Microsoft's long history of never releasing an operating system trimmer and faster than the previous. And please don't say Window 7. Windows Vista was a obese monster they tried to use to replace Windows XP and failed. Windows 7 fixed that but is still bigger and slower than Windows XP. The other thing which tells me Windows 8 will be your typical hardware heavy OS is because you don't hear anyone with even dual core ARM SoC's talking about them and Windows 8. Nope, just the quad core versions due out late this year and early next year and right in line with Windows 8 on ARM.
as for the app model it doesn't matter if iOS and Android do it better for battery powered devices. The face is that is what Microsoft has to beat and what users expect. Palm devices had 1-4 months on a battery set and Windows CE couldn't go a full day. Lots of people got fooled by the pretty display and music and video player but when it came to usage, they failed. I know people still using PalmOS powered devices but know none who still use a Windows CE based device.
Besides, Microsoft let Apple and Google/Android get too far into the market and establish a usage pattern they can't meet or beat and they can't leverage the Windows desktop market to win this one. Tough hill to climb they do. IMO
and weight, battery life, and cost had nothing to do with those previous failures? Leaving these things out makes the article look like a directed article by Microsoft because they can only hope people get interested because of the new UI since all those other issues still exist. Just look at all the latest PR on new ARM chips and how they are mentioning Windows 8 when they talk about their multi-core products. Windows is a bloated beast and has no place on battery powered devices no matter what color paint you put on it. Thinking lipstick on a pig picture here.
have you noticed ARM SoC vendors talking about their new multi-core chips and how they include "Windows" in their press releases when they talk about their usage? That's right, Windows is still bloated and will require lots of CPU power to run so they are all rushing to get some of the money Microsoft will pay them to make chips to float that tank.
The problem is right in front of the article authors face but is missed. Windows is bloated and requires extra hardware and extra battery and therefore extra weight. From Windows for Pen Computing to the XP versions Bill Gates claimed were the future they all required bulky hardware and has short battery life. Today, the iPad, Android devices and ebook readers all have very good battery life _and_ are light weight and small/thin so they are easily portable. With Windows 8 still requiring much more hardware and battery power than existing OS's how does this tank float when it has sunk over and over previously? And a different user interface does not solve that problem even if it gives them a marketing gimmick to once again claim the "ground up rewrite". IMO
but you forgot that Microsoft marketing has won the day and these idiots are running Windows. It's so screwed up that they have to run a single service on a single box and OS and on top of that they have a duplicate for redundancy so they can get acceptable up times. Just look at how many times you've had to reboot Windows to add software and holy crap I'm talking about applications requiring reboots.
Virtual machines are like anti virus software and are just patches to help keep the jobs of those who keep picking Microsoft. IMO
I too wondered what all the big deal was with virtual machines when they first showed up on PC years ago and thought the same thing. Isn't this what the OS is supposed to be doing...
but I remember a day when the corporate OS was capable of running finance, engineering, sales, and shipping all on the same box and with up times you could easily live with. Then along came Windows and it was like freak'n Tribbles because the OS failed so much they where putting one service on one box/OS. I've already seen virtualization getting praised at Windows shops because of how much hardware it can save. A side benefit is that now they can throw in a LAMP stack without asking and save some bucks because budgets are tight.
buy Apple iPhones and iPads. Didn't you know they can do fucking anything?;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FL7yD-0pqZg
Sorry but that mentality is what popped up. HP seemed like the last of the companies which really engineered their hardware.
So I guess the this really is the post-PC era and HP knows this too. DId you notice nobody in the press wants to even mention this as to why HP is jumping ship?
exactly and do you remember the NetworkPC that Oracle and Sun were pushing 10 years ago? The PC media rags were all claiming how limited they were and how they were a throwback to the mainframe years. And they were constantly claiming how fragile "the network" was so when the network went down nobody could do any work.
It's all mostly bullshit and the media is publishing crap and mostly just reposting polished releases provided by their advertisers. So people find uses for tablets, that's good unless you think what Microsoft provides is the _only_ solution.
I used to work off UNIX mini's and at companies with one or two UNIX mini's running the whole show. I could not believe companies were falling for replacing UNIX with Windows NT and how they kept falling down the hole when they learned Windows could not get even close to the uptime of the UNIX machines. And when they started splitting out all the services onto individual Windows NT boxes to help AND THEN doubling those for redundancy, holy bat shit what a mess that was. Here we had applications taking down the OS and people/managers accepted this. But the press kept pushing Microsoft's stories of how great those PC servers were and it wasn't until commodity virtual machine software came out to save the day do they even get close to what they had 20 years before.
The media still sucks and publishes crap like the current story and for some reason very few remember the history which shows their bias and flaws.
But Microsoft was right about something, they've created a ecosystem around their products which move billions of dollars around annually. Cash for Clunkers was a better plan but keeping Microsoft software running is another way to spend it too. IMO
and come on, why was it that businesses _had_ to lock down Windows PCs in the first place? Hint, it had to do with reliability and a frail OS. And don't even get me started on how new employees were "trained" to use the computer. If you only knew how the people I've heard called guru's learned to use a spreadsheet or other app you'd ask 'and why were they called guru's?'.
Sounds like someone likes his PC just a little too much and doesn't want to get left behind or have to learn a new trick.
A big WTF came out when I read that line too. then I figured it out. Given that this guy is a/the "GNOME 3 Designer" and he does not know the difference between Ubuntu and KDE, this explains why GNOME 3 sucks so badly.
FYI, Google makes billions off selling ads and they sell ads with Android using Google apps and lots of free apps paid for with ad banners. Now that some clue has been established by protecting Android from Microsoft they are therefore protecting their ad revenue and therefore do not have to use the patents offensively because they make money by not letting Microsoft and Apple shut down Android and all that Google ad revenue.
They could use the patents offensively but there's no proof or obvious reason for them to do so.
but you have to have someone at the charity who can answer questions about getting the internet connected(via modem, wireless, or wired ) and a few other basic questions. I would install an "admin" account but keep the passwd at the charity and maybe even partition it and put a block copy of the original installation on that partition just in case it's needed. You might need to help with a printer, iPod, or camera too. These kinds of things they could ask a neighbor, family or friend about if it were Windows but until GNU/Linux usage spreads more, those handing out the computer need to be the go-to people for support.
don't forget to ask yourself where are these kids who can't afford a computer going to get the money for computer games and, heaven forbid they want to learn more and more, going to get the money for not only this other software(including games) but also the anti-virus software to keep the machines from being just another zombie in a botnet?
I say, the charity should set up a small group of volunteers( high school students?) and get them up on Ubuntu or other and use them as the training and support group. Maybe contact your local GNU/Linux or OSS special interest group or club for help to train this initial group. Remember, the software is all free and once you have a small group of "trainers" some of the very students they train could help work at the charity on the project building the computers and eventually becoming trainers and support staff too.
training and support for the little things like internet connections or even installing software. The Microsoft Windows ecosystem is somewhat self supporting with so many _"experts"_ all over the place willing to show the completely clueless what things to click on.
So, if the charity has a small base of volunteers and they could be trained on the basics and some were willing to learn more, something like Ubuntu would be perfect. The charity could use LTSP to set up a multi-seat training room or labs and if they were REALLY into it, all the installed systems could have their software update system set to the charities server for updates but not really needed unless there were lots of customization.
Without the basic training, the charity would get calls like "where is the D drive when I put my CD in?". But with Edubuntu and the KDE education packages along with others I think a Kubuntu installation would be a very good solution. And unlike a Windows system, they would not be taught to pirate proprietary software because they can't afford it, they would be taught to look for and try out different free solutions and can do so from the 10s of thousands of free software packages out there.
I was wondering the same thing. Google makes most all their money from search but from the brief it does not look like the author thinks that's a big deal. Besides, why does it look like you can replace "Google" with Microsoft and it would read like it was written in 1994 or any period after that?
stupid ass comparison IMO. Windows is the monopoly and IE was forced on computer hardware vendors to include that with the operating system. There is no comparison with users making the choice to use Google search and the free/OSS Android version( minus Google apps and app store ).
right, it was Apple and Microsoft and a few others who joined and bid on the Nortel patents. But I'll say it again, Google is being sued by Apple and Microsoft and Oracle based on the patent portfolios they all already own. Google had no portfolio and therefore could not fight these companies without a decades worth of lawyers and court appearances and lots of FUD chasing their customers away( SCO anyone? ). Getting patents with any of the group who are suing you does not help you fight them since the only way to fight them is to have patents you can counter sue with. THAT is how the patent game works these days.
And they are being "sore losers" because the game sucks and even with their cash they are still being blocked from getting the protection they need from these thugs. Hopefully the IBM patent purchase is the rabbit in the hat Google needs to turn these companies back.
"gone along with the program"? Did you see that they recently purchased over 1,000 patents from IBM? It sure looks to me like they are still going along with the program while at the same time lighting up the obvious sign stating how costly and pathetic the patent system is and how Microsoft, Apple, and Oracle are cohorts in purchasing the NT patents to block Google from having something to fight them with.
And you do not "go with the program" when those running that program want you out of business. Microsoft does not want money from Google for licensing they want them gone. Google is a threat to the Windows monopoly and that is the ONLY place Microsoft makes money. It funds BING, XBox, Windows CE/PocketPC/Mobile/Phone/whatever. There is no going along with their program. IMO
exactly, the NT patent purchase was about protecting themselves from the current and ongoing patent cases against them which is causing them to take their eyes off the "innovation" ball. They are relatively new to the game, hence their lack of patent fillings and they feel this is bad for business and bad for customers. Kind of obvious to those in the field but guess what, lots of people have no clue how these patent cases have cost companies and stalled new products over the years.
And I don't think it took much effort to put out that press release. I trust they know how to multi-task quite well enough to put this kind of statement out while continuing making software updates and running their business.
Microsoft already has enough patents to take companies to court and tie them up for years and they are already doing at. They do not need more patents since it's only icing on the cake. Google, with next to no patents has no way to defend itself and if you think that playing it out in court is how it is to be fought the you're too naive to even continue. Get to know the SCO vs IBM/Linux case and how that played out. It took almost 10 years! I think Wang vs Microsoft was another ~10yr battle in courts.
Google joining Microsoft and the others for those patents would have eliminated any value to Google for the patents since they could only give Google a means to protect themselves from those same companies bidding against them.
So what value to Google would there be if they joined Microsoft and the others for patents which could have no value in the existing court cases they have all filed against Google? Please explain this.
they are just stating the obvious( to some ) and not whining. These kinds of statements have been getting thrown around for well over 10 years and close to 20 years. I myself said that patent attacks will be Microsoft's last effort to protect its monopoly and that was in the late '90s. This is not a new concept and only now is it finally getting the attention of the general public but unfortunately, the general public only knows what press releases say and completely miss most of what's going on.
yes, Google had a limited weapon when they lost the NT patent portfolio. But did you hear they purchased over 1000 patents from IBM? If IBM is playing to help protect Google, those patents could be the 50 cal round with a precise targeting system to shut Microsoft, Apple, and possibly Oracle down.
And I would rather Google not get into the business of directing government policy. That is a slippery slope which most of the time ends up getting really slimy if you know what I mean.
Microsoft already has enough patents to sue Google and does not need more. If you think Google is worried Microsoft and the others will use the new patents to file new cases then you don't understand the idea of owning patent portfolios.
OMG, insightful? Come on people, it's not that difficult to understand this. Patents are the weapon being used to attack Google and Google doesn't have much of it. You do not fight off those attacking you if you agree to share a weapons cache with them. It's not that difficult.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's long history of never releasing an operating system trimmer and faster than the previous. And please don't say Window 7. Windows Vista was a obese monster they tried to use to replace Windows XP and failed. Windows 7 fixed that but is still bigger and slower than Windows XP. The other thing which tells me Windows 8 will be your typical hardware heavy OS is because you don't hear anyone with even dual core ARM SoC's talking about them and Windows 8. Nope, just the quad core versions due out late this year and early next year and right in line with Windows 8 on ARM.
as for the app model it doesn't matter if iOS and Android do it better for battery powered devices. The face is that is what Microsoft has to beat and what users expect. Palm devices had 1-4 months on a battery set and Windows CE couldn't go a full day. Lots of people got fooled by the pretty display and music and video player but when it came to usage, they failed. I know people still using PalmOS powered devices but know none who still use a Windows CE based device.
Besides, Microsoft let Apple and Google/Android get too far into the market and establish a usage pattern they can't meet or beat and they can't leverage the Windows desktop market to win this one. Tough hill to climb they do. IMO
LoB
so you're posting using a toy?
LoB
and weight, battery life, and cost had nothing to do with those previous failures? Leaving these things out makes the article look like a directed article by Microsoft because they can only hope people get interested because of the new UI since all those other issues still exist. Just look at all the latest PR on new ARM chips and how they are mentioning Windows 8 when they talk about their multi-core products. Windows is a bloated beast and has no place on battery powered devices no matter what color paint you put on it. Thinking lipstick on a pig picture here.
LoB
have you noticed ARM SoC vendors talking about their new multi-core chips and how they include "Windows" in their press releases when they talk about their usage? That's right, Windows is still bloated and will require lots of CPU power to run so they are all rushing to get some of the money Microsoft will pay them to make chips to float that tank.
The problem is right in front of the article authors face but is missed. Windows is bloated and requires extra hardware and extra battery and therefore extra weight. From Windows for Pen Computing to the XP versions Bill Gates claimed were the future they all required bulky hardware and has short battery life. Today, the iPad, Android devices and ebook readers all have very good battery life _and_ are light weight and small/thin so they are easily portable. With Windows 8 still requiring much more hardware and battery power than existing OS's how does this tank float when it has sunk over and over previously? And a different user interface does not solve that problem even if it gives them a marketing gimmick to once again claim the "ground up rewrite". IMO
LoB
but you forgot that Microsoft marketing has won the day and these idiots are running Windows. It's so screwed up that they have to run a single service on a single box and OS and on top of that they have a duplicate for redundancy so they can get acceptable up times. Just look at how many times you've had to reboot Windows to add software and holy crap I'm talking about applications requiring reboots.
Virtual machines are like anti virus software and are just patches to help keep the jobs of those who keep picking Microsoft. IMO
I too wondered what all the big deal was with virtual machines when they first showed up on PC years ago and thought the same thing. Isn't this what the OS is supposed to be doing...
LoB
but I remember a day when the corporate OS was capable of running finance, engineering, sales, and shipping all on the same box and with up times you could easily live with. Then along came Windows and it was like freak'n Tribbles because the OS failed so much they where putting one service on one box/OS. I've already seen virtualization getting praised at Windows shops because of how much hardware it can save. A side benefit is that now they can throw in a LAMP stack without asking and save some bucks because budgets are tight.
LoB
buy Apple iPhones and iPads. Didn't you know they can do fucking anything? ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FL7yD-0pqZg
Sorry but that mentality is what popped up. HP seemed like the last of the companies which really engineered their hardware.
So I guess the this really is the post-PC era and HP knows this too. DId you notice nobody in the press wants to even mention this as to why HP is jumping ship?
LoB
exactly and do you remember the NetworkPC that Oracle and Sun were pushing 10 years ago? The PC media rags were all claiming how limited they were and how they were a throwback to the mainframe years. And they were constantly claiming how fragile "the network" was so when the network went down nobody could do any work.
It's all mostly bullshit and the media is publishing crap and mostly just reposting polished releases provided by their advertisers. So people find uses for tablets, that's good unless you think what Microsoft provides is the _only_ solution.
I used to work off UNIX mini's and at companies with one or two UNIX mini's running the whole show. I could not believe companies were falling for replacing UNIX with Windows NT and how they kept falling down the hole when they learned Windows could not get even close to the uptime of the UNIX machines. And when they started splitting out all the services onto individual Windows NT boxes to help AND THEN doubling those for redundancy, holy bat shit what a mess that was. Here we had applications taking down the OS and people/managers accepted this. But the press kept pushing Microsoft's stories of how great those PC servers were and it wasn't until commodity virtual machine software came out to save the day do they even get close to what they had 20 years before.
The media still sucks and publishes crap like the current story and for some reason very few remember the history which shows their bias and flaws.
But Microsoft was right about something, they've created a ecosystem around their products which move billions of dollars around annually. Cash for Clunkers was a better plan but keeping Microsoft software running is another way to spend it too. IMO
LoB
and come on, why was it that businesses _had_ to lock down Windows PCs in the first place? Hint, it had to do with reliability and a frail OS. And don't even get me started on how new employees were "trained" to use the computer. If you only knew how the people I've heard called guru's learned to use a spreadsheet or other app you'd ask 'and why were they called guru's?'.
Sounds like someone likes his PC just a little too much and doesn't want to get left behind or have to learn a new trick.
LoB
don't you mean Maemo or Meego tablets because they are closer to a full GNU/Linux distribution as opposed to the Android stack on the Linux kernel?
LoB
A big WTF came out when I read that line too. then I figured it out. Given that this guy is a/the "GNOME 3 Designer" and he does not know the difference between Ubuntu and KDE, this explains why GNOME 3 sucks so badly.
LoB
FYI, Google makes billions off selling ads and they sell ads with Android using Google apps and lots of free apps paid for with ad banners. Now that some clue has been established by protecting Android from Microsoft they are therefore protecting their ad revenue and therefore do not have to use the patents offensively because they make money by not letting Microsoft and Apple shut down Android and all that Google ad revenue.
They could use the patents offensively but there's no proof or obvious reason for them to do so.
LoB
but you have to have someone at the charity who can answer questions about getting the internet connected(via modem, wireless, or wired ) and a few other basic questions. I would install an "admin" account but keep the passwd at the charity and maybe even partition it and put a block copy of the original installation on that partition just in case it's needed. You might need to help with a printer, iPod, or camera too. These kinds of things they could ask a neighbor, family or friend about if it were Windows but until GNU/Linux usage spreads more, those handing out the computer need to be the go-to people for support.
LoB
don't forget to ask yourself where are these kids who can't afford a computer going to get the money for computer games and, heaven forbid they want to learn more and more, going to get the money for not only this other software(including games) but also the anti-virus software to keep the machines from being just another zombie in a botnet?
I say, the charity should set up a small group of volunteers( high school students?) and get them up on Ubuntu or other and use them as the training and support group. Maybe contact your local GNU/Linux or OSS special interest group or club for help to train this initial group. Remember, the software is all free and once you have a small group of "trainers" some of the very students they train could help work at the charity on the project building the computers and eventually becoming trainers and support staff too.
LoB
training and support for the little things like internet connections or even installing software. The Microsoft Windows ecosystem is somewhat self supporting with so many _"experts"_ all over the place willing to show the completely clueless what things to click on.
So, if the charity has a small base of volunteers and they could be trained on the basics and some were willing to learn more, something like Ubuntu would be perfect. The charity could use LTSP to set up a multi-seat training room or labs and if they were REALLY into it, all the installed systems could have their software update system set to the charities server for updates but not really needed unless there were lots of customization.
Without the basic training, the charity would get calls like "where is the D drive when I put my CD in?". But with Edubuntu and the KDE education packages along with others I think a Kubuntu installation would be a very good solution. And unlike a Windows system, they would not be taught to pirate proprietary software because they can't afford it, they would be taught to look for and try out different free solutions and can do so from the 10s of thousands of free software packages out there.
LoB
I was wondering the same thing. Google makes most all their money from search but from the brief it does not look like the author thinks that's a big deal. Besides, why does it look like you can replace "Google" with Microsoft and it would read like it was written in 1994 or any period after that?
LoB
stupid ass comparison IMO. Windows is the monopoly and IE was forced on computer hardware vendors to include that with the operating system. There is no comparison with users making the choice to use Google search and the free/OSS Android version( minus Google apps and app store ).
LoB
right, it was Apple and Microsoft and a few others who joined and bid on the Nortel patents. But I'll say it again, Google is being sued by Apple and Microsoft and Oracle based on the patent portfolios they all already own. Google had no portfolio and therefore could not fight these companies without a decades worth of lawyers and court appearances and lots of FUD chasing their customers away( SCO anyone? ). Getting patents with any of the group who are suing you does not help you fight them since the only way to fight them is to have patents you can counter sue with. THAT is how the patent game works these days.
And they are being "sore losers" because the game sucks and even with their cash they are still being blocked from getting the protection they need from these thugs. Hopefully the IBM patent purchase is the rabbit in the hat Google needs to turn these companies back.
LoB
dude, Google is already being sued so exactly how can different patents protect them from patents the others already hold? come on.
LoB
"gone along with the program"? Did you see that they recently purchased over 1,000 patents from IBM? It sure looks to me like they are still going along with the program while at the same time lighting up the obvious sign stating how costly and pathetic the patent system is and how Microsoft, Apple, and Oracle are cohorts in purchasing the NT patents to block Google from having something to fight them with.
And you do not "go with the program" when those running that program want you out of business. Microsoft does not want money from Google for licensing they want them gone. Google is a threat to the Windows monopoly and that is the ONLY place Microsoft makes money. It funds BING, XBox, Windows CE/PocketPC/Mobile/Phone/whatever. There is no going along with their program. IMO
LoB
exactly, the NT patent purchase was about protecting themselves from the current and ongoing patent cases against them which is causing them to take their eyes off the "innovation" ball. They are relatively new to the game, hence their lack of patent fillings and they feel this is bad for business and bad for customers. Kind of obvious to those in the field but guess what, lots of people have no clue how these patent cases have cost companies and stalled new products over the years.
And I don't think it took much effort to put out that press release. I trust they know how to multi-task quite well enough to put this kind of statement out while continuing making software updates and running their business.
LoB
Microsoft already has enough patents to take companies to court and tie them up for years and they are already doing at. They do not need more patents since it's only icing on the cake. Google, with next to no patents has no way to defend itself and if you think that playing it out in court is how it is to be fought the you're too naive to even continue. Get to know the SCO vs IBM/Linux case and how that played out. It took almost 10 years! I think Wang vs Microsoft was another ~10yr battle in courts.
Google joining Microsoft and the others for those patents would have eliminated any value to Google for the patents since they could only give Google a means to protect themselves from those same companies bidding against them.
So what value to Google would there be if they joined Microsoft and the others for patents which could have no value in the existing court cases they have all filed against Google? Please explain this.
LoB
they are just stating the obvious( to some ) and not whining. These kinds of statements have been getting thrown around for well over 10 years and close to 20 years. I myself said that patent attacks will be Microsoft's last effort to protect its monopoly and that was in the late '90s. This is not a new concept and only now is it finally getting the attention of the general public but unfortunately, the general public only knows what press releases say and completely miss most of what's going on.
yes, Google had a limited weapon when they lost the NT patent portfolio. But did you hear they purchased over 1000 patents from IBM? If IBM is playing to help protect Google, those patents could be the 50 cal round with a precise targeting system to shut Microsoft, Apple, and possibly Oracle down.
And I would rather Google not get into the business of directing government policy. That is a slippery slope which most of the time ends up getting really slimy if you know what I mean.
LoB
Microsoft already has enough patents to sue Google and does not need more. If you think Google is worried Microsoft and the others will use the new patents to file new cases then you don't understand the idea of owning patent portfolios.
LoB
OMG, insightful? Come on people, it's not that difficult to understand this. Patents are the weapon being used to attack Google and Google doesn't have much of it. You do not fight off those attacking you if you agree to share a weapons cache with them. It's not that difficult.
LoB