I can't see what possible benefit it is to Intel to deliberately limit the market for their processors.
My guess is that Intel are attempting to position the Atom against the ARM chip that will be locked down for Windows 8 (from the OS side). I assume that this means that there are device manufacturers who want to produce tablets that can't be hacked (like iOS).
Rather than trying to appease Microsoft, I think that this is targeting the OEM who wants to lock their device into their chosen configuration, App Store etc.
But Intel will still produce CPUs that will run Linux. Just look at how the next generation of Core CPUs are getting close to the Atom's power usage. At least one tablet manufacturer will want to use the extra processing power of Intel's main CPU line to differentiate themselves from the rest of the tablets.
it's not a troll to tell someone that advocating violence against women is wrong.
The problem is that you have made the leap from telling a joke about domestic violence to seriously advocating violence against women. That is a flawed argument. People make jokes about all sorts of subject, but it doesn't mean that they are making serious comment about the issue. For example:
Q: What does NASA stand for? A: Need Another Seven Astronauts
Does anyone who tells this joke really advocate murdering astronauts, or blowing up space shuttles? No. It is just using a tragic event for shock value. Mel Brooks once said "Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you walk into an open sewer and die". That is basis of a lot of comedy. It is precisely what is happening when people laugh at the Darwin awards.
Here's another one.
Q: What's the biggest difference between 9/11 and the Oklahoma City Bombing? A: Foreigners once again prove they can do it better and more efficiently.
Is that joke OK? If so, why is a joke about hurting one person not OK? If it is not OK, what is? Perhaps you could provide a list of the acceptable topics for jokes. Or maybe you think we should just eliminate humour completely?
On the same topic as above, let's have a go at another group of vulnerable people:
Q: Why didn't Superman stop the planes from hitting the Trade Towers? A: Because he's a quadriplegic!
It is a shame that it wasn't Linda Carter who broke her neck, because we could have added a sexist element to that joke too. If there was such a thing as a black, female superhero then we could have had the entire set, but given that female superheros must show 90% skin then it is obvious why there are no black ones. They would use up too much ink!
I seem to be going further off topic, but I hope you get my point. A joke isn't real. You can always tell comedy that tries to have a PC message, because it tends not to be funny. The best thing to do if you belong to of a group that is the butt of a joke is to just ignore it. Irish people do it, blondes do it. Even Australians do it (to their sheep). I say that last one as an Australian. Here is what I am talking about:
A ventriloquist visiting Australia walks into a small outback village and sees a local sitting on his porch patting his dog. He figures he'll have a little fun, so he says to the Aussie: "Hey, mind if I talk to your dog?"
Aussie: "The dog doesn't talk, stupid!"
Ventriloquist: "Hello dog, how's it going mate?"
Dog: "Doin' all right."
Aussie: (look of extreme shock)
Ventriloquist: "Is this your owner?"
Dog: "Yep"
Ventriloquist: "How does he treat you?"
Dog: "Good. Walks me twice a day, feeds me well and takes me to the lake once a week to play."
Aussie: (...?! )
Ventriloquist: "Mind if I talk to your horse? "
Aussie: "Uhhh..."
Ventriloquist: "Hey horse, how's it going?"
Horse: "Cool"
Ventriloquist: "Is this your owner?"
Horse: "Yep"
Ventriloquist: How does he treat you?
Horse: "Pretty good. He rides me regularly, brushes me
down often and keeps me in a nice warm barn."
Ventriloquist: "Mind if I talk to your sheep?"
Aussie: (in a panic) "The sheep's a liar!!!"
My sheep and I had a really good laugh at that one!
They had ample opportunity to correct the Defaming statement, but refused to listen to the author being biographied.
Who is being defamed here? How is the author of a work injured by the notion that a work was not inspired by one person, but another. There is no implication of plagiarism or any wrong doing.
It wasn't even incorrect. It is true that it was alleged to have been inspired by the life of Anatole Broyard. That the allegation was not correct does not change the fact that it was actually alleged. If another source can be found to show that it was about Melvin Tumin instead, then this can be included too.
But the last thing Wikipedia needs is for the encyclopedia to be turned into PR spin because people want to tweak their own entries.
The main roadblock is that the market has been dominated by a single vendor since long before a single line of the Linux kernel was written.
Actually the key to Microsoft's success was exactly the opposite of what you said. They were not the vendor, at least not to the general public. It was the likes of IBM, Compaq, and Dell who sold computers that ran DOS. It was the fact that there were multiple vendors that drove down prices to make the PC compatible the affordable solution with the widest selection of software.
IBM tried unsucessfully to stop the clone market. Apple too had clones, but they ended up more successful at eliminating their competition - and they ended up with a pitiful market share to show for it. By the time Apple started its official clone program to expand the Macintosh market share, it was too late.
This dominant vendor was nearly able to kill off Apple with an OS that has no GUI and required MANUAL MEMORY MANAGEMENT.
I think you are forgetting about the manual memory management of the original Mac OS. You had to specify how much memory each program would use. You are right about the lack of GUI. This is one of those times where being the better does not equal success. Being cheaper can often be more important. Of course, by that reasoning Linux should takes over!
Some people are under the delusion that magically turning Linux into a Windows clone or a MacOS clone would help anything.
Absolutely. If you attempt to look like someone else's product then people will only notice the differences as being inferior to the original. Linux needs to keep its own identity.
And that is why it will never grow to become the new standard OS: there is not one single indentity. I said before that DOS succeeded because it ran on computers from multiple companies. If you turned on a PC compatible then you faced a familiar interface: C> This is not the case with Linux. Every distro does things their own way, with different windows managers and methods of installing software. It will never gain mainstream status while it appears to me hundreds of different operating systems.
But it is this flexibility and configurability that is what is so good about Linux. If you search long enough, you will eventually find the distro that fits your needs. And if you can't find one, you can make your own. But this means that it will always be a niche market for people who like to tinker and experiment with their computers.
So as others here have said, there is nothing wrong with the Linux desktop that needs to be fixed. All that needs to change is our expectations that the general population is ready and willing to put the time and effort into adapting to the OSS way of doing things when what they use now does everything they need.
I PAID for those black rows and I want to see them!
Well, you are in luck. Modern LCD and plasma TVs actually record the unused black lines and display them as a highlight package whenever you turn off the set. Don't believe me? Try turning off your TV now and tell us what you see.
There are your 16 rows. But fun equations aside, HD resolution is 1920x1080. It is encoded on video streams as 1088 lines because the MPEG2 standard requires that the resolution be divisible by 16. The extra 8 rows are not displayed.
You are not being ripped off, because those extra rows on the video would probably just be black.
Which you can celebrate by joining in at Kickstater for Project Giana, the grandchild of Giana Sisters (8 days to go). Sorry, I don't think they will be targetting the C64.
EA had certain periods where they tried some new ideas, but mostly they just pump out sequel after sequel in tried and true genres. The sad part is how many small, innovative developers were gobbled up by EA only to be assimilated Borg-style (or just shut down completely).
Errant Signal did a good overview of this topic that is well worth a look (and I normally hate Youtube talking heads).
So what? Because you don't want one you think the whole electric car industry should pack up and go home? Every time electric vehicles are discussed around here, somebody always pipes up with this sort of calculation, as if their personal needs should dictate the use of a technology. Yes, if you were not going to buy a new car, then one of these models is not for you. Yes, if you don't drive much then there won't be any fuel savings.
There are nearly 150,000 new cars sold in the UK every month. You might not want to buy a new car, but a lot of other people do. Those are the people who it is hoped will head down the alternate fuel route.
That is only going to be a problem when converting a document written in a 20 year old version of Word. How many of those do you come across these days. And does any version of Word actually emit these elements. They are only now getting full compatibility with the standard, so we don't know if they supported those attributes. It will be pretty hard to test.
And what difference will there be? In the example quoted elsewhere in this thread autoSpaceLikeWord95, you might see a slightly different kerning when justifying text. Hardly the deal breaker that everyone claims.
That is disappointing. I was hoping for some amusing inconsistencies in the spec, and it turns out that it is just a few optional elements in there to support ancient packages and which the standard recommends that you don't actually support!
Is this really the reason that the entire standards organisation is denigrated, and that this format said to be impossible to implement? That is pretty lame. Why does everyone worry about compatibility tags that date back to Windows 3.1 days when the ODF spec neglected to document the spreadsheet functions at all? If you are looking for an impossible to implement standard, then that would be a more likely candidate.
Several of the complaints registered by members of the ISO approval committee (which were ignored by the paid-off chair), involved sections of the specification that caused it to be physically impossible to actually implement.
How bizarre! So what exactly is it that makes it impossible to implement?
because at some point, you need to say "good enough for version 1.0" and move forward with an implementation. google and firefox have already done this. should they back up and re-write their impls because someone came along with something better (on paper)?
If a browser is going to implement non-standard stuff, then yes they should rewrite it when the standard proves to be something different. If the roles were reversed and it was Internet Explorer that had the non-standard elements, then nobody would argue that their ideas should automatically adopted by the W3C just because they had already made the implementation.
there's always 2.0, and MSFT should be getting involved in the existing standard to influence the 2.0 effort to get the features they need.
But surely that is exactly what Microsoft are doing, except that the standard is nowhere near 1.0 so that is the milestone they want to influence. According to the WebRTC draft spec:
This document is the second working draft of the WebRTC specification, and is still subject to major changes that have been discussed but not yet incorporated in the specification (e.g. the inclusion of a data channel API, the JSEP signalling proposal and others). Since the previous draft, the getUserMedia API was moved into a document of its own [GETUSERMEDIA], and a number of clarifications were made.
While early experimentations are encouraged, the document is therefore not intended for implementation. The API is based on preliminary work done in the WHATWG. The Web Real-Time Communications Working Group expects this specification to evolve significantly.
So the W3C said that it was not ready to implement because it could change significantly. It seems to me that Microsoft are doing exactly what the process should be: identifying flaws in the existing spec and coming up with alternatives while it is still in the early stages.
This really puts the lie to Warmists claiming they are not against nuclear energy.
That's strange. I don't recall either the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or the federal courts ever being particularly pro-climate change but anti-nuclear. It is almost as if they are two separate issues linked only by the rantings of some anonymous Internet poster, but that can't be the case because some random guy on the Internet wouldn't lie.
Generally they do what is necessary to boot Windows, and once that's working, call it good. They have no motivation to test and make sure disabling UEFI works.
Except that if a motherboard can't disable UEFI then older versions of Windows (especially x86 versions) would not boot. Remember that Microsoft's biggest competitor to Windows is older version of Windows. This is going to become even more pronounced if people reject the Metro user interface (or whatever it is called now) and stay with XP or Win7.
It is part of the spec AT THE MOMENT, but that doesn't mean it will remain part of the spec.
And it doesn't mean that it won't remain part of the spec. It is all guesswork. Should you really be able to deny people have security features added to Windows because in some dystopian future those features may be made mandatory?
Should we also ban firewalls because one day the built-in firewall may be only made configurable by a paid service rather than a local tool?
"Can't" is the one word we can't use to describe anything in the IT industry.
But have a look at the backlash that Microsoft received when Vista had high system requirements. Subsequent versions of Windows have tended towards better support for older systems, and not worse as would happen if secure boot was mandatory.
So until we actually see a change in Microsoft's policy, people are complaining about a fantasy future that does not match the current practices of Microsoft regarding Windows.
It is a different spec for ARM than Intel chips. The ARM version of Windows 8 does not have to maintain backwards compatibility with an existing user base. Intel Windows does have a long pedigree, and the OS will work on systems made in 2002. Given that they are trying to support computers that predate UEFI by a decade, then they can't start insisting on secure boot only.
Um, no. It is part of the spec that motherboards must be able to disable UEFI. So if you go out and buy a Windows 8 certified system then you will be able to install any operating system you want. And no amount of bleating about how nobody cares for your right to boot the old fashioned way will change this.
Are you telling me you have more fricking video games than would be covered in small claims, which Valve specifically points out you can do?
That is not really my point. This was a wake-up call to how easy it is for Steam to suddenly prevent access to my game collection. When we were forced respond to the dialog with the new "agreement" before being able to play any game, they might as well labelled their buttons "I will submit to the company's whim" and "I never want to play my games again".
When Apple change their EULA on the iPhone, you only have to re-agree when buying a new game. All the old ones still work.
Regarding your point about the small claims, this is my problem. If they stuff me around to the tune of a game or two, then it is not worth the time or cost for me to take Steam to small claims. Hardly anyone would. But if they did something that would cause problems to enough people, then those customers/victims can pool their resources in a class action lawsuit. It is more cost-effective and simple way to wrest back some control over our purchases.
Would we all get satisfaction? Would the lawyers win again? Probably. This is about holding the company to account for its actions, not just what's in it for the Gadget Guy.
The other problem is that I do not live in the same country as Valve. The chances of me finding a venue to have any power over the company is remote. I probably could not even take part in any class action lawsuit. But I would gain protection by the fact that others who would be in a similar situation to me could actually ensure the company doesn't go too power crazy.
Finally, there is the principle of the matter. I want to have an industry who doesn't feel that they have the power to treat their customers like crap, that doesn't install spyware or rootkits on gamers systems, and that doesn't hold my access to my entire games collection as a bargaining chip in any dispute.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't see what possible benefit it is to Intel to deliberately limit the market for their processors.
My guess is that Intel are attempting to position the Atom against the ARM chip that will be locked down for Windows 8 (from the OS side). I assume that this means that there are device manufacturers who want to produce tablets that can't be hacked (like iOS).
Rather than trying to appease Microsoft, I think that this is targeting the OEM who wants to lock their device into their chosen configuration, App Store etc.
But Intel will still produce CPUs that will run Linux. Just look at how the next generation of Core CPUs are getting close to the Atom's power usage. At least one tablet manufacturer will want to use the extra processing power of Intel's main CPU line to differentiate themselves from the rest of the tablets.
it's not a troll to tell someone that advocating violence against women is wrong.
The problem is that you have made the leap from telling a joke about domestic violence to seriously advocating violence against women. That is a flawed argument. People make jokes about all sorts of subject, but it doesn't mean that they are making serious comment about the issue. For example:
Q: What does NASA stand for?
A: Need Another Seven Astronauts
Does anyone who tells this joke really advocate murdering astronauts, or blowing up space shuttles? No. It is just using a tragic event for shock value. Mel Brooks once said "Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you walk into an open sewer and die". That is basis of a lot of comedy. It is precisely what is happening when people laugh at the Darwin awards.
Here's another one.
Q: What's the biggest difference between 9/11 and the Oklahoma City Bombing?
A: Foreigners once again prove they can do it better and more efficiently.
Is that joke OK? If so, why is a joke about hurting one person not OK? If it is not OK, what is? Perhaps you could provide a list of the acceptable topics for jokes. Or maybe you think we should just eliminate humour completely?
On the same topic as above, let's have a go at another group of vulnerable people:
Q: Why didn't Superman stop the planes from hitting the Trade Towers?
A: Because he's a quadriplegic!
It is a shame that it wasn't Linda Carter who broke her neck, because we could have added a sexist element to that joke too. If there was such a thing as a black, female superhero then we could have had the entire set, but given that female superheros must show 90% skin then it is obvious why there are no black ones. They would use up too much ink!
I seem to be going further off topic, but I hope you get my point. A joke isn't real. You can always tell comedy that tries to have a PC message, because it tends not to be funny. The best thing to do if you belong to of a group that is the butt of a joke is to just ignore it. Irish people do it, blondes do it. Even Australians do it (to their sheep). I say that last one as an Australian. Here is what I am talking about:
A ventriloquist visiting Australia walks into a small outback village and sees a local sitting on his porch patting his dog. He figures he'll have a little fun, so he says to the Aussie: "Hey, mind if I talk to your dog?" ...?! )
Aussie: "The dog doesn't talk, stupid!"
Ventriloquist: "Hello dog, how's it going mate?"
Dog: "Doin' all right."
Aussie: (look of extreme shock)
Ventriloquist: "Is this your owner?"
Dog: "Yep"
Ventriloquist: "How does he treat you?"
Dog: "Good. Walks me twice a day, feeds me well and takes me to the lake once a week to play."
Aussie: (
Ventriloquist: "Mind if I talk to your horse? "
Aussie: "Uhhh..."
Ventriloquist: "Hey horse, how's it going?"
Horse: "Cool"
Ventriloquist: "Is this your owner?"
Horse: "Yep"
Ventriloquist: How does he treat you?
Horse: "Pretty good. He rides me regularly, brushes me down often and keeps me in a nice warm barn."
Ventriloquist: "Mind if I talk to your sheep?"
Aussie: (in a panic) "The sheep's a liar!!!"
My sheep and I had a really good laugh at that one!
I have one word for those that think this would be a good idea....Geocities?
From the point of view of the business providing the website, it is a good idea. You can take the money and run because your customers are all dead!
It is a pity that some cybersquatter has managed to nab deathmaskbook.com, because that would be the ideal domain name for the job.
Gadget_Guy likes this post from beyond the grave.
How interested are you in a book by an author who is known to be a liar?
Surely anyone who writes a work of fiction is, by definition, a liar. Why should I be put off by that?
They had ample opportunity to correct the Defaming statement, but refused to listen to the author being biographied.
Who is being defamed here? How is the author of a work injured by the notion that a work was not inspired by one person, but another. There is no implication of plagiarism or any wrong doing.
It wasn't even incorrect. It is true that it was alleged to have been inspired by the life of Anatole Broyard. That the allegation was not correct does not change the fact that it was actually alleged. If another source can be found to show that it was about Melvin Tumin instead, then this can be included too.
But the last thing Wikipedia needs is for the encyclopedia to be turned into PR spin because people want to tweak their own entries.
And then a decade before AT&T, Apple invented the Newton. Sure it didn't have a coloured screen, but the grid of icons is there.
That said, it is hardly a revolutionary idea to display icons in a grid.
The main roadblock is that the market has been dominated by a single vendor since long before a single line of the Linux kernel was written.
Actually the key to Microsoft's success was exactly the opposite of what you said. They were not the vendor, at least not to the general public. It was the likes of IBM, Compaq, and Dell who sold computers that ran DOS. It was the fact that there were multiple vendors that drove down prices to make the PC compatible the affordable solution with the widest selection of software.
IBM tried unsucessfully to stop the clone market. Apple too had clones, but they ended up more successful at eliminating their competition - and they ended up with a pitiful market share to show for it. By the time Apple started its official clone program to expand the Macintosh market share, it was too late.
This dominant vendor was nearly able to kill off Apple with an OS that has no GUI and required MANUAL MEMORY MANAGEMENT.
I think you are forgetting about the manual memory management of the original Mac OS. You had to specify how much memory each program would use. You are right about the lack of GUI. This is one of those times where being the better does not equal success. Being cheaper can often be more important. Of course, by that reasoning Linux should takes over!
Some people are under the delusion that magically turning Linux into a Windows clone or a MacOS clone would help anything.
Absolutely. If you attempt to look like someone else's product then people will only notice the differences as being inferior to the original. Linux needs to keep its own identity.
And that is why it will never grow to become the new standard OS: there is not one single indentity. I said before that DOS succeeded because it ran on computers from multiple companies. If you turned on a PC compatible then you faced a familiar interface: C> This is not the case with Linux. Every distro does things their own way, with different windows managers and methods of installing software. It will never gain mainstream status while it appears to me hundreds of different operating systems.
But it is this flexibility and configurability that is what is so good about Linux. If you search long enough, you will eventually find the distro that fits your needs. And if you can't find one, you can make your own. But this means that it will always be a niche market for people who like to tinker and experiment with their computers.
So as others here have said, there is nothing wrong with the Linux desktop that needs to be fixed. All that needs to change is our expectations that the general population is ready and willing to put the time and effort into adapting to the OSS way of doing things when what they use now does everything they need.
I PAID for those black rows and I want to see them!
Well, you are in luck. Modern LCD and plasma TVs actually record the unused black lines and display them as a highlight package whenever you turn off the set. Don't believe me? Try turning off your TV now and tell us what you see.
1088 + 1088 = 2176
Who stole my 16 rows ??
2+1+7+6 = 16
There are your 16 rows. But fun equations aside, HD resolution is 1920x1080. It is encoded on video streams as 1088 lines because the MPEG2 standard requires that the resolution be divisible by 16. The extra 8 rows are not displayed.
You are not being ripped off, because those extra rows on the video would probably just be black.
The closest we had was Great Giana Sisters...
Which you can celebrate by joining in at Kickstater for Project Giana, the grandchild of Giana Sisters (8 days to go). Sorry, I don't think they will be targetting the C64.
EA had certain periods where they tried some new ideas, but mostly they just pump out sequel after sequel in tried and true genres. The sad part is how many small, innovative developers were gobbled up by EA only to be assimilated Borg-style (or just shut down completely).
Errant Signal did a good overview of this topic that is well worth a look (and I normally hate Youtube talking heads).
So what? Because you don't want one you think the whole electric car industry should pack up and go home? Every time electric vehicles are discussed around here, somebody always pipes up with this sort of calculation, as if their personal needs should dictate the use of a technology. Yes, if you were not going to buy a new car, then one of these models is not for you. Yes, if you don't drive much then there won't be any fuel savings.
There are nearly 150,000 new cars sold in the UK every month. You might not want to buy a new car, but a lot of other people do. Those are the people who it is hoped will head down the alternate fuel route.
That is only going to be a problem when converting a document written in a 20 year old version of Word. How many of those do you come across these days. And does any version of Word actually emit these elements. They are only now getting full compatibility with the standard, so we don't know if they supported those attributes. It will be pretty hard to test.
And what difference will there be? In the example quoted elsewhere in this thread autoSpaceLikeWord95, you might see a slightly different kerning when justifying text. Hardly the deal breaker that everyone claims.
That is disappointing. I was hoping for some amusing inconsistencies in the spec, and it turns out that it is just a few optional elements in there to support ancient packages and which the standard recommends that you don't actually support!
Is this really the reason that the entire standards organisation is denigrated, and that this format said to be impossible to implement? That is pretty lame. Why does everyone worry about compatibility tags that date back to Windows 3.1 days when the ODF spec neglected to document the spreadsheet functions at all? If you are looking for an impossible to implement standard, then that would be a more likely candidate.
Several of the complaints registered by members of the ISO approval committee (which were ignored by the paid-off chair), involved sections of the specification that caused it to be physically impossible to actually implement.
How bizarre! So what exactly is it that makes it impossible to implement?
Discrete sound...Is farting silently
No, that is a soundless indiscretion.
In reality, idealized design-by-commity just takes too long to be of any value
I think you have just described the W3C process perfectly!
because at some point, you need to say "good enough for version 1.0" and move forward with an implementation. google and firefox have already done this. should they back up and re-write their impls because someone came along with something better (on paper)?
If a browser is going to implement non-standard stuff, then yes they should rewrite it when the standard proves to be something different. If the roles were reversed and it was Internet Explorer that had the non-standard elements, then nobody would argue that their ideas should automatically adopted by the W3C just because they had already made the implementation.
there's always 2.0, and MSFT should be getting involved in the existing standard to influence the 2.0 effort to get the features they need.
But surely that is exactly what Microsoft are doing, except that the standard is nowhere near 1.0 so that is the milestone they want to influence. According to the WebRTC draft spec:
This document is the second working draft of the WebRTC specification, and is still subject to major changes that have been discussed but not yet incorporated in the specification (e.g. the inclusion of a data channel API, the JSEP signalling proposal and others). Since the previous draft, the getUserMedia API was moved into a document of its own [GETUSERMEDIA], and a number of clarifications were made.
While early experimentations are encouraged, the document is therefore not intended for implementation. The API is based on preliminary work done in the WHATWG. The Web Real-Time Communications Working Group expects this specification to evolve significantly.
So the W3C said that it was not ready to implement because it could change significantly. It seems to me that Microsoft are doing exactly what the process should be: identifying flaws in the existing spec and coming up with alternatives while it is still in the early stages.
This really puts the lie to Warmists claiming they are not against nuclear energy.
That's strange. I don't recall either the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or the federal courts ever being particularly pro-climate change but anti-nuclear. It is almost as if they are two separate issues linked only by the rantings of some anonymous Internet poster, but that can't be the case because some random guy on the Internet wouldn't lie.
Generally they do what is necessary to boot Windows, and once that's working, call it good. They have no motivation to test and make sure disabling UEFI works.
Except that if a motherboard can't disable UEFI then older versions of Windows (especially x86 versions) would not boot. Remember that Microsoft's biggest competitor to Windows is older version of Windows. This is going to become even more pronounced if people reject the Metro user interface (or whatever it is called now) and stay with XP or Win7.
It is part of the spec AT THE MOMENT, but that doesn't mean it will remain part of the spec.
And it doesn't mean that it won't remain part of the spec. It is all guesswork. Should you really be able to deny people have security features added to Windows because in some dystopian future those features may be made mandatory?
Should we also ban firewalls because one day the built-in firewall may be only made configurable by a paid service rather than a local tool?
"Can't" is the one word we can't use to describe anything in the IT industry.
But have a look at the backlash that Microsoft received when Vista had high system requirements. Subsequent versions of Windows have tended towards better support for older systems, and not worse as would happen if secure boot was mandatory.
So until we actually see a change in Microsoft's policy, people are complaining about a fantasy future that does not match the current practices of Microsoft regarding Windows.
It is a different spec for ARM than Intel chips. The ARM version of Windows 8 does not have to maintain backwards compatibility with an existing user base. Intel Windows does have a long pedigree, and the OS will work on systems made in 2002. Given that they are trying to support computers that predate UEFI by a decade, then they can't start insisting on secure boot only.
Think you can disable it? Think again:
Um, no. It is part of the spec that motherboards must be able to disable UEFI. So if you go out and buy a Windows 8 certified system then you will be able to install any operating system you want. And no amount of bleating about how nobody cares for your right to boot the old fashioned way will change this.
Are you telling me you have more fricking video games than would be covered in small claims, which Valve specifically points out you can do?
That is not really my point. This was a wake-up call to how easy it is for Steam to suddenly prevent access to my game collection. When we were forced respond to the dialog with the new "agreement" before being able to play any game, they might as well labelled their buttons "I will submit to the company's whim" and "I never want to play my games again".
When Apple change their EULA on the iPhone, you only have to re-agree when buying a new game. All the old ones still work.
Regarding your point about the small claims, this is my problem. If they stuff me around to the tune of a game or two, then it is not worth the time or cost for me to take Steam to small claims. Hardly anyone would. But if they did something that would cause problems to enough people, then those customers/victims can pool their resources in a class action lawsuit. It is more cost-effective and simple way to wrest back some control over our purchases.
Would we all get satisfaction? Would the lawyers win again? Probably. This is about holding the company to account for its actions, not just what's in it for the Gadget Guy.
The other problem is that I do not live in the same country as Valve. The chances of me finding a venue to have any power over the company is remote. I probably could not even take part in any class action lawsuit. But I would gain protection by the fact that others who would be in a similar situation to me could actually ensure the company doesn't go too power crazy.
Finally, there is the principle of the matter. I want to have an industry who doesn't feel that they have the power to treat their customers like crap, that doesn't install spyware or rootkits on gamers systems, and that doesn't hold my access to my entire games collection as a bargaining chip in any dispute.