So the problem would have been avoided, if Microsoft could sell that electricity again. They might have lost some money (or not, since residential rates are much higher) but wouldn't have to waste the whole thing.
In other countries you get the grid from the local power company but then can pick a provider. Funny enough that works only if there is a strong government organization in charge of "deregulating" the network monopoly. Kind of what the US tried with phone lines before the baby bells got rid of it again.
May be that's why Google got a license to buy/sell energy (See GoogleEnergy)?
When I look back at the code I created in college, compared to what I was capable of after a few years of real world development experience... The difference is pretty stark. I understand the get-em-while-they're-young approach, to influence development decisions later in life. But if they're betting the success of their platform on the output of students with limited-to-no real world experience, I fear for the quality of the apps in their store.
Good point. Apple's AppStore generally has very good quality apps. The Google's PlayStore/Android MarketPlace has not; thus if you want to stand out on Android you really have to make a quality app - especially if you want to be paid for it. The same will be true for Microsoft's App Store (whatever they call it). Just stuffing it with apps won't make any difference.
I haven't noticed before, but MS offers free Visual Studio Express nowadays.. And Visual Studio coupled with XNA sure sounds better than how we had it back in the day. And with MSDN docs available and the whole internet to look and ask help from, it sure must be nice to be a kid learning programming in todays world.
They've had Visual Studio Express for a few years now. I think VS2005 or VS 2008 first had it - namely to try to keep people from moving to the GCC Suite on Windows I think. It's okay - the compiler can technically do anything the professional version can; but they set some arbitrary rules within the IDE itself to keep from making certain things - like plug-ins for VS, SCC providers, etc.
Particularly given that today, we have a plethora/bonanza of DEs & Window Managers - KDE, Razor-qt, GNOME, LXDE, XCFE, Unity, Cinnamon, Etoille, Awesome, Enlightenment, Window-Maker, ScrotWM, RatPoison and what have you. Why do we need FreeDesktop?
While I agree GNOME has departed, fd.o was the organizer to help ensure all those DEs and their applications could easily communicate together in a uniform manner. KDE is a very strong supporter of fd.o from what I can see, so I expect if they change something they will work with fd.o to get it adopted by fd.o.
Regardless, GNOME has apparently left the building for fd.o. So don't expect them to implement it.
Once they fix [Akonadi], one of the biggest issues about KDE 4.x spped will be resolved.
I'm not holding my breath. The clueless devs haven't managed to make Akonadi/Nepomuk/Strigi/Activities optional since they appeared in KDE 4, so it'll never happen. Apparently Dirk Hohndel ripping them a new one at Desktop Summit had no effect.
You can turn Strigi/Nepomuk off in the KDE Configuration very easily. I have done so on one laptop that doesn't to too well with them turned on. I keep it on on others that do. I haven't had problems with Akonadi on any of the system.
Well, Wikipedia isn't much help here... Plain Old.NET Object. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PONO), but I doubt using.NET Objects would get him very far...
Well, I only have a 10'x10' now, but I had one position where I had a 20'x20' cubicle; one of my boss's offices while I had that was around 10'x20', another was 10'x15'. I even had my own dual 8' conference tables.
You have to compare: (1) Execution Costs + Prison Time Costs + Appellete Costs, to (2) Longer Prison Time Costs + Appellete Costs over the longer time period.
Don't think that just because someone doesn't get the death penalty that they will try to appeal less than those that are given the death penalty - in fact, they would have more time to do so by definition.
Your argument makes very little sense given that Western countries which have abolished the death penalty have lower murder rates. You would assume that, in the absence of a death penalty, people would go out and get justice themselves, through deadly force. But this is not the case.
I can't find the reference I am seeking...but Biblically capital punishment is provided for long before the Torah even (which wasn't for another 600+ years after the Flood). That said, there is also a reference (the one I couldn't quickly find) where it mentions being punished by man is better than being punished by God - that is, escaping punishment by man under the law leaves one to punishment directly by God. That is not to say in neither case may Forgiveness, Grace, and Mercy be applied - they very well may be; but that appropriate punishment must be wielded.
the PFOA's are not that much of a concern in PTFE coatings for cookware, that's not to say your bag of microwave popcorn is not out to get you with cancer and Alzheimer's or that the buildup in the environment is not worrisome, just use your pans safely and learn to eat popcorn without the bag and organ eating seasoning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid#Food_contact_surfaces
I much prefer having pans that do not have any non-stick coatings on them simply because teflon and other non-stick coatings greatly reduce the lifespan of the cookware, as well as what you can use on it to clean it. For example, we're still using my grandmothers pans and my mom's pans; yet the non-stick pans my sister had in the late 1990s have to all be replaced due to the non-stick materials flaking off - especially prevalent in mashed potatoes.
If people are too lazy to extract the contents of a can into a pan, there are other issues to consider than just what lines a can.
But as I keep getting modded down when I talk about personal responsibility in healthcare, I guess that goes out the window as well when talking about safely handling food.
Is that pan a non-stick pan? Or one without any kinds of non-stick coating?
> And this is nothing compared to what Vista/Win7/Server2008 require to keep operational - an active Internet connection that regularly (every 7 days) checks the activation status of the assigned license. (And yes, I've had Server 2008 de-activate itself because of missing the sufficient checks).
Now *that* is total bullshit.
"You have added more RAM. Please authorize your computer with MS so you can continue to use it."
When will people get fed up with this licensed not owned crap.
One of the nice things about OSX is that it doesn't have any of this DRM crap.
Not enough people run across it to make people aware of it. I ran into it because our systems are delivered typically without Internet access; so after a month being off, it tried to recheck its status and it couldn't. Microsoft's solution? Use your Volume License - except we don't have one.
On the other hand, Microsoft is kind of helping themselves out of my way. We put the Server version on as it better meets the user's needs even though we really use the system as a desktop. However, Microsoft has already announced they will be removing the Desktop from the Server edition, preferring remote administration and probably a GUI with just the command-line box open - like Server Core does. So it won't be of any use to me any longer when they do.
They either need to keep the servers up indefinitely, or release a patch that removes activation. Anything less is a repossession of a purchased product. The problem for them is that they won't want to run the activation servers forever, but if they were to release a patch that removed activation, XP market share would skyrocket. What they will likely need to do if they want to stay legit is to keep the activation servers up long enough that the bulk of modern software requires features not available in XP. Once that happens, they can un-DRM XP without having a huge influx of new users.
Problem with the "unDRM XP" step is that you then have to be able to get the patch - and that won't likely stay up for long, probaby less time than they keep up the servers if that's what they are going to do.
And this is nothing compared to what Vista/Win7/Server2008 require to keep operational - an active Internet connection that regularly (every 7 days) checks the activation status of the assigned license. (And yes, I've had Server 2008 de-activate itself because of missing the sufficient checks).
Yeah, and think about the math on this for Windows since XP. Let's say you bought a subscription for free upgrades when XP was released in 2001. That means you would have to pay the subscription for 4 years before you saw any benefit to the "free upgrades". At that point, you could upgrade to Windows Vista, which honestly you wouldn't want to. That means you'd be waiting another 4 years or so for Windows 7. So that's roughly 8 years of paying for a subscription, by which point you'd probably be in the market for a new computer that would come with the newest version of Windows anyway. That's a pretty crappy deal.
It was actually worse than that. There were 6 years between WinXP (2001) and Vista (2007). They were suppose to be providing updates at minimum every 3 years - which was true for Vista (2008) and Win7 (2009), and Win8 (2012). If they had tried the cycle with Vista instead of XP, then it probably would have had better success.
The primary case was the restart of development for what became Vista - they got 3 years into it and were nearing release only to discover they couldn't get any performance out of it, promptly scrapped it (thank Ozzie!), and restarted development with a focus on reducing header dependencies, cyclic dependencies, dependency levels, etc - the result was Vista and the quick turn around for Win7 and now Win8; over which time they've continued to refine the what they did for Vista. Performance and system stability has improved as a result - a natural consequence of remove kernel space dependencies on user space.
But honestly, what really worries me about subscription models is that it also kind of assumes there'll be some kind of DRM that will kick in and turn off your functioning software if you don't renew your subscription. The idea of my software having a kill switch rubs me the wrong way. And what happens to that software when Microsoft doesn't want to maintain the software and the DRM scheme? Most likely, you lose that software.
That's already been in Windows since WinXP's initial release, and Office (probably since Office 2007) when they started doing the Previews instead of MS Works. They refined the Windows version a little by not having it entirely disabling your computer if there is an isssue with the key validation - it just reduces what you can do. Oh, and Windows (at least) rechecks the key authorization every week (as of Vista/Win7/Server2008); so you better have an Internet connection.
I always had the impression that photographers and designers preferred Macs. Of course, this is also one of those applications where people will buy a computer to fit the application rather than the other way round, so Adobe can afford to do this.
Serious photographers don't use Windows; they use Mac. Same for Graphic Artists, Video Editors, etc. The Mac tools are just far superior to their Windows versions.
Of course, it doesn't help that Microsoft tried to court that industry back with WinNT4/2k; then completely botched it by not providing the same level of support that Apple and others in the industry did. So Microsoft has a pretty big black spot on their name when it comes to the A/V industry.
Some do - but they are by far the minority, and usually are forced to, and if given the chance to move to a Mac they typically would.
Why would business from XP to Windovs 7 (or Windows 8)? For that matter, why would non-gamer browsing and office only user do that? As long as they do not need some new Photoshop or other Windows 7 software, they have no need to update.
Businesses are not supposed to buy new stuff just because it is shiny, they are supposed to spend money only when it is effective. Home users can spend the same money on tons of other fun or useful things. Why new computer when the old one is just fine for what you do?
I came across one local computer business - they do webstuff, sell merchandise, and have a gamers area - that was in the midst of upgrading their computers from Win7 to Win8 because their Win7 licenses would automatically expire the day Win8 is officially released.
Sometimes, Microsoft just has their users over a hump...
> XP will be "around" but no longer supported after April, 2014, when Microsoft ends security updates for Windows XP.
Question for the/. crowd. Does anyone know if you can still activate XP *after* April, 2014?
i.e.
Let's say I change my hardware enough that XP thinks I need to re-register it. How long is Microsoft keeping XP activation around for?
TIA.
It'll work so long as MS keeps the servers up for it; but there's nothing official out about how long they'll keep those servers up, or located at some place that XP can find them. So yeah, installing XP after that date might be a PITA. I imagine they'll keep them up long enough though that the phone calls will drop to a neglible amount when they do turn it off.
So yes, there's a legitimate reason why people would prefer using MS Office to anything else. I can get away with LibreOffice but only because I don't require the same level of format comparability that she does.
The irony is, of course, that OpenOffice/LibreOffice are actually more compatible with the MS Office formats than MS Office is itself.
And often I have found myself using OpenOffice/LibreOffice to do some complex document work - even in the DOC format - just because it does it better (e.g. outlining support - MS Word has all kinds of issues when you try to do an outline as the styles, etc. get in the way; no issue whatsoever with OpenOffice/LibreOffice).
They say they're going to add new features, but I don't see how they can add $100 worth of new features every year. Heck, office 2004 still gets my jobs done. I don't see what features they could possibly have added over the last 8 years that would be worth $800.
Worse, if enough people go for this new scheme, then it lessens Microsoft's financial incentive to come up with meaningful upgrades. If you already own Office now, they can't get more money from you without convincing you that they have a new version that's substantially better. With a subscription model, they don't need a new version. You just have to keep paying every year even if they don't release a single new improvement.
So if you think Microsoft hasn't offered big improvements over the last 8 years, then what's going to happen when they make money regardless of whether they improve their product?
They already pissed off their Enterprise Windows Licenses due to that over the WinXP life cycle. When WinXP came out they changed their Volume Licensing program to be more of a subscription. 1/3 did not sign up; of the 2/3rds that did, 2/3rds did not renew because they saw no benefits over the 3 years period.
I'm not sure how MS expects to compete here. Every competitor in this field charges $0 for the OS. MS is selling ONLY an OS. I guess they expect hardware manufacturers to eat the cost? It would be a little intriguing if RT and Windows 8 were binary level compatible, but they're not - they just look similar.
...except for Android, which requires you to be a member of the Open Handset Alliance in order to use Android in advertising and any Google-branded apps or GooglePlay app store. Oh, and Google just threatened to boot Acer out of the alliance if Acer continues plans on making a dual-boot device with Aliyun OS.
Google is threatening Acer that way for violating Acer's agreement with Open Handset Alliance.
More than their engines. If you remember the Final Episode ("Unending") the Asgard in the Milky Way committed suicide to prevent their technology from falling into the hands of the Priors of the Ori.
Except they did it not do due to the Priors, but b/c their race was dying on its own.
That same community provides a faster response to changes in customer preferences communicated on social networks or via business analytics, and faster resolution of common system problems.
Bwahahaha... yes, that's why it takes Mozilla over 5 years to fix bugs in Thunderbird despite all the user complaints. I guess that's why they chose to "give it" to the community, because they can't be bothered to look after it themselves any more.
It depends. If an end-user complains about something that is merely a bug, then it may or may not get done. However, if it is a vulnerability then it typically get closed within 24 hours, with distributions releasing a fix within a week - compared to Microsoft which takes at least 30 days, assuming they even do something about it. (Microsoft still has a lot of old vulnerabilities that they are not doing anything about because no one has "used" the vulnerability yet.)
RISC chips allow the language compilers to perform complex tasks by combining instructions, rather than by selecting a single complex instruction that's "perfect" for the task.
Okay, they got this part right. But...
As it happens, compilers are more likely to get optimal performance with a number of RISC instructions than with a few big instructions that are over-generalized or don't do exactly what the compiler requires.
...they got that wrong. First, RISC instructions would be over-generalized, which CISC instructions are more specific to various tasks requiring more instructions in general. Now, a compiler may be able to optimize performance on a RISC processor in some situations with more instructions than a CISC processor could with its more complex instructions; but it will probably work out about even if not in favor of CISC for performance in general - 4 instructions that run in 4 cycles are always slower than 1 instructions that runs in few cycles, which is the difference between RISC and CISC.
RISC instructions are much more likely to run in a single processor cycle than complex ones. So, ARM ends up being several times more efficient than Intel."
Yes RISC instructions are more likely to run in a single processor cycle, but that instruction does less than the CISC instructions that may run in a couple instructions cycles.
For instance, on a RISC system you have to retrieve a value from memory (1 cycle), operator on it (1 cycle), and then store it back to memory (1 cycle) - so you have a minimum of 3 cycles. Comparatively some CISC instructions (e.g. IA32) can in the single instruction retrieve, operate, and store in the same instruction and may operate in up to the same number of cycles.
Now, here's the kicker - Intel chips are no longer pure CISC chips. At the normal programmer level writing Assembly or a higher level language it still uses the same interface. However, under the hood Intel chips convert a number of those CISC instructions to RISC instructions and then optimize it again. That's what their Micro-code code, and anything newer than a Pentium Pro does it.
Slashdot Mirror
So the problem would have been avoided, if Microsoft could sell that electricity again. They might have lost some money (or not, since residential rates are much higher) but wouldn't have to waste the whole thing.
In other countries you get the grid from the local power company but then can pick a provider. Funny enough that works only if there is a strong government organization in charge of "deregulating" the network monopoly. Kind of what the US tried with phone lines before the baby bells got rid of it again.
May be that's why Google got a license to buy/sell energy (See Google Energy)?
When I look back at the code I created in college, compared to what I was capable of after a few years of real world development experience... The difference is pretty stark. I understand the get-em-while-they're-young approach, to influence development decisions later in life. But if they're betting the success of their platform on the output of students with limited-to-no real world experience, I fear for the quality of the apps in their store.
Good point. Apple's AppStore generally has very good quality apps. The Google's PlayStore/Android MarketPlace has not; thus if you want to stand out on Android you really have to make a quality app - especially if you want to be paid for it. The same will be true for Microsoft's App Store (whatever they call it). Just stuffing it with apps won't make any difference.
I haven't noticed before, but MS offers free Visual Studio Express nowadays.. And Visual Studio coupled with XNA sure sounds better than how we had it back in the day. And with MSDN docs available and the whole internet to look and ask help from, it sure must be nice to be a kid learning programming in todays world.
They've had Visual Studio Express for a few years now. I think VS2005 or VS 2008 first had it - namely to try to keep people from moving to the GCC Suite on Windows I think. It's okay - the compiler can technically do anything the professional version can; but they set some arbitrary rules within the IDE itself to keep from making certain things - like plug-ins for VS, SCC providers, etc.
Particularly given that today, we have a plethora/bonanza of DEs & Window Managers - KDE, Razor-qt, GNOME, LXDE, XCFE, Unity, Cinnamon, Etoille, Awesome, Enlightenment, Window-Maker, ScrotWM, RatPoison and what have you. Why do we need FreeDesktop?
While I agree GNOME has departed, fd.o was the organizer to help ensure all those DEs and their applications could easily communicate together in a uniform manner. KDE is a very strong supporter of fd.o from what I can see, so I expect if they change something they will work with fd.o to get it adopted by fd.o.
Regardless, GNOME has apparently left the building for fd.o. So don't expect them to implement it.
I'm not holding my breath. The clueless devs haven't managed to make Akonadi/Nepomuk/Strigi/Activities optional since they appeared in KDE 4, so it'll never happen. Apparently Dirk Hohndel ripping them a new one at Desktop Summit had no effect.
You can turn Strigi/Nepomuk off in the KDE Configuration very easily. I have done so on one laptop that doesn't to too well with them turned on. I keep it on on others that do. I haven't had problems with Akonadi on any of the system.
Was stalled for a month during the buyout/hand-over from Nokia, now back on schedule with delay. Beta builds are available to users of discerning distros: http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/KDE:/Qt50/
They're prepping for Beta2.
Well, Wikipedia isn't much help here... Plain Old .NET Object. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PONO), but I doubt using .NET Objects would get him very far...
Well, I only have a 10'x10' now, but I had one position where I had a 20'x20' cubicle; one of my boss's offices while I had that was around 10'x20', another was 10'x15'. I even had my own dual 8' conference tables.
You have to compare: (1) Execution Costs + Prison Time Costs + Appellete Costs, to (2) Longer Prison Time Costs + Appellete Costs over the longer time period.
Don't think that just because someone doesn't get the death penalty that they will try to appeal less than those that are given the death penalty - in fact, they would have more time to do so by definition.
Your argument makes very little sense given that Western countries which have abolished the death penalty have lower murder rates. You would assume that, in the absence of a death penalty, people would go out and get justice themselves, through deadly force. But this is not the case.
Compared to who? Singapore?
I can't find the reference I am seeking...but Biblically capital punishment is provided for long before the Torah even (which wasn't for another 600+ years after the Flood). That said, there is also a reference (the one I couldn't quickly find) where it mentions being punished by man is better than being punished by God - that is, escaping punishment by man under the law leaves one to punishment directly by God. That is not to say in neither case may Forgiveness, Grace, and Mercy be applied - they very well may be; but that appropriate punishment must be wielded.
the PFOA's are not that much of a concern in PTFE coatings for cookware, that's not to say your bag of microwave popcorn is not out to get you with cancer and Alzheimer's or that the buildup in the environment is not worrisome, just use your pans safely and learn to eat popcorn without the bag and organ eating seasoning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid#Food_contact_surfaces
I much prefer having pans that do not have any non-stick coatings on them simply because teflon and other non-stick coatings greatly reduce the lifespan of the cookware, as well as what you can use on it to clean it. For example, we're still using my grandmothers pans and my mom's pans; yet the non-stick pans my sister had in the late 1990s have to all be replaced due to the non-stick materials flaking off - especially prevalent in mashed potatoes.
If people are too lazy to extract the contents of a can into a pan, there are other issues to consider than just what lines a can.
But as I keep getting modded down when I talk about personal responsibility in healthcare, I guess that goes out the window as well when talking about safely handling food.
Is that pan a non-stick pan? Or one without any kinds of non-stick coating?
> And this is nothing compared to what Vista/Win7/Server2008 require to keep operational - an active Internet connection that regularly (every 7 days) checks the activation status of the assigned license. (And yes, I've had Server 2008 de-activate itself because of missing the sufficient checks).
Now *that* is total bullshit. "You have added more RAM. Please authorize your computer with MS so you can continue to use it." When will people get fed up with this licensed not owned crap.
One of the nice things about OSX is that it doesn't have any of this DRM crap.
Not enough people run across it to make people aware of it. I ran into it because our systems are delivered typically without Internet access; so after a month being off, it tried to recheck its status and it couldn't. Microsoft's solution? Use your Volume License - except we don't have one.
On the other hand, Microsoft is kind of helping themselves out of my way. We put the Server version on as it better meets the user's needs even though we really use the system as a desktop. However, Microsoft has already announced they will be removing the Desktop from the Server edition, preferring remote administration and probably a GUI with just the command-line box open - like Server Core does. So it won't be of any use to me any longer when they do.
They either need to keep the servers up indefinitely, or release a patch that removes activation. Anything less is a repossession of a purchased product. The problem for them is that they won't want to run the activation servers forever, but if they were to release a patch that removed activation, XP market share would skyrocket. What they will likely need to do if they want to stay legit is to keep the activation servers up long enough that the bulk of modern software requires features not available in XP. Once that happens, they can un-DRM XP without having a huge influx of new users.
Problem with the "unDRM XP" step is that you then have to be able to get the patch - and that won't likely stay up for long, probaby less time than they keep up the servers if that's what they are going to do.
And this is nothing compared to what Vista/Win7/Server2008 require to keep operational - an active Internet connection that regularly (every 7 days) checks the activation status of the assigned license. (And yes, I've had Server 2008 de-activate itself because of missing the sufficient checks).
Yeah, and think about the math on this for Windows since XP. Let's say you bought a subscription for free upgrades when XP was released in 2001. That means you would have to pay the subscription for 4 years before you saw any benefit to the "free upgrades". At that point, you could upgrade to Windows Vista, which honestly you wouldn't want to. That means you'd be waiting another 4 years or so for Windows 7. So that's roughly 8 years of paying for a subscription, by which point you'd probably be in the market for a new computer that would come with the newest version of Windows anyway. That's a pretty crappy deal.
It was actually worse than that. There were 6 years between WinXP (2001) and Vista (2007). They were suppose to be providing updates at minimum every 3 years - which was true for Vista (2008) and Win7 (2009), and Win8 (2012). If they had tried the cycle with Vista instead of XP, then it probably would have had better success.
The primary case was the restart of development for what became Vista - they got 3 years into it and were nearing release only to discover they couldn't get any performance out of it, promptly scrapped it (thank Ozzie!), and restarted development with a focus on reducing header dependencies, cyclic dependencies, dependency levels, etc - the result was Vista and the quick turn around for Win7 and now Win8; over which time they've continued to refine the what they did for Vista. Performance and system stability has improved as a result - a natural consequence of remove kernel space dependencies on user space.
But honestly, what really worries me about subscription models is that it also kind of assumes there'll be some kind of DRM that will kick in and turn off your functioning software if you don't renew your subscription. The idea of my software having a kill switch rubs me the wrong way. And what happens to that software when Microsoft doesn't want to maintain the software and the DRM scheme? Most likely, you lose that software.
That's already been in Windows since WinXP's initial release, and Office (probably since Office 2007) when they started doing the Previews instead of MS Works. They refined the Windows version a little by not having it entirely disabling your computer if there is an isssue with the key validation - it just reduces what you can do. Oh, and Windows (at least) rechecks the key authorization every week (as of Vista/Win7/Server2008); so you better have an Internet connection.
I always had the impression that photographers and designers preferred Macs. Of course, this is also one of those applications where people will buy a computer to fit the application rather than the other way round, so Adobe can afford to do this.
Serious photographers don't use Windows; they use Mac. Same for Graphic Artists, Video Editors, etc. The Mac tools are just far superior to their Windows versions.
Of course, it doesn't help that Microsoft tried to court that industry back with WinNT4/2k; then completely botched it by not providing the same level of support that Apple and others in the industry did. So Microsoft has a pretty big black spot on their name when it comes to the A/V industry.
Some do - but they are by far the minority, and usually are forced to, and if given the chance to move to a Mac they typically would.
Why would business from XP to Windovs 7 (or Windows 8)? For that matter, why would non-gamer browsing and office only user do that? As long as they do not need some new Photoshop or other Windows 7 software, they have no need to update.
Businesses are not supposed to buy new stuff just because it is shiny, they are supposed to spend money only when it is effective. Home users can spend the same money on tons of other fun or useful things. Why new computer when the old one is just fine for what you do?
I came across one local computer business - they do webstuff, sell merchandise, and have a gamers area - that was in the midst of upgrading their computers from Win7 to Win8 because their Win7 licenses would automatically expire the day Win8 is officially released.
Sometimes, Microsoft just has their users over a hump...
> XP will be "around" but no longer supported after April, 2014, when Microsoft ends security updates for Windows XP.
Question for the /. crowd. Does anyone know if you can still activate XP *after* April, 2014?
i.e. Let's say I change my hardware enough that XP thinks I need to re-register it. How long is Microsoft keeping XP activation around for?
TIA.
It'll work so long as MS keeps the servers up for it; but there's nothing official out about how long they'll keep those servers up, or located at some place that XP can find them. So yeah, installing XP after that date might be a PITA. I imagine they'll keep them up long enough though that the phone calls will drop to a neglible amount when they do turn it off.
So yes, there's a legitimate reason why people would prefer using MS Office to anything else. I can get away with LibreOffice but only because I don't require the same level of format comparability that she does.
The irony is, of course, that OpenOffice/LibreOffice are actually more compatible with the MS Office formats than MS Office is itself.
And often I have found myself using OpenOffice/LibreOffice to do some complex document work - even in the DOC format - just because it does it better (e.g. outlining support - MS Word has all kinds of issues when you try to do an outline as the styles, etc. get in the way; no issue whatsoever with OpenOffice/LibreOffice).
They say they're going to add new features, but I don't see how they can add $100 worth of new features every year. Heck, office 2004 still gets my jobs done. I don't see what features they could possibly have added over the last 8 years that would be worth $800.
Worse, if enough people go for this new scheme, then it lessens Microsoft's financial incentive to come up with meaningful upgrades. If you already own Office now, they can't get more money from you without convincing you that they have a new version that's substantially better. With a subscription model, they don't need a new version. You just have to keep paying every year even if they don't release a single new improvement.
So if you think Microsoft hasn't offered big improvements over the last 8 years, then what's going to happen when they make money regardless of whether they improve their product?
They already pissed off their Enterprise Windows Licenses due to that over the WinXP life cycle. When WinXP came out they changed their Volume Licensing program to be more of a subscription. 1/3 did not sign up; of the 2/3rds that did, 2/3rds did not renew because they saw no benefits over the 3 years period.
What do you call something that smashes things together but doesn't exist?
Obama's budget and foreign policy?
I'm not sure how MS expects to compete here. Every competitor in this field charges $0 for the OS. MS is selling ONLY an OS. I guess they expect hardware manufacturers to eat the cost? It would be a little intriguing if RT and Windows 8 were binary level compatible, but they're not - they just look similar.
...except for Android, which requires you to be a member of the Open Handset Alliance in order to use Android in advertising and any Google-branded apps or GooglePlay app store. Oh, and Google just threatened to boot Acer out of the alliance if Acer continues plans on making a dual-boot device with Aliyun OS.
Google is threatening Acer that way for violating Acer's agreement with Open Handset Alliance.
More than their engines. If you remember the Final Episode ("Unending") the Asgard in the Milky Way committed suicide to prevent their technology from falling into the hands of the Priors of the Ori.
Except they did it not do due to the Priors, but b/c their race was dying on its own.
That same community provides a faster response to changes in customer preferences communicated on social networks or via business analytics, and faster resolution of common system problems.
Bwahahaha... yes, that's why it takes Mozilla over 5 years to fix bugs in Thunderbird despite all the user complaints. I guess that's why they chose to "give it" to the community, because they can't be bothered to look after it themselves any more.
It depends. If an end-user complains about something that is merely a bug, then it may or may not get done. However, if it is a vulnerability then it typically get closed within 24 hours, with distributions releasing a fix within a week - compared to Microsoft which takes at least 30 days, assuming they even do something about it. (Microsoft still has a lot of old vulnerabilities that they are not doing anything about because no one has "used" the vulnerability yet.)
RISC chips allow the language compilers to perform complex tasks by combining instructions, rather than by selecting a single complex instruction that's "perfect" for the task.
Okay, they got this part right. But...
As it happens, compilers are more likely to get optimal performance with a number of RISC instructions than with a few big instructions that are over-generalized or don't do exactly what the compiler requires.
...they got that wrong. First, RISC instructions would be over-generalized, which CISC instructions are more specific to various tasks requiring more instructions in general. Now, a compiler may be able to optimize performance on a RISC processor in some situations with more instructions than a CISC processor could with its more complex instructions; but it will probably work out about even if not in favor of CISC for performance in general - 4 instructions that run in 4 cycles are always slower than 1 instructions that runs in few cycles, which is the difference between RISC and CISC.
RISC instructions are much more likely to run in a single processor cycle than complex ones. So, ARM ends up being several times more efficient than Intel."
Yes RISC instructions are more likely to run in a single processor cycle, but that instruction does less than the CISC instructions that may run in a couple instructions cycles.
For instance, on a RISC system you have to retrieve a value from memory (1 cycle), operator on it (1 cycle), and then store it back to memory (1 cycle) - so you have a minimum of 3 cycles. Comparatively some CISC instructions (e.g. IA32) can in the single instruction retrieve, operate, and store in the same instruction and may operate in up to the same number of cycles.
Now, here's the kicker - Intel chips are no longer pure CISC chips. At the normal programmer level writing Assembly or a higher level language it still uses the same interface. However, under the hood Intel chips convert a number of those CISC instructions to RISC instructions and then optimize it again. That's what their Micro-code code, and anything newer than a Pentium Pro does it.