Not really, because his whole point is that this odd/even version thing doesn't apply to Windows very well unless you use a lot of contortions to try and make it fit.
There's good versions, and bad versions. They don't follow much of a pattern except that the good versions are usually refinements of a bad version rather than a major change.
They knew there was no chance of corporate adoption of Windows 8 months, if not over a year ago. When the preview version came out and the reaction from corporate IT was "WTF?", that was it. Windows 7 is the corporate OS of choice for migrations these days.
It's a high-budget theme park MMO in a world where launching those successfully is extremely difficult and the failure rate is very high. See: Pretty much every MMO that tried to launch in 2012. Particularly the subscription ones.
The market for these games stopped growing a while ago, and the players that are still around are so entrenched in their chosen game that prying them away is also pretty hard to do. If they were making a fairly modest budget game, it might have a shot. As it stands now, I just hope it doesn't destroy the series or sink Bethesda entirely.
I watched Avatar. Managed to get through it. Had serious eye discomfort by the end. Haven't been to another 3D movie since. I don't like paying extra in order for the privilege of experiencing discomfort.
All that's happened as a result is I go to far fewer movies, as the local theatre is fond of putting as much in 3D as possible. So I guess the upside is that Hollywood's desire for this is saving me quite a lot of money.
Corn Ethanol is the ultimate in greenwashing. It's not green at all. It's not even energy positive. We're not gaining energy here. We're just using fossil fuel based products to grow corn and turning the corn into an inferior fuel without any gain whatsoever.
Shows the power of the corn lobby, but it's a disaster for the overwhelming majority of the population. If they want an easy thing to cut as part of the fiscal cliff negotiations, all ethanol industry subsidies are a great place to start. They're a total waste of money.
Mozilla's management has their heads in their asses, and has had them up there for quite a while. They've made a very length list of poor decisions in recent memory.
If they have limited resources they should direct them in a more appropriate way. 64 bit Firefox has significant benefits to performance and less out of memory related crashing.
About 20 minutes ago, we got a certificate error on a windows 8 machine in IE 10 (the metro version). We tried to figure out how to view the certificate to see what the error might be (since of course it gives you no details in the error message), and there was no apparent way to do that.
If that is what the "UI experts" think I want, I`d love to know who decided they`re experts.
May depend on the model, I had a WRT54G that I could ignore for months at a time, and typically it only needed attention because the ADSL line it was connected to got flaky.
They totally screwed up this acquisition from beginning to end. Back when they bought Linksys, it was a highly competitive brand in its market segmenet. Now it's a joke, with poor quality hardware by the standard of other home networking gear, overpriced, and features total nonsense like cloud-based router configuration that nobody sane asked for. Cisco's answer to all this is "oh, you just need to spend 5x more on Cisco gear instead."
Why would I do that in my house, Cisco? I'll just buy from the competition instead and wind up with a negative view of your entire brand. I don't know if Linksys has any talent left in the company after how badly Cisco has screwed it up, but I hope they can recover once they're put under competent management. I still have fond memories of the old WRT54, which worked so well for so many years.
Since Linksys was actually a home user brand, that problem didn't exist until Cisco came in and started slapping "Cisco" all over the product.
Brands are targeted at a market for a reason.Linksys pre-acquisition made perfectly serviceable home user grade hardware at a good price. Cisco totally screwed it up.
According to Apple Maps, my neighborhood doesn't exist at all. It's also got some ugly, low resolution greyscale (!) imagery for the area that is hopelessly out of date.
Google Maps on the other hand actually knows about my area, and has high resolution color imagery.
The gap in data quality between the two is enormous.
Google's apps always follow this pattern. The first g+ app was iPhone only. The first Youtube app not bundled in iOS was iPhone only. Both of them got iPad support in the next version.
There's no doubt that Maps will get the same treatment, but they want to get it out there and working first.
It's the nature of large bureaucracies to make decisions in order to be seen as doing something. It doesn't matter if the something actually makes sense or not.
In the ITU's case, they've suffered some significant losses recently with "4G" being co-opted to mean "3G" by phone carriers and by their internet regulatory plan being shot down by the US. So they really need to do something here if only to feel like they're not totally impotent (like most of the UN is).
At this point, MS needs Office on iPad more than Apple does. I know that's not the accepted conventional wisdom, but the truth is that in the BYOD trend, people want iOS and Android devices. No CEO walks down to IT and says "I really want a Surface RT!" They do want an iPad because they see their kids with one and think it's fancy and way more portable than the laptop they have now (which it is).
The danger for Microsoft is that as CEOs suddenly find that they can get by just fine with an iPad and no Office on it, they're going to look at the budget and ask why they're paying MS massive sums of money for Office enterprise agreements. Office is a huge cash cow, and the last thing MS wants is people using something else. Using Office on Surface is ideal. Using Office on iPad is alright, since it continues the Office lock-in. Using something else on an iPad is a nightmare scenario in Redmond.
Apple would like to have Office, but the truth is that they're doing just fine in the enterprise without it. They don't have to cut Microsoft any special deals, and indeed not doing so makes them look good in the eyes of pretty much all other app developers: everybody likes a level playing field a lot more than they do an environment where Microsoft is special. (That doesn't even mention people who have done Xbox development and would love to see MS get some of its own treatment back, given how lopsidedly awful the terms for development on that platform are.)
The point here is that people are complaining about fairness in this thread and how it's unfair to Microsoft, when MIcrosoft itself is quite happy to dictate far worse terms to other people.
MS is acting like a privileged person who suddenly is no longer in a privileged position: by wanting special treatment anyway and not knowing how to react when they get told to pound sand.
I bought a bunch of iTunes gift cards at Walmart a few months ago at a significant discount off the face value. Something like 25%. It was a pretty good deal.
So at some point in the future console users might get to share in the joy that is the most disappointing release of 2012. And the RMAH scam, but only after paying Microsoft for an Xbox Live subscription for the privilege, of course.
Honestly, Diablo 3 just wasn't that good of a game. It'd have made a lot more sense either without the AH at all, or without the $60 pricetag and with the AH as the monetization tool.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really, because his whole point is that this odd/even version thing doesn't apply to Windows very well unless you use a lot of contortions to try and make it fit.
There's good versions, and bad versions. They don't follow much of a pattern except that the good versions are usually refinements of a bad version rather than a major change.
VP of Patent Extortion, perhaps?
They knew there was no chance of corporate adoption of Windows 8 months, if not over a year ago. When the preview version came out and the reaction from corporate IT was "WTF?", that was it. Windows 7 is the corporate OS of choice for migrations these days.
Maybe it's not BS. 50% of your users not liking your product is a pretty bad number.
It's a high-budget theme park MMO in a world where launching those successfully is extremely difficult and the failure rate is very high. See: Pretty much every MMO that tried to launch in 2012. Particularly the subscription ones.
The market for these games stopped growing a while ago, and the players that are still around are so entrenched in their chosen game that prying them away is also pretty hard to do. If they were making a fairly modest budget game, it might have a shot. As it stands now, I just hope it doesn't destroy the series or sink Bethesda entirely.
When's the last time a server went down?
Pretty recently, and frequently. Diablo 3 says hello, as does everything on uplay.
Try launching a new one these days. It's a bloodbath. Like say... FF XIV.
I watched Avatar. Managed to get through it. Had serious eye discomfort by the end. Haven't been to another 3D movie since. I don't like paying extra in order for the privilege of experiencing discomfort.
All that's happened as a result is I go to far fewer movies, as the local theatre is fond of putting as much in 3D as possible. So I guess the upside is that Hollywood's desire for this is saving me quite a lot of money.
Corn Ethanol is the ultimate in greenwashing. It's not green at all. It's not even energy positive. We're not gaining energy here. We're just using fossil fuel based products to grow corn and turning the corn into an inferior fuel without any gain whatsoever.
Shows the power of the corn lobby, but it's a disaster for the overwhelming majority of the population. If they want an easy thing to cut as part of the fiscal cliff negotiations, all ethanol industry subsidies are a great place to start. They're a total waste of money.
Mozilla's management has their heads in their asses, and has had them up there for quite a while. They've made a very length list of poor decisions in recent memory.
If they have limited resources they should direct them in a more appropriate way. 64 bit Firefox has significant benefits to performance and less out of memory related crashing.
The OS they're working on, OTOH...
About 20 minutes ago, we got a certificate error on a windows 8 machine in IE 10 (the metro version). We tried to figure out how to view the certificate to see what the error might be (since of course it gives you no details in the error message), and there was no apparent way to do that.
If that is what the "UI experts" think I want, I`d love to know who decided they`re experts.
May depend on the model, I had a WRT54G that I could ignore for months at a time, and typically it only needed attention because the ADSL line it was connected to got flaky.
They totally screwed up this acquisition from beginning to end. Back when they bought Linksys, it was a highly competitive brand in its market segmenet. Now it's a joke, with poor quality hardware by the standard of other home networking gear, overpriced, and features total nonsense like cloud-based router configuration that nobody sane asked for. Cisco's answer to all this is "oh, you just need to spend 5x more on Cisco gear instead."
Why would I do that in my house, Cisco? I'll just buy from the competition instead and wind up with a negative view of your entire brand. I don't know if Linksys has any talent left in the company after how badly Cisco has screwed it up, but I hope they can recover once they're put under competent management. I still have fond memories of the old WRT54, which worked so well for so many years.
Since Linksys was actually a home user brand, that problem didn't exist until Cisco came in and started slapping "Cisco" all over the product.
Brands are targeted at a market for a reason.Linksys pre-acquisition made perfectly serviceable home user grade hardware at a good price. Cisco totally screwed it up.
Not signing a treaty in the first place because you don't like whats in it is a sound and rational thing to do.
The US is doing absolutely nothing wrong in this case.
Or you're a person on a lengthy phone contract and can't really do much about it without paying quite a lot of money.
Which is quite common in Canada. But hey, having your head up your ass is fine too.
According to Apple Maps, my neighborhood doesn't exist at all. It's also got some ugly, low resolution greyscale (!) imagery for the area that is hopelessly out of date.
Google Maps on the other hand actually knows about my area, and has high resolution color imagery.
The gap in data quality between the two is enormous.
Google's apps always follow this pattern. The first g+ app was iPhone only. The first Youtube app not bundled in iOS was iPhone only. Both of them got iPad support in the next version.
There's no doubt that Maps will get the same treatment, but they want to get it out there and working first.
It's the nature of large bureaucracies to make decisions in order to be seen as doing something. It doesn't matter if the something actually makes sense or not.
In the ITU's case, they've suffered some significant losses recently with "4G" being co-opted to mean "3G" by phone carriers and by their internet regulatory plan being shot down by the US. So they really need to do something here if only to feel like they're not totally impotent (like most of the UN is).
At this point, MS needs Office on iPad more than Apple does. I know that's not the accepted conventional wisdom, but the truth is that in the BYOD trend, people want iOS and Android devices. No CEO walks down to IT and says "I really want a Surface RT!" They do want an iPad because they see their kids with one and think it's fancy and way more portable than the laptop they have now (which it is).
The danger for Microsoft is that as CEOs suddenly find that they can get by just fine with an iPad and no Office on it, they're going to look at the budget and ask why they're paying MS massive sums of money for Office enterprise agreements. Office is a huge cash cow, and the last thing MS wants is people using something else. Using Office on Surface is ideal. Using Office on iPad is alright, since it continues the Office lock-in. Using something else on an iPad is a nightmare scenario in Redmond.
Apple would like to have Office, but the truth is that they're doing just fine in the enterprise without it. They don't have to cut Microsoft any special deals, and indeed not doing so makes them look good in the eyes of pretty much all other app developers: everybody likes a level playing field a lot more than they do an environment where Microsoft is special. (That doesn't even mention people who have done Xbox development and would love to see MS get some of its own treatment back, given how lopsidedly awful the terms for development on that platform are.)
The point here is that people are complaining about fairness in this thread and how it's unfair to Microsoft, when MIcrosoft itself is quite happy to dictate far worse terms to other people.
MS is acting like a privileged person who suddenly is no longer in a privileged position: by wanting special treatment anyway and not knowing how to react when they get told to pound sand.
I bought a bunch of iTunes gift cards at Walmart a few months ago at a significant discount off the face value. Something like 25%. It was a pretty good deal.
It's a curious world where the #2 selling product is a monopoly.
So at some point in the future console users might get to share in the joy that is the most disappointing release of 2012. And the RMAH scam, but only after paying Microsoft for an Xbox Live subscription for the privilege, of course.
Honestly, Diablo 3 just wasn't that good of a game. It'd have made a lot more sense either without the AH at all, or without the $60 pricetag and with the AH as the monetization tool.