Lots of MS fanboys like to say competition is good when rooting for Windows Phone 7/8.
Yes, I think competition in general is good.
What about competition in the Desktop OS space? Would those MS fanboys applaud if Windows dropped to 50% market share because competition is good?
Let's see... I mentioned I have a Galaxy S3 in my original post, and I'm writing this on a MacBook Pro, so I'm clearly an MS fanboy and would would be mortified if Windows dropped to 50% marketshare./sarcasm
That said, I don't care for the direction apple is going, and I wouldn't applaud Apple becoming the dominant desktop OS, but I think their recent resurgence over the last decade has been good for the industry.
I'd also be happy to see linux take a larger share of the desktop market, at the expense of microsoft.
She's had lots of time to play with my Galaxy S3 which she likes, and also demoed an older Motorola droid of some sort on gingerbread which she thought was really klutzy.
Unlimited healthcare isn't only not a right, it is impossible.
Good thing nobody (but you) has suggested the government provide "unlimited healthcare".
Redistribution is not only the opposite of fairness,
Some worked hard for their wealth it, others didn't work for it at all, some who have worked very hard never got anywhere, others have squandered their inherited wealth stupidly and yet still have more wealth than most.
What exactly is so noble and fair about this?
Its absurd to make a fairness argument about wealth redistribution when there is nothing remotely fair about "unredistributed wealth" either.
At this point in a first world country its an essential convenience to have at least reasonable access to a phone. But sure, if you wish to be pedantic, its not essential to life.
So what?
So stop complaining when an fringe extreme luxury is limited or unavailable or more expensive than you want to pay.
If the theoretical average consumption is an adequate restriction, as stated, "[...] I doubt the average user would be able to exceed that cap in under 24hrs even if they tried [...]"
First, there a few things that need to be clarified; please see my other responses in this thread, as it's been pointed out that this is for a home internet plan, not a mobile plan. (Although why the OP felt the need to rant about a home plan in an article about 4G data is beyond me.)
But I think the direct answer to your question is that without restraints there are a group of users who will consume as much as they can possibly consume all month, every month. I'm really not all that interested in subsidizing their terabytes of bandwidth. If they really need to transfer 20 TB of traffic a month, they can pay for it themselves.
To your comment about occasionally hitting the cap, I'd say companies are getting more responsive to that need. On the mobile side in particular there are frequently "flex plans" that auto scale your plan to what you use; and they are implementing usage trackers and usage notifications as you hit 75% of the cap etc, so you have the tools and information to manage your usage, and choose the right plan.
My wife got a couple weeks to demo a spare lumia 800 they had at work this week, and likes it enough to be seriously thinking of switching to a 900 series when her contract is up.
I looked at them hard myself when i upgraded earlier this year, i ultimately went with a galaxy s3, which i don't regret as the lumia's at the time are going to be stuck on windows phone 7.5, and I'm perfectly happy with the s3. It would have been a tougher choice had the lumia 900 series with windows phone 8 been out. (I upgraded from an iphone, but had no interest in the then unreleased iphone 5 given that it was pretty well known that it wasn't going to be a big leap forward from the 4S.)
I also note that the pre-orders for the lumia 920 seem to be going well. I heard BestBuy is sold out online already of the quantities they put up for pre-order.
Overall, I hope Nokia pulls it off. And i hope Windows Phone 8 succeeds. Its a good mobile OS, and competition is good.
Stop telling (or thinking you know) other people what they need.
People don't need terabytes of bandwidth. Its not water, its not oxygen, its not shelter. Its a luxury.
I'll gladly stipulate that entry level Internet access is becoming a nearly essential convenience in the developed world, but bandwidth measured in hundreds of GB at the rate of 100+ Mbps is still a luxury anywhere.
Deal with it.
So what do you do when there aren't alternatives?
Same thing I do when I find I can't lease a Bugatti Veyron for $100/mo. I keep on living just fine with the entirely practical and realistic options available in the real world.
Ah, I'm on Shaw in Canada for home internet. I pay $75 for 400GB bandwidth at 50mbps/3mbps.
The top tier shaw plan is $190 for unlimited bandwidth at 250Mbps/15Mbps.
That's pretty freaking impressive if you ask me.
As to the rogers plan, I see that it is their home internet, $130, 250GB bandwidth, at 150Mbps/10Mbps.
Looking at the fine print, however, it appears the data overage rate for the ultimate plan is 0.50 cents a GB up to $100 maximum. So the plan can be restated as:
$230, 450GB (unlimited?), 150Mbps/10Mbps $230 buys you 450GB, and its potentially "unlimited" as its not quite clear what happens when you hit the $100 maximum for 200GB of overage; possibly you can just keep consuming. Given that restatement looks a lot like the top shaw plan, I'd say there are good odds that its effectively unlimited for $230/mo, once you hit the $100 overage cap.
Rogers' best Internet plan is $130/mo. 250G of data.
I doubt you need 250GB of data on your phone per month, or even per year. I'm not saying you couldn't use it. I'm saying you don't need it.
You will exceed that in less than 5h at full speed.
7.5 hrs by my calcs, but even that is unlikely. I doubt the average user would be able to exceed that cap in under 24hrs even if they tried as getting maximum theoretical peak speed for a sustained 250GB burst is just not going to happen.
But that's beside the point. Mobile data caps on the top end plans is like those "free gas for a year" prizes. Its far more than enough gas for the average commuter in the average car.
But some slashdotter will cry foul because in a Veyron at 250mph driving 24hrs a day he'll be out of his "free gas for a year" in under a week.
Think of it as the networks are selling you 250GB/mo for $130, at the maximum speed they can deliver it, because that's the real deal on the table.
If you don't find that to be good value then don't buy it, but I'm curious how you rationalize that you should somehow be entitled to "all you can possibly consume", especially seeing as they haven't promised you 'unlimited' anything.
I will very much believe his son can handle Windows 8. But all he's doing is opening up a movie or a game. He's not using the computer in the same way people do at the office juggling all sorts of stuff simultaneously.
Who are these highly productive people at the office juggling all sorts of stuff simultaneously that won't be able to cope with clicking the desktop tile once they login or mastering a slightly different start menu?
Our current president has an agenda to redistribute the wealth from the smart, capable, entrepeneurs to the fat, slobby, freeloading welfare moms.
Meanwhile the smart capable entrepreneurs have an agenda to redistribute all wealth to themselves. A healthy society needs that balance.
. His blatant attempt to inject government control into all facets of our lives (not just health care - where it has no business anyway) is the culmination of decades of left wing planning and if we don't stop this power grab now, we may never be able to.
a) The republicans grab power just as aggressively at every opportunity.
b) The government absolutely has a role in healthcare. I do not want healthcare allocated according to who can pay the most for it; nor which insurance companies can model who is likely to get sick and exclude those people, or deny care to people who are already afflicted (pre-existing conditions). Capitalism is not the right model.
Whether or not it should be a federal program vs state is certainly a legitimate discussion, but healthcare is a government mandate that the majority wants in some form.
If you are a true patriot and love this country that we call home, you must vote for Mitt Romney next month and preserve the dream that anyone can come from the most humble of beginnings and succeed in this melting pot we call the United States of America.
Only an idiot should fall that nonsense. Your odds of going from humble beginnings to success are increased if you are given a leg up while in the 'humble beginnings' stage; if you aren't deprived an education because you can't afford it, if you aren't financially wiped out because someone in your family tripped and broke a few ribs, it gets a lot easier to become a productive member of society, to save up a nest-egg, to strike out as an entrepreneur, to become a -gasp- "job creator".
How exactly does the argument that government wealth redistribution prevents people from succeeding work? Bearing in mind that all the evidence shows that the wealthy are doing just fine, and indeed are getting wealthier by the day.
Well, while I can't exactly get inside the head of that non-technical person... why does/would a person buy a Windows computer of any sort?
Windows computers? -> windows games, windows productivity software, compatibility with legacy software, compatibility with 'whatever is at work', familiarity with what is at work.
And outside of a Mac which are only available in a couple form factors all at the upper end of the price scale while windows pcs are available to fit any budget.
But the question isn't why they buy windows computers, its why they'd buy a windows tablet?
Is it that they're in love with Internet Explorer? That they just can't get enough of Windows Solitare?
No more than ipad buyers have any sort of love for Safari, etc.
People will buy windows tablets for the same reason(s) they buy apple ones.
It really comes down to one thing: software.
It really is more than that, but on the desktop that's a big one.
On a tablet, like a phone however, its really not. Non-techy people are buying tablets mostly for what the tablets themselves do out of the box -- photos, movies, books, web browsing, chat, facebook/twitter, freebie games off an app store.
No one will care about being able to use their 30-year investment in software on these new machines
Right. Because they have laptops and desktops for productivity software.
no one will mind having to repurchase all of their software
No one will repurchase much of anything for them.
My parents haven't spent a penny on apps for their iphone or ipad. I didn't spend a penny on apps for my previous iphone, and I haven't spent anything on apps for my current android either. My wife spent a whole $2 on apps for her phone. My brother hasn't spent a penny, neither brother in law has spent a penny. My parents friends all have ipads, and none of them bought anything for them either except for a few books and movies and songs. They have a handful of $2 games between them all. I honestly don't know anyone who has spent more than $50 on software for a phone and tablet.
Microsoft tablets for casual non-technical consumers are going to be pretty much the same thing. Its going to be the look of the thing, and the out-of-box-experience, and the availability of 'free' little widgets and apps to mess around with.
Us tech types will gravitate towards windows 8 tablets* because we want toys that can do it all, but we're not going to be confused by RT vs 8 either. (Plus the Win 8 x86 tablets won't have a locked boot loader so we can play with linux etc.. for us its a no-brainer what to choose if we want a windows tablet)
(* yes, yes, some of us just want androids out of the box. I'm just talking about the subset of 'us' that wants a windows tablet.)
Your right; i didn't realize RT had desktop mode. Thanks for that.
That said, I have no interest in a Windows RT device; between the locked down bootloader and the binary incompatibility with other windows software its not a product I'm the slightest bit interested in, so I have not researched it thoroughly at all.
However, my description of the difference only needs to be modified slightly to correct itself. "Win RT has a limited desktop mode that only supports a handful of applications" Windows 8 has a full desktop mode that supports...
I understand that RT uses.net which is interpreted (really compiled on the fly) and programs using pure.net will run on either RT or 8. So programs written for 8, if your careful not to use any other API, will run on RT and RT programs will run on 8.
And none of that matters, because if you put an app in the microsoft app store compiled for RT on ARM, you have to put it up in the app store compiled for x86 as well.
So anything in the app store that supports RT will support 8. You can't necessarily use the same binary you downloaded from the app store for RT, but it doesn't matter you just download the ARM version for your win rt arm device and your x86 version for your Win 8 x86 devices.
Its like buying mac games on steam; any mac game you buy comes a windows version as well. You can't use the mac binary on your pc, of course, but it doesn't matter.
But now that ship has sailed. We have Two versions of "Windows" launching on tablets at the same time, that look the same, but only one runs "Windows Software",
Does a non-technical person buying a tablet even care?
The ONLY reason I use Windows, is because it runs "Windows Software".
And you are not a non-technical person who is confused.
I agree there is some confusion. I agree Microsoft could have done better communicating the brand. I agree the retailers are REALLY spectacularly botching it. But I don't think its going to be the massive screw up you think it is.
The people who really care are the people savvy enough to get it right.
I have a program that will run in 8 out of these 9 editions of Windows.
That's a nicely cherry picked list.
Why not include Windows 3.11 Windows Embedded Handheld Windows Embedded Compact 7 Windows Mobile 6 Windows Phone 7.0 Windows Phone 7.5 Windows XP 64-bit Edtion for Itanium Systems, version 2002 Windows Phone 8.0 Windows Embedded Automotive
And you included:
Windows NT
Is that the x86, MIPS, Alpha, or PowerPC edition?
And I'm not sure what -your- favorite App is, but on your list of 9 versions of Windows plus all the Windows I added, -my- favorite app runs on only 3 of them: XP, 7, and 8.
Further ipad and android I think have already set the expectation that tablet OSes use app stores and dont' work with desktop software. So I expect as many, if not more, non-savvy consumers to be surprised they -can- run desktop software on a tablet with Windows 8 as will be surprised that Windows RT can't run desktop software.
Really this is a Microsoft Problem because they named them too closely. They should have called WinRT something totally different, to avoid this mess, really anyone thinking about it should have been able to predict this.
They are not totally different at all. Windows 8 is a super set of windows RT. Windows 8 is windows RT + desktop mode. Anything you buy for WinRT will also just work on Win8.
Its nothing like ios and osx.
If all the product specialists are the biggest electronic retailers in North America are confused and making mistakes, what chance does the average consumer have.
Yes I see your point, but I think this is as much a slashdot selection bias than anything else. This is hardly the first time marketing has completely messed up something large scale.
"LED" TVs for example are still LCD TVs, only the backlight is LED. How many consumers knew that? Of course in the big scheme it didn't really matter that they were clueless everything still worked. Bluray vs HD-DVD is another mess; easily half of consumers didn't even realize they were two competing technologies, and just thought all high definition dvds (HDDVD) were called bluray and vice versa, and I remember ads for Blu Ray players under the HD-DVD heading.
I agree Microsoft really needs to step up and try and clean up the mess that the retail world is making, but I don't blame them for the mess, per se.
The Win8/WinRT dichotomy will be baffling to anyone who isn't technically savvy enough to know there are different chip architectures, and retailers will find it difficult if not impossible to effectively explain the difference, if they even know it.
Here's how to explain the difference for non-tech savvy people:
Windows RT has this new touch user interface called 'metro' that only runs apps you buy online from the microsoft app store. It doesn't run anything else. Its a lot like how an ipad works with itunes.
Windows 8 has everything Windows RT has, but it also has an extra tile called "Desktop Mode" where you can run software designed for desktop mode. It will also run software from previous versions of windows in "desktop mode".
And if you look at the tech specs, one is identified as using OS: Windows RT, the other is identified using OS Windows 8.
Now that said, I agree 100% that most consumers won't catch that.
But I really think that in this case ***Futureshop*** is confusing customers, not Microsoft.
Those stock photos showing the Windows 8 logo were not likely provided by ASUS for the RT product. Reading the Asus product anouncement for the Vivo Tab, and Vivo Tab RT -- the Vivo tab talks about windows 8 experience all over the place. While the Vivo Tab RT announcement talks about windows RT and doesn't mention Windows 8 anywhere at all.
There is definitely going to be confusion, but Futureshop is the one making the mess here. Not Microsoft, not even Asus.
It happened at both. The RNC was was just a bit less obvious because if i recall right, they just read from the teleprompter that it passed, while the DNC one was freaking obvious because they repeated the poll a couple more times because it was obvious to anyone observing that it clearly didn't pass with any sort of significant majority. And then even after the 3rd poll he just carried on with a majority had passed despite that being pretty unclear.
In both cases it was a total mockery of democracy and I'd have been ashamed to be in either party over it.
Congratulations, you've just ensured she'll hate math more, because you're also focusing on the wrong question: math is not about one's ability to do mental arithmetic,
Sorry no. I have a 10 year old daughter, and we're working on math drills with flash cards, and yes she hates it, but no its not something one can or should avoid.
The elementary school she attends calls them "math facts". And the emphasis is on rote memorization. Your single digit addition and multiplication "tables" and the corresponding subtractions and divisions need to be committed to memory. Period.
6x9=54, 5+3=8, 8/2=4, 11-6=5...
You can't do anything substantial, on paper, or in your head without those tables committed to memory at instant recall.
The problem is that your post does not distinguish between criminal and civil law. Harassment, libel and insults should not fall under criminal law, they should be a matter of civil law. Anybody who feels insulted can file a law suite and if he wins the case the costs are covered by the other party.
The issue there is the average civil party doesn't have any method of knowing who is harassing them over the internet.
Harassing someone ought not be a crime even if it results in suicide. People commit suicide for all kinds of reasons, for example when they are sacked or when they are left by their partner, neither of which is a crime either.
By that logic assaulting someone on the street ought not be a crime even if you break their ribs. People break their ribs for all kinds of reasons, for example when they are skiing or when they are playing hockey, neither of which is a crime.
Harassment is taking a deliberate *systematic* course of action with the *intention* to cause harm to others.
That should be illegal whether the victim commits suicide or not.
Moreover, what one person feels as harassment is a mild annoyance to another person and the standards for what constitutes a crime ought to be more objective.
What planet do you live on? The particular crime committed in criminal homicide depends on the "state of mind of the defendant" which is by definition unknowable, and its up to the jury to determine what they think the defendants state of mind was.
Of course, the mental competence of the defendant is also a factor is also a judgment call.
And that's just for a crime where someone went from being objectively alive to dead.
Now take a crime like negligence which is loosely a violation of the duty to use 'reasonable care' taking into account the potential harm that they might foreseeably cause others.
Could that be any more subjective? Do you know what the objective standard for 'reasonable care' is? Why, its what a "reasonable person" would do...
If your going to object to law based on the fact that it rests on a subjective reasonableness clause, you are several hundred years late to the party.
Car analogy: If somebody steals your car, whether it has been stolen or not does not depend on your personal feelings about it.
Counter Car analogy: speed relative to conditions unsafe lane change driving without due car driving without consideration reverse when unsafe inadequate signal on turn unsafe u-turn fail to leave sufficient space between vehicle for passing follow too closely pass without clear view unsafe pass on left fail to pass at safe distance fail to complete pass safely slow driving
Are just some of the local moving violations on the books that rely on the subjective judgment of the police to decide that what you did was 'unsafe'.
But don't tell me that you're a proponent of free speech as long as you think insulting someone should fall under criminal law.
Except I differentiate between insulting someone and harassing them. If you think they are remotely the same thing then you've never been harassed.
Slashdot Mirror
Lots of MS fanboys like to say competition is good when rooting for Windows Phone 7/8.
Yes, I think competition in general is good.
What about competition in the Desktop OS space? Would those MS fanboys applaud if Windows dropped to 50% market share because competition is good?
Let's see... I mentioned I have a Galaxy S3 in my original post, and I'm writing this on a MacBook Pro, so I'm clearly an MS fanboy and would would be mortified if Windows dropped to 50% marketshare. /sarcasm
That said, I don't care for the direction apple is going, and I wouldn't applaud Apple becoming the dominant desktop OS, but I think their recent resurgence over the last decade has been good for the industry.
I'd also be happy to see linux take a larger share of the desktop market, at the expense of microsoft.
-shrug-
I'd chalk it up to a million monkeys on a million typewriters.
She's had lots of time to play with my Galaxy S3 which she likes, and also demoed an older Motorola droid of some sort on gingerbread which she thought was really klutzy.
Unlimited healthcare isn't only not a right, it is impossible.
Good thing nobody (but you) has suggested the government provide "unlimited healthcare".
Redistribution is not only the opposite of fairness,
Some worked hard for their wealth it, others didn't work for it at all, some who have worked very hard never got anywhere, others have squandered their inherited wealth stupidly and yet still have more wealth than most.
What exactly is so noble and fair about this?
Its absurd to make a fairness argument about wealth redistribution when there is nothing remotely fair about "unredistributed wealth" either.
How is wealth redistribution any more unfair?
it reduces the total wealth.
Care to show the math on that?
I doubt most people need a phone at all.
At this point in a first world country its an essential convenience to have at least reasonable access to a phone. But sure, if you wish to be pedantic, its not essential to life.
So what?
So stop complaining when an fringe extreme luxury is limited or unavailable or more expensive than you want to pay.
If the theoretical average consumption is an adequate restriction, as stated, "[...] I doubt the average user would be able to exceed that cap in under 24hrs even if they tried [...]"
First, there a few things that need to be clarified; please see my other responses in this thread, as it's been pointed out that this is for a home internet plan, not a mobile plan. (Although why the OP felt the need to rant about a home plan in an article about 4G data is beyond me.)
But I think the direct answer to your question is that without restraints there are a group of users who will consume as much as they can possibly consume all month, every month. I'm really not all that interested in subsidizing their terabytes of bandwidth. If they really need to transfer 20 TB of traffic a month, they can pay for it themselves.
To your comment about occasionally hitting the cap, I'd say companies are getting more responsive to that need. On the mobile side in particular there are frequently "flex plans" that auto scale your plan to what you use; and they are implementing usage trackers and usage notifications as you hit 75% of the cap etc, so you have the tools and information to manage your usage, and choose the right plan.
My wife got a couple weeks to demo a spare lumia 800 they had at work this week, and likes it enough to be seriously thinking of switching to a 900 series when her contract is up.
I looked at them hard myself when i upgraded earlier this year, i ultimately went with a galaxy s3, which i don't regret as the lumia's at the time are going to be stuck on windows phone 7.5, and I'm perfectly happy with the s3. It would have been a tougher choice had the lumia 900 series with windows phone 8 been out. (I upgraded from an iphone, but had no interest in the then unreleased iphone 5 given that it was pretty well known that it wasn't going to be a big leap forward from the 4S.)
I also note that the pre-orders for the lumia 920 seem to be going well. I heard BestBuy is sold out online already of the quantities they put up for pre-order.
Overall, I hope Nokia pulls it off. And i hope Windows Phone 8 succeeds. Its a good mobile OS, and competition is good.
Stop telling (or thinking you know) other people what they need.
People don't need terabytes of bandwidth. Its not water, its not oxygen, its not shelter. Its a luxury.
I'll gladly stipulate that entry level Internet access is becoming a nearly essential convenience in the developed world, but bandwidth measured in hundreds of GB at the rate of 100+ Mbps is still a luxury anywhere.
Deal with it.
So what do you do when there aren't alternatives?
Same thing I do when I find I can't lease a Bugatti Veyron for $100/mo. I keep on living just fine with the entirely practical and realistic options available in the real world.
Ah, I'm on Shaw in Canada for home internet. I pay $75 for 400GB bandwidth at 50mbps/3mbps.
The top tier shaw plan is $190 for unlimited bandwidth at 250Mbps/15Mbps.
That's pretty freaking impressive if you ask me.
As to the rogers plan, I see that it is their home internet, $130, 250GB bandwidth, at 150Mbps/10Mbps.
Looking at the fine print, however, it appears the data overage rate for the ultimate plan is 0.50 cents a GB up to $100 maximum. So the plan can be restated as:
$230, 450GB (unlimited?), 150Mbps/10Mbps
$230 buys you 450GB, and its potentially "unlimited" as its not quite clear what happens when you hit the $100 maximum for 200GB of overage; possibly you can just keep consuming. Given that restatement looks a lot like the top shaw plan, I'd say there are good odds that its effectively unlimited for $230/mo, once you hit the $100 overage cap.
Rogers' best Internet plan is $130/mo. 250G of data.
I doubt you need 250GB of data on your phone per month, or even per year. I'm not saying you couldn't use it. I'm saying you don't need it.
You will exceed that in less than 5h at full speed.
7.5 hrs by my calcs, but even that is unlikely. I doubt the average user would be able to exceed that cap in under 24hrs even if they tried as getting maximum theoretical peak speed for a sustained 250GB burst is just not going to happen.
But that's beside the point. Mobile data caps on the top end plans is like those "free gas for a year" prizes. Its far more than enough gas for the average commuter in the average car.
But some slashdotter will cry foul because in a Veyron at 250mph driving 24hrs a day he'll be out of his "free gas for a year" in under a week.
Think of it as the networks are selling you 250GB/mo for $130, at the maximum speed they can deliver it, because that's the real deal on the table.
If you don't find that to be good value then don't buy it, but I'm curious how you rationalize that you should somehow be entitled to "all you can possibly consume", especially seeing as they haven't promised you 'unlimited' anything.
I will very much believe his son can handle Windows 8. But all he's doing is opening up a movie or a game. He's not using the computer in the same way people do at the office juggling all sorts of stuff simultaneously.
Who are these highly productive people at the office juggling all sorts of stuff simultaneously that won't be able to cope with clicking the desktop tile once they login or mastering a slightly different start menu?
Our current president has an agenda to redistribute the wealth from the smart, capable, entrepeneurs to the fat, slobby, freeloading welfare moms.
Meanwhile the smart capable entrepreneurs have an agenda to redistribute all wealth to themselves. A healthy society needs that balance.
. His blatant attempt to inject government control into all facets of our lives (not just health care - where it has no business anyway) is the culmination of decades of left wing planning and if we don't stop this power grab now, we may never be able to.
a) The republicans grab power just as aggressively at every opportunity.
b) The government absolutely has a role in healthcare. I do not want healthcare allocated according to who can pay the most for it; nor which insurance companies can model who is likely to get sick and exclude those people, or deny care to people who are already afflicted (pre-existing conditions). Capitalism is not the right model.
Whether or not it should be a federal program vs state is certainly a legitimate discussion, but healthcare is a government mandate that the majority wants in some form.
If you are a true patriot and love this country that we call home, you must vote for Mitt Romney next month and preserve the dream that anyone can come from the most humble of beginnings and succeed in this melting pot we call the United States of America.
Only an idiot should fall that nonsense. Your odds of going from humble beginnings to success are increased if you are given a leg up while in the 'humble beginnings' stage; if you aren't deprived an education because you can't afford it, if you aren't financially wiped out because someone in your family tripped and broke a few ribs, it gets a lot easier to become a productive member of society, to save up a nest-egg, to strike out as an entrepreneur, to become a -gasp- "job creator".
How exactly does the argument that government wealth redistribution prevents people from succeeding work? Bearing in mind that all the evidence shows that the wealthy are doing just fine, and indeed are getting wealthier by the day.
Well, while I can't exactly get inside the head of that non-technical person... why does/would a person buy a Windows computer of any sort?
Windows computers? -> windows games, windows productivity software, compatibility with legacy software, compatibility with 'whatever is at work', familiarity with what is at work.
And outside of a Mac which are only available in a couple form factors all at the upper end of the price scale while windows pcs are available to fit any budget.
But the question isn't why they buy windows computers, its why they'd buy a windows tablet?
Is it that they're in love with Internet Explorer? That they just can't get enough of Windows Solitare?
No more than ipad buyers have any sort of love for Safari, etc.
People will buy windows tablets for the same reason(s) they buy apple ones.
It really comes down to one thing: software.
It really is more than that, but on the desktop that's a big one.
On a tablet, like a phone however, its really not. Non-techy people are buying tablets mostly for what the tablets themselves do out of the box -- photos, movies, books, web browsing, chat, facebook/twitter, freebie games off an app store.
No one will care about being able to use their 30-year investment in software on these new machines
Right. Because they have laptops and desktops for productivity software.
no one will mind having to repurchase all of their software
No one will repurchase much of anything for them.
My parents haven't spent a penny on apps for their iphone or ipad. I didn't spend a penny on apps for my previous iphone, and I haven't spent anything on apps for my current android either. My wife spent a whole $2 on apps for her phone. My brother hasn't spent a penny, neither brother in law has spent a penny. My parents friends all have ipads, and none of them bought anything for them either except for a few books and movies and songs. They have a handful of $2 games between them all. I honestly don't know anyone who has spent more than $50 on software for a phone and tablet.
Microsoft tablets for casual non-technical consumers are going to be pretty much the same thing. Its going to be the look of the thing, and the out-of-box-experience, and the availability of 'free' little widgets and apps to mess around with.
Us tech types will gravitate towards windows 8 tablets* because we want toys that can do it all, but we're not going to be confused by RT vs 8 either. (Plus the Win 8 x86 tablets won't have a locked boot loader so we can play with linux etc.. for us its a no-brainer what to choose if we want a windows tablet)
(* yes, yes, some of us just want androids out of the box. I'm just talking about the subset of 'us' that wants a windows tablet.)
They buy
Your right; i didn't realize RT had desktop mode. Thanks for that.
That said, I have no interest in a Windows RT device; between the locked down bootloader and the binary incompatibility with other windows software its not a product I'm the slightest bit interested in, so I have not researched it thoroughly at all.
However, my description of the difference only needs to be modified slightly to correct itself. "Win RT has a limited desktop mode that only supports a handful of applications" Windows 8 has a full desktop mode that supports ...
At best that eliminates the embedded versions I listed.
You've still got Windows CE X, Windows Mobile X, and Windows Phone X that have all been prominently consumer facing over the years.
I understand that RT uses .net which is interpreted (really compiled on the fly) and programs using pure .net will run on either RT or 8. So programs written for 8, if your careful not to use any other API, will run on RT and RT programs will run on 8.
And none of that matters, because if you put an app in the microsoft app store compiled for RT on ARM, you have to put it up in the app store compiled for x86 as well.
So anything in the app store that supports RT will support 8. You can't necessarily use the same binary you downloaded from the app store for RT, but it doesn't matter you just download the ARM version for your win rt arm device and your x86 version for your Win 8 x86 devices.
Its like buying mac games on steam; any mac game you buy comes a windows version as well. You can't use the mac binary on your pc, of course, but it doesn't matter.
But now that ship has sailed. We have Two versions of "Windows" launching on tablets at the same time, that look the same, but only one runs "Windows Software",
Does a non-technical person buying a tablet even care?
The ONLY reason I use Windows, is because it runs "Windows Software".
And you are not a non-technical person who is confused.
I agree there is some confusion. I agree Microsoft could have done better communicating the brand. I agree the retailers are REALLY spectacularly botching it. But I don't think its going to be the massive screw up you think it is.
The people who really care are the people savvy enough to get it right.
I have a program that will run in 8 out of these 9 editions of Windows.
That's a nicely cherry picked list.
Why not include
Windows 3.11
Windows Embedded Handheld
Windows Embedded Compact 7
Windows Mobile 6
Windows Phone 7.0
Windows Phone 7.5
Windows XP 64-bit Edtion for Itanium Systems, version 2002
Windows Phone 8.0
Windows Embedded Automotive
And you included:
Windows NT
Is that the x86, MIPS, Alpha, or PowerPC edition?
And I'm not sure what -your- favorite App is, but on your list of 9 versions of Windows plus all the Windows I added, -my- favorite app runs on only 3 of them: XP, 7, and 8.
Further ipad and android I think have already set the expectation that tablet OSes use app stores and dont' work with desktop software. So I expect as many, if not more, non-savvy consumers to be surprised they -can- run desktop software on a tablet with Windows 8 as will be surprised that Windows RT can't run desktop software.
Really this is a Microsoft Problem because they named them too closely. They should have called WinRT something totally different, to avoid this mess, really anyone thinking about it should have been able to predict this.
They are not totally different at all.
Windows 8 is a super set of windows RT.
Windows 8 is windows RT + desktop mode.
Anything you buy for WinRT will also just work on Win8.
Its nothing like ios and osx.
If all the product specialists are the biggest electronic retailers in North America are confused and making mistakes, what chance does the average consumer have.
Yes I see your point, but I think this is as much a slashdot selection bias than anything else. This is hardly the first time marketing has completely messed up something large scale.
"LED" TVs for example are still LCD TVs, only the backlight is LED. How many consumers knew that? Of course in the big scheme it didn't really matter that they were clueless everything still worked. Bluray vs HD-DVD is another mess; easily half of consumers didn't even realize they were two competing technologies, and just thought all high definition dvds (HDDVD) were called bluray and vice versa, and I remember ads for Blu Ray players under the HD-DVD heading.
I agree Microsoft really needs to step up and try and clean up the mess that the retail world is making, but I don't blame them for the mess, per se.
The Win8/WinRT dichotomy will be baffling to anyone who isn't technically savvy enough to know there are different chip architectures, and retailers will find it difficult if not impossible to effectively explain the difference, if they even know it.
Here's how to explain the difference for non-tech savvy people:
Windows RT has this new touch user interface called 'metro' that only runs apps you buy online from the microsoft app store. It doesn't run anything else. Its a lot like how an ipad works with itunes.
Windows 8 has everything Windows RT has, but it also has an extra tile called "Desktop Mode" where you can run software designed for desktop mode. It will also run software from previous versions of windows in "desktop mode".
Its not that baffling.
x86 and ARM machines both run "Windows 8".
x86 runs Windows 8
ARM run Windows RT
And if you look at the tech specs, one is identified as using OS:
Windows RT, the other is identified using OS Windows 8.
Now that said, I agree 100% that most consumers won't catch that.
But I really think that in this case ***Futureshop*** is confusing customers, not Microsoft.
Those stock photos showing the Windows 8 logo were not likely provided by ASUS for the RT product. Reading the Asus product anouncement for the Vivo Tab, and Vivo Tab RT -- the Vivo tab talks about windows 8 experience all over the place. While the Vivo Tab RT announcement talks about windows RT and doesn't mention Windows 8 anywhere at all.
There is definitely going to be confusion, but Futureshop is the one making the mess here.
Not Microsoft, not even Asus.
It happened at both. The RNC was was just a bit less obvious because if i recall right, they just read from the teleprompter that it passed, while the DNC one was freaking obvious because they repeated the poll a couple more times because it was obvious to anyone observing that it clearly didn't pass with any sort of significant majority. And then even after the 3rd poll he just carried on with a majority had passed despite that being pretty unclear.
In both cases it was a total mockery of democracy and I'd have been ashamed to be in either party over it.
Congratulations, you've just ensured she'll hate math more, because you're also focusing on the wrong question: math is not about one's ability to do mental arithmetic,
Sorry no. I have a 10 year old daughter, and we're working on math drills with flash cards, and yes she hates it, but no its not something one can or should avoid.
The elementary school she attends calls them "math facts". And the emphasis is on rote memorization. Your single digit addition and multiplication "tables" and the corresponding subtractions and divisions need to be committed to memory. Period.
6x9=54, 5+3=8, 8/2=4, 11-6=5 ...
You can't do anything substantial, on paper, or in your head without those tables committed to memory at instant recall.
The problem is that your post does not distinguish between criminal and civil law. Harassment, libel and insults should not fall under criminal law, they should be a matter of civil law. Anybody who feels insulted can file a law suite and if he wins the case the costs are covered by the other party.
The issue there is the average civil party doesn't have any method of knowing who is harassing them over the internet.
Harassing someone ought not be a crime even if it results in suicide. People commit suicide for all kinds of reasons, for example when they are sacked or when they are left by their partner, neither of which is a crime either.
By that logic assaulting someone on the street ought not be a crime even if you break their ribs. People break their ribs for all kinds of reasons, for example when they are skiing or when they are playing hockey, neither of which is a crime.
Harassment is taking a deliberate *systematic* course of action with the *intention* to cause harm to others.
That should be illegal whether the victim commits suicide or not.
Moreover, what one person feels as harassment is a mild annoyance to another person and the standards for what constitutes a crime ought to be more objective.
What planet do you live on?
The particular crime committed in criminal homicide depends on the "state of mind of the defendant" which is by definition unknowable, and its up to the jury to determine what they think the defendants state of mind was.
Of course, the mental competence of the defendant is also a factor is also a judgment call.
And that's just for a crime where someone went from being objectively alive to dead.
Now take a crime like negligence which is loosely a violation of the duty to use 'reasonable care' taking into account the potential harm that they might foreseeably cause others.
Could that be any more subjective? Do you know what the objective standard for 'reasonable care' is? Why, its what a "reasonable person" would do...
If your going to object to law based on the fact that it rests on a subjective reasonableness clause, you are several hundred years late to the party.
Car analogy: If somebody steals your car, whether it has been stolen or not does not depend on your personal feelings about it.
Counter Car analogy:
speed relative to conditions
unsafe lane change
driving without due car
driving without consideration
reverse when unsafe
inadequate signal on turn
unsafe u-turn
fail to leave sufficient space between vehicle for passing
follow too closely
pass without clear view
unsafe pass on left
fail to pass at safe distance
fail to complete pass safely
slow driving
Are just some of the local moving violations on the books that rely on the subjective judgment of the police to decide that what you did was 'unsafe'.
But don't tell me that you're a proponent of free speech as long as you think insulting someone should fall under criminal law.
Except I differentiate between insulting someone and harassing them. If you think they are remotely the same thing then you've never been harassed.
Maybe NFC is the Betamax
No betamax was the technology only one company was allowed to make (sony), while everyone else in the industry made VHS.
What ever apple has is the isolated single manufacture tech. NFC is relatively ubiquitous and widely available.
So from this we can conclude the winning technology will be....
which ever one gets adopted by porn.