor of Linux)...". I don't see anything suggesting HE would change but rather is speaking for everybody.
At the end of the day the/. users voted his comment inflammatory because it wasn't a founded opinion.
You are correct, I do not know why Microsoft is offering Windows 10 for free. I am not privy to their strategy meetings
The information is out there. There's another user that linked it in the thread for people to get informed before making an unfounded statement.
Please don't put words in *my* mouth either.
But you did through suggestion. Your comments: "I can see, though, how one would feel that they are going towards subscription models for their products. They've taken the first step to do so with Office by offering subscriptions in addition to boxed copies"
That's why you can change the compatibility settings for any given program and set it to Windows XP SP3 for backwards compatibility. I have yet to find an app for the Windows 98 era that doesn't work in Windows 7 unless it was very poorly designed.
Yes, I left things unsaid and I meant not Troll or Flame in my comments
By suggesting people move away from MS for no reason specified is trolling. Its like saying: Why did you buy a FORD?, It's crap...
MS will head into OS subscriptions (considering their tract record of late with office).
Your comment was ill informed and this is proof. Do you even know why MS is offering the OS for free? If you know anything about what is happening in the world of operating systems you would understand that they are following the footsteps of Google since they don't have a choice to regain a portion of the mobile market. So unless Google disappears, MS won't charge a dime for their OS and even so I doubt they ever will once they monetize the OS through the app store like IOS and Google did.
I am expressing my opinion and predicting Microsoft will eventually be making this a subscription OS model eventually for more $$$
An ill informed opinion is garbage to anybody reading it and often results in being marked troll. There are a lot of a educated and well informed/. users here and they provide a very valuable opinion and in many cases factual information that will force many of us to change our opinion on a topic. When you post something that is based on your gut feeling you aren't doing anybody a favor especially when you speak of it from an unbiased position.
And people have to stop suggesting subscription services are garbage. They are only garbage if they aren't value add or are overpriced. Most large software packages are now subscription based as they allow for continued R&D while providing free fast support. I'm not suggesting that all software packages are worthy of subscription but many are if priced properly.
I hope you don't take this personal. None of my comments were attacks on you.
The end of his comment was inflammatory, as simple as that. In addition he wasn't speaking an opinion, he's instead telling people it's time to move on which is completely absurd to do without a proper reason.
The fact that you think Windows 10 being free is the same as Office being on subscription is telling me you haven't understood why MS is offering Windows 10 for free. It's no secret, they are directly competing with Google for it's share of the mobile market and since they want to unify the OS they can't start having it free for some while not free for others (that's coming right from them by the way).
Subscription models are a way for companies to keep money flowing in for continued R&D. Do I agree with it? Yes and No. There's PROs and CONs to both. It's the same thing as getting a heating furnace on rental. Why not buy it right? What is cheaper? The answer to both those is "IT DEPENDS".
I think there's more chance they will move towards the same model as Windows 10 for home users since there are other options and it would force many users to consider the free options.
Companies that are heavily invested in Office integration would probably continue regardless of what model is in use but it would push away companies that aren't. Unless MS can offer more within it's office suite they can get away with a subscription model as long as it's value add and is extremely affordable.
Important to teens and young adults but not important to most of the buyers. Windows Mobile is already skinable enough in my opinion.
Forced driver useability compliance
So you want to remove developer and manufacturer freedom? For the most part the app stores do a good job at rating the non-sense but I understand that doesn't apply to drivers.
System performance analyzer
Many of the tool requirements you listed are already present in Windows 7 and highly improved in later versions. There are some things that are just not easy to present on a GUI for end users to understand so why bother. Most people don't even use the existing system tools (other than IT)
The biggest problem I have with windows is it's lac of control
This is an OS for the masses. You have full control if you knew the OS well enough.
Locked directory writes
I can do everything you said you required except the part where the AV would restart. That's something that can be easily done by the 3rd party or as a stand alone loader but avoiding closure of said software would be the #1 solution
Allowed device list
There is 3rd party software that does this.
Read/Write/Execute:
I'm confused about this one as Windows already have this. The one thing that I find is missing is "LIST". You should have the ability to hide a folder/file at the permission level, not using the hidden flag. This is especially useful for company directories where all users see all department folders but don't have access to all of them. Maybe its possible but I have yet to find out how.
You're talking out of your ass and it really stinks dude!
When Win10 uptake increases, when market conditions change in a few quarters' time, there's no guarantee that Microsoft won't ask you to cough up some money for getting the next major point release update
Considering MS owns most of the PC market I doubt there worried about that market.
As for the mobile market they are just doing the same as Google. Should Google disappear they will still keep the same model since it keep competitors at bay
They are just copying Google's pricing model because you can't compete with Google otherwise. So stop reading too far into this as you clearly don't understand what is going on at the business level.
For example, people who "upgrade" from Windows 7 to Windows 10 will lose Windows Media Center without being told in advance, apparently.
Apparently? I guess we should all take your opinion as a valid argument then?
Fact is that Windows Media Center is barely used. There are plenty of much better alternatives which is why they are getting rid of it. I guess we will find out at launch if they warn customers about the loss of features that nobody cares about.
Windows 98, good. Windows ME, bad, Windows XP good, Windows Vista, bad. Windows 7, good, Windows 8, bad. See the pattern?
First, the failures between Windows 98, ME and 8 are all very different.
Windows ME was a huge failure. Updates helped it but it was never a good OS Windows Vista was horrible at launch but was quickly fixed with a number of updates. Windows 8, 8.1 was very stable and brought much needed H/W support updates but had an interface nobody liked
If Microsoft loses the revenue from selling the licenses on the update cycle, they're going to have to monetize something. If that isn't the updates, it will be something else.
And who's fault will that be? The answer is the consumer.
Google has set the playing field a while back by providing free everything as long as you accept the advertising. It's competitors now have to adjust otherwise they will endure a grim faith.
and they're a huge multinational who doesn't give crap what their consumers want
Wrong. MS has always done things with customers in mind. You would know this if you worked with them at any partner level. It's for the same reason their OS and Office suites carry so much baggage and often makes them look bad. It's because they believe in keeping legacy software compatible with future generations of OS and they generally do a good job at that.
Look at Windows XP. They extended their support twice. They didn't have to but they did.
I often see you flame MS so I'm not surprised by your appearance in on this subject. It's almost as if MS threatens you in some way shape or form. No offense intended.
That was my point. I just didn't want to put numbers on it because then people ask for statistical proof which I didn't have. I only had common sense to offer.
Because of the seek time. They still want the content available and the BlueRay method yields a 10 second delay from what I read (I may have read that wrong).
Plus, with tape, you copy it to that, yank the tapes out of the autochanger, and toss them in an unused corner of a room. Tapes take 0 watts in storage (other than what it takes for HVAC)
They can't just toss it. That's the whole point of the article. They still need access on demand.
I think that the BlueRay solution is cheap too. The article was making reference to how much colder that area was (because of the lower HVAC requirements I assume).
At what point is it critical enough to go out of your way to store terabytes of data on CD/DVDs? Isn't an offline HD good enough?
I have done the following for a long time and I believe this is more than enough for most businesses 1. Backup to NAS (or equivalent) 2. Backup to offline disk (done monthly but could be done more often depending on business requirements) 3. Offsite Backup on the west coast (We are on the east coast)
At what point are you spending too much money securing data? At what point are you being paranoid?
Those are all questions that will have different answers depending on the company and it's IT/Ownership.
Nobody claimed it was new or that they had reinvented anything. They just applied modern technology to a well know strategy to solve a known problem. In the modern age of storage and data centers I have yet to see this (not to say that nobody has done it).
When someone shows you an electric car do you tell them cars have had 4 wheels since before 1903? I assume you do.
I was wondering why this falls under US jurisdiction but I answered my own question when I looked up wiki ".com". The US has jurisdiction over that TLD.
I agree. All I'm saying is that these other forms of energy aren't as obsolete as they appear. As you said there's progress to be had (especially with solar and energy storage) and if we get an affordable replacement for coal all efforts towards these technologies will be immediately dropped as there will be no real interest in them anymore.
when the truth of the matter is that any problems with it have been through mismanagement and poor planning
And what's going to change that? It's already heavily regulated. As long as humans and corporations are involved it will be dangerous. History has proven us irresponsible with this technology and the damage it does is very hard to reverse and in some cases impossible.
Wind and solar, while nice and clean, probably aren't going to ever be capable of delivering all the power the world needs/wants
Wind in Ontario, Canada accounts for 6% of it's yearly production. That's more than I would have expected from a place not known for high wind speeds. Here's a chart for renewable energy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The fact is that as we invest in these technologies we improve them and make them more affordable. The newest is solar shingles. Redoing your roof? Why not invest in your own future? Many states/provinces encourage this with incentives. With the coming of EVs energy storage will improve significantly allowing for storage of said energy.
I'm not suggesting that we don't build Nuclear to keep us going especially with EVs becoming quickly popular but I'll be damned if we once again lean on that tech just because it's easy. We can't stop being innovative.
I second that. The clause was there for this exact reason. The protected themselves legally by allowing anything to go. Our world, our rules...
BTW Jack, I want to apologize for stepping to a new low when I ask if you were 16 years old in a different subject. I'm usually in tune with what you write (I've seen lots of your comments over the years) and I just forgot to accept that it was your opinion.
I agree that people being cynical is part of it. Combine the two and you've got yourself a "mission impossible" scenario.
I know people that although they hate aspects of something aren't willing to stop doing it because they like it. To me that's a lack of will power but in this particular case being cynical definitively plays a big role.
Re:The problem is that landfills are too cheap
on
Recycling Is Dying
·
· Score: 1
The tax should be on the consumables. Tax the consumer. The bigger the consumer the bigger the tax paid.
E.g.: Bananas would have $0 if not pre-packaged Canned goods: $0.05 (Metal is a desired material) Television: $30 (that's already in place where I live) K-CUP: $0.15 per cup Water bottle: $0.15 per bottle
These are just suggestions with the exception of the Television.
There are many ways to tackle this but forcing consumers to pay up front is the best way to deal with it. We could get into deposits and other but that's a logistical nightmare.
Slashdot Mirror
I never said it wasn't inflammatory. It was. I don't disagree with the moderators.
Great, so the attacks to his comments were perfectly justified.
What is a founded opinion? One where one uses something, like say Microsoft adding subscription options to Office, to found an opinion, such as they might add subscription options to Windows?
He didn't quote that. He just blurred some random anti MS BS.
I had not seen these internal strategy memo links. Would you care to provide a citation?
I'll be happy to provide. A simple search on Windows 10 Free strategy found these two links. Was it that hard to be informed before putting BS online like all the trolls of this world?
http://www.winbeta.org/news/st...
http://www.howtogeek.com/22095...
You read and assume an awful lot that neither me nor Zymergy has actually said.
Please, go read his comments once more: "Sounds like another great reason to move over to OSX (or any flavor of Linux)...". I don't see anything suggesting HE would change but rather is speaking for everybody.
At the end of the day the /. users voted his comment inflammatory because it wasn't a founded opinion.
You are correct, I do not know why Microsoft is offering Windows 10 for free. I am not privy to their strategy meetings
The information is out there. There's another user that linked it in the thread for people to get informed before making an unfounded statement.
Please don't put words in *my* mouth either.
But you did through suggestion. Your comments:
"I can see, though, how one would feel that they are going towards subscription models for their products. They've taken the first step to do so with Office by offering subscriptions in addition to boxed copies"
That's why you can change the compatibility settings for any given program and set it to Windows XP SP3 for backwards compatibility. I have yet to find an app for the Windows 98 era that doesn't work in Windows 7 unless it was very poorly designed.
Yes, I left things unsaid and I meant not Troll or Flame in my comments
By suggesting people move away from MS for no reason specified is trolling. Its like saying: Why did you buy a FORD?, It's crap...
MS will head into OS subscriptions (considering their tract record of late with office).
Your comment was ill informed and this is proof. Do you even know why MS is offering the OS for free? If you know anything about what is happening in the world of operating systems you would understand that they are following the footsteps of Google since they don't have a choice to regain a portion of the mobile market. So unless Google disappears, MS won't charge a dime for their OS and even so I doubt they ever will once they monetize the OS through the app store like IOS and Google did.
I am expressing my opinion and predicting Microsoft will eventually be making this a subscription OS model eventually for more $$$
An ill informed opinion is garbage to anybody reading it and often results in being marked troll. There are a lot of a educated and well informed /. users here and they provide a very valuable opinion and in many cases factual information that will force many of us to change our opinion on a topic. When you post something that is based on your gut feeling you aren't doing anybody a favor especially when you speak of it from an unbiased position.
And people have to stop suggesting subscription services are garbage. They are only garbage if they aren't value add or are overpriced. Most large software packages are now subscription based as they allow for continued R&D while providing free fast support. I'm not suggesting that all software packages are worthy of subscription but many are if priced properly.
I hope you don't take this personal. None of my comments were attacks on you.
The end of his comment was inflammatory, as simple as that. In addition he wasn't speaking an opinion, he's instead telling people it's time to move on which is completely absurd to do without a proper reason.
The fact that you think Windows 10 being free is the same as Office being on subscription is telling me you haven't understood why MS is offering Windows 10 for free. It's no secret, they are directly competing with Google for it's share of the mobile market and since they want to unify the OS they can't start having it free for some while not free for others (that's coming right from them by the way).
Subscription models are a way for companies to keep money flowing in for continued R&D. Do I agree with it? Yes and No. There's PROs and CONs to both. It's the same thing as getting a heating furnace on rental. Why not buy it right? What is cheaper? The answer to both those is "IT DEPENDS".
I think there's more chance they will move towards the same model as Windows 10 for home users since there are other options and it would force many users to consider the free options.
Companies that are heavily invested in Office integration would probably continue regardless of what model is in use but it would push away companies that aren't. Unless MS can offer more within it's office suite they can get away with a subscription model as long as it's value add and is extremely affordable.
Ya Microsoft is trying to improve its bottom line
All business people want that. It's normal.
Fully skinable windows UI
Important to teens and young adults but not important to most of the buyers. Windows Mobile is already skinable enough in my opinion.
Forced driver useability compliance
So you want to remove developer and manufacturer freedom? For the most part the app stores do a good job at rating the non-sense but I understand that doesn't apply to drivers.
System performance analyzer
Many of the tool requirements you listed are already present in Windows 7 and highly improved in later versions. There are some things that are just not easy to present on a GUI for end users to understand so why bother. Most people don't even use the existing system tools (other than IT)
The biggest problem I have with windows is it's lac of control
This is an OS for the masses. You have full control if you knew the OS well enough.
Locked directory writes
I can do everything you said you required except the part where the AV would restart. That's something that can be easily done by the 3rd party or as a stand alone loader but avoiding closure of said software would be the #1 solution
Allowed device list
There is 3rd party software that does this.
Read/Write/Execute:
I'm confused about this one as Windows already have this. The one thing that I find is missing is "LIST". You should have the ability to hide a folder/file at the permission level, not using the hidden flag. This is especially useful for company directories where all users see all department folders but don't have access to all of them. Maybe its possible but I have yet to find out how.
Only the big players tend to make huge claims like this and often end up eating their words. The customers spoke and MS listened.
You're talking out of your ass and it really stinks dude!
When Win10 uptake increases, when market conditions change in a few quarters' time, there's no guarantee that Microsoft won't ask you to cough up some money for getting the next major point release update
Considering MS owns most of the PC market I doubt there worried about that market.
As for the mobile market they are just doing the same as Google. Should Google disappear they will still keep the same model since it keep competitors at bay
They are just copying Google's pricing model because you can't compete with Google otherwise. So stop reading too far into this as you clearly don't understand what is going on at the business level.
For example, people who "upgrade" from Windows 7 to Windows 10 will lose Windows Media Center without being told in advance, apparently.
Apparently? I guess we should all take your opinion as a valid argument then?
Fact is that Windows Media Center is barely used. There are plenty of much better alternatives which is why they are getting rid of it. I guess we will find out at launch if they warn customers about the loss of features that nobody cares about.
Windows 98, good. Windows ME, bad, Windows XP good, Windows Vista, bad. Windows 7, good, Windows 8, bad. See the pattern?
First, the failures between Windows 98, ME and 8 are all very different.
Windows ME was a huge failure. Updates helped it but it was never a good OS
Windows Vista was horrible at launch but was quickly fixed with a number of updates.
Windows 8, 8.1 was very stable and brought much needed H/W support updates but had an interface nobody liked
If Microsoft loses the revenue from selling the licenses on the update cycle, they're going to have to monetize something. If that isn't the updates, it will be something else.
And who's fault will that be? The answer is the consumer.
Google has set the playing field a while back by providing free everything as long as you accept the advertising. It's competitors now have to adjust otherwise they will endure a grim faith.
and they're a huge multinational who doesn't give crap what their consumers want
Wrong. MS has always done things with customers in mind. You would know this if you worked with them at any partner level. It's for the same reason their OS and Office suites carry so much baggage and often makes them look bad. It's because they believe in keeping legacy software compatible with future generations of OS and they generally do a good job at that.
Look at Windows XP. They extended their support twice. They didn't have to but they did.
I often see you flame MS so I'm not surprised by your appearance in on this subject. It's almost as if MS threatens you in some way shape or form. No offense intended.
I would emphasis *seems like*.
Nonsense. It was unfounded comment with the intent to flame bait. He got rated accordingly.
Office is available in non-subscription model. Just saying.
That was my point. I just didn't want to put numbers on it because then people ask for statistical proof which I didn't have. I only had common sense to offer.
What I don't get is why FB doesn't just use tape
Because of the seek time. They still want the content available and the BlueRay method yields a 10 second delay from what I read (I may have read that wrong).
Plus, with tape, you copy it to that, yank the tapes out of the autochanger, and toss them in an unused corner of a room. Tapes take 0 watts in storage (other than what it takes for HVAC)
They can't just toss it. That's the whole point of the article. They still need access on demand.
I think that the BlueRay solution is cheap too. The article was making reference to how much colder that area was (because of the lower HVAC requirements I assume).
I'm pretty sure there's people that work in jobs they aren't passionate about but do it to keep afloat.
What critical data? Personal? Business?
At what point is it critical enough to go out of your way to store terabytes of data on CD/DVDs? Isn't an offline HD good enough?
I have done the following for a long time and I believe this is more than enough for most businesses
1. Backup to NAS (or equivalent)
2. Backup to offline disk (done monthly but could be done more often depending on business requirements)
3. Offsite Backup on the west coast (We are on the east coast)
At what point are you spending too much money securing data?
At what point are you being paranoid?
Those are all questions that will have different answers depending on the company and it's IT/Ownership.
Pointless arrogant comment.
Nobody claimed it was new or that they had reinvented anything. They just applied modern technology to a well know strategy to solve a known problem. In the modern age of storage and data centers I have yet to see this (not to say that nobody has done it).
When someone shows you an electric car do you tell them cars have had 4 wheels since before 1903? I assume you do.
I was wondering why this falls under US jurisdiction but I answered my own question when I looked up wiki ".com". The US has jurisdiction over that TLD.
I hope they toss this case too.
I agree. All I'm saying is that these other forms of energy aren't as obsolete as they appear. As you said there's progress to be had (especially with solar and energy storage) and if we get an affordable replacement for coal all efforts towards these technologies will be immediately dropped as there will be no real interest in them anymore.
when the truth of the matter is that any problems with it have been through mismanagement and poor planning
And what's going to change that? It's already heavily regulated. As long as humans and corporations are involved it will be dangerous. History has proven us irresponsible with this technology and the damage it does is very hard to reverse and in some cases impossible.
Wind and solar, while nice and clean, probably aren't going to ever be capable of delivering all the power the world needs/wants
Wind in Ontario, Canada accounts for 6% of it's yearly production. That's more than I would have expected from a place not known for high wind speeds. Here's a chart for renewable energy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The fact is that as we invest in these technologies we improve them and make them more affordable. The newest is solar shingles. Redoing your roof? Why not invest in your own future? Many states/provinces encourage this with incentives. With the coming of EVs energy storage will improve significantly allowing for storage of said energy.
I'm not suggesting that we don't build Nuclear to keep us going especially with EVs becoming quickly popular but I'll be damned if we once again lean on that tech just because it's easy. We can't stop being innovative.
I second that. The clause was there for this exact reason. The protected themselves legally by allowing anything to go. Our world, our rules...
BTW Jack, I want to apologize for stepping to a new low when I ask if you were 16 years old in a different subject. I'm usually in tune with what you write (I've seen lots of your comments over the years) and I just forgot to accept that it was your opinion.
I agree that people being cynical is part of it. Combine the two and you've got yourself a "mission impossible" scenario.
I know people that although they hate aspects of something aren't willing to stop doing it because they like it. To me that's a lack of will power but in this particular case being cynical definitively plays a big role.
The tax should be on the consumables. Tax the consumer. The bigger the consumer the bigger the tax paid.
E.g.:
Bananas would have $0 if not pre-packaged
Canned goods: $0.05 (Metal is a desired material)
Television: $30 (that's already in place where I live)
K-CUP: $0.15 per cup
Water bottle: $0.15 per bottle
These are just suggestions with the exception of the Television.
There are many ways to tackle this but forcing consumers to pay up front is the best way to deal with it. We could get into deposits and other but that's a logistical nightmare.