They promise that every single game will be available. It took a while to build up the offering for Windows and Mac. It'll take time to do the same for Linux.
They also promise that future development will include native versions for Linux.
I believe he was talking about the fact that you were prompted to elevate access control for drivers and installing updates to programs. I don't think he was talking about DRM per se.
Steam does have copy protection. It always has. It is there to discourage casual copying. What the Steam rep said was that they don't dictate DRM to developers. They can have none or use any amount they want on their own independent of Steam.
Steam has asked nVidia and Canonical to provide updates to new drivers more frequently. There is also a program called nvidia-current to bring down current drivers and to install those. Those come from a repo. Maybe with Steam prompting AMD will come out with better driver releases faster too.
Windows has had video driver checks in software going back over 15 years. Many games would look at your video driver and recommend updates be installed before proceeding.
The year of the Linux desktop was pundit proclamations and not from those who used, developed, or supported the platform. And ease of use issues are a lame attempt at bashing.
Linux is very easy to use. Linux is moving along nicely and is headed for the lead position. If you have difficulty using Linux it is perhaps because you have difficulty learning. That is probably derived from the fact that you put so much into learning one OS that you don't want to exercise your brain again to learn something new to you.
So basically there never was a true declaration of the year of the desktop except from those that loved to mock, and ease of use is relative as Windows and the Mac OSes were difficult to use for their respective user-base when these people first began. We can safely state that any opinion of difficulty is attributable to those who do no want to learn.
This is not Apache's territory. they should not be doing anything to affect my browsing session. Nothing at all. Period.
And who the hell cares about the digital advertising alliance. They don't dictate anything having to do with advertising on my computers.
What the hell is going on here? These people seem to be violating every tenant of privacy. This makes Apache an outlaw. It's ridiculous to say the least. They say they don't tolerate...., well we should never tolerate their interference.
If you guys are supporting Apache because they are Apache you need to stop and reexamine your position. I don't use IE but all browser makers should be pampering the users not the advertising industry, and the web server manufacturer should never pamper advertisers.
What you say may be true, but the basic facts are that Microsoft is hoping to make up the difference on their lock in software store. You know the one that gets Gabe Newell and other game developers upset?
Any reasoning about a dramatic difference in price is just a smoke-screen. A bit of analysis shows that it has been this way for the whole time that Windows has been available. An alleged sudden realization (that there's such a loss due to pricing) without other factors really is pandering to the cheerleaders. So, what does it matter? They are trying to gain adoption in the face of so much rejection.
One really has to think about the fact that many of these system builders are going to try to keep people on an OS that they are familiar with. If they do that they'll stick to Win7 or XP. There's really no reason for them to migrate customers to Win8 unless Microsoft sells them Win8 cheap. That means that Microsoft expects to make up the difference on volume sales.
I can't see how this really matters. The price of Win8 is low already primarily for the reason they want you to adopt it. The reason they accept a lower price to increase adoption is that they feel they'll be making up the difference in that 30% they are going to be charging for their software store.
I saw a poll where they asked if people would be adopting Win8. probably 85-95% of the people said no. Win8 is a disaster in the making. Win7 is just fine for now. It'll probably last another 5 years without any real issues UNLESS Microsoft starts sabotaging it to force consumers to Win8.
Due to such a high upgrade refusal percentage I can't see how offering this would really matter.
Traffic shaping in all regards is a bad thing. A car analogy would be where the manufacturer says that the cars will drive on average 400,000 miles when in reality they hobbled the car so as to only get an average of 100,000 miles, doing so because the roads are too crowded.
Traffic shaping in all regards is a bad thing. These ISPs should be increasing their services and reducing prices. The onus has been passed from the ISP to the consumer. Instead of capping and throttling the ISPs should be building out. Rather, they just keep increasing the prices and reducing the service by throttling and capping. The money they make should be invested in significant increases in equipment to speed up and increase the pipes. It is not the consumer's responsibility to NOT use what they paid for -- even by force.
Storage manufacturers aren't doing the same things as ISPs. Most manufacturers do label on their retail boxes indicating the true size of 1 megabyte. The ISP are actually fraudulently selling their offerings. A 12 mb connection is not 12 megabytes, it is 12 megabits, which is a sizable difference in bandwidth. I've had this discussion in my store with many a customer believing they purchased massive bandwidth.
His arguments are fine. He's spot on. Throttling and capping is bait and switch, almost fraudulent. Hell, they even lie to the consumer when they buy the service indicating a bandwidth without telling the customer to divide by 8 (as in megabits vs megabytes).
Of course, they are guaranteed. Google has been able to accomplish this because they have used new technologies that have brought down the cost of implementation significantly. The US's established ISPs have not even begun to re-invest. They want to suck the bucks out of everyone for as long as they can.
The rest of the world offers significantly higher speeds than the US and you don't hear their customer base complaining that their services are being hobbled. And stop muddying the waters with superfluous word use. The only thing limiting their offering is everyone else. And when Google expands that'll become less and less an issue.
Come on. These ISP are throttling (buying technologies to limit bandwidth in both directions) rather than spending to increase their bandwidth (building out their infrastructure). If the did that they'd be satisfying customers and not restricting everyone. People that torrent and use a lot of bandwidth are doing so because that's what they bought, and they deserve to be able to use it. Because these ISPs sold you a bill of goods that stated your bandwidth is X amount and then set it up to share in your neighborhood, then turned around and started throttling you, doesn't make the torrenter the bad guy.
What does it take to get you guys to understand: They sold you bandwidth, then limited you by sharing that same connection with those in your neighborhood, when you started using it by downloading via torrents they began throttling you because others in your neighborhood couldn't use the bandwidth they sold them, then they capped your usage. Seriously, that's a massive bait and switch. These guys should be held legally liable.
Comcast should not be throttling anything. That was part of their agreement to buy NBC Universal.
It is not the torrenters, it is the ISPs not advancing their technologies and building it out, rather they want to soak up the big bucks by ever increasing the cost of the services that they hobbled (as per above). Look at what Google did: $70.00 (+ $300 connection fee) and you get a gigabit upload and download without caps. Given time we should see more of Google's offerings in other cities. Comcast, et al, you are on notice. And let's not forget what almost every other country in the world has done by offering massive increases in bandwidth and no caps.
What bothers me isn't that he was acquitted, but that he asked for a jury trial, a trial by his peers, and was denied. Generally a judge rules when there's a matter of law rather than a matter of fact that has to be determined. In this case he charged with a criminal offense and he therefore required a jury trial.
This is nothing more than creative accounting meant to give them a mean tax write-off at FY-End. They didn't really make money. Nothing they bought that showed a loss could possibly eliminate billions a quarter in revenue and profit.
There's no such thing as Post-PC. Those that claim it are just people with bad attitudes. Shun them.
There will always be PCs and they will be the primary method of content consumption and creation. Your grand children will use them.
Those who would be inclined to reject technology will always reject the PC. They will have a choice of using an Android tablet or an Android cell phone. Those within this segment of the population are a tiny fraction of consumers inclined to do something else besides understand and utilize technology. Good for them. Yet, they are only a small percentage. Today virtually everyone that has a tablet or smart phone also have and use a PC. There will always be a decline. Part of the cause of that decline is due to some who wouldn't otherwise have bought a PC and firms such as Intel and AMD not creating product advances fast enough. The industry seems stagnant. We have been at the 3 ghz marker for a long time. We need itsy bitsy PCs with the power of super computers that we use with a keyboard and mouse and can still be upgraded.
I've been in this industry for over 25 years. I've used Apples from the beginning. I have kept up on developments of the industry for that long at least. Apple licensed it from Xerox and it is hard to understand how they couldn't have known what they were licensing.
You probably need to go back and read some of the history written by those involved in it. There's plenty. Apple visited Xerox and played with the devices, etc. Both Jobs and Gates admit to taking from Xerox. Apple did a cya by licensing it.
Apple did try to sue Microsoft for copyright on the interface elements many years later. They lost. You just can't copyright certain things such as the feel of a chair or carpet or the dash of a car. You can't do the same with a computer software interface nor with the look of a machine.
Jobs was obsessed with brands. He wanted to make a brand. He was obsessed with the look of certain products. He simply followed what others had done. This doesn't mean that's bad. It's good. But let's put his quality efforts into perspective.
Slashdot Mirror
All my Linux machines have 64bit installed. There's no lack of availability for drivers or applications for 64bit in Linux.
They promise that every single game will be available. It took a while to build up the offering for Windows and Mac. It'll take time to do the same for Linux.
They also promise that future development will include native versions for Linux.
That's moot now.
I believe he was talking about the fact that you were prompted to elevate access control for drivers and installing updates to programs. I don't think he was talking about DRM per se.
Steam does have copy protection. It always has. It is there to discourage casual copying. What the Steam rep said was that they don't dictate DRM to developers. They can have none or use any amount they want on their own independent of Steam.
Steam has asked nVidia and Canonical to provide updates to new drivers more frequently. There is also a program called nvidia-current to bring down current drivers and to install those. Those come from a repo. Maybe with Steam prompting AMD will come out with better driver releases faster too.
Windows has had video driver checks in software going back over 15 years. Many games would look at your video driver and recommend updates be installed before proceeding.
That Linux comment makes no sense at all.
The year of the Linux desktop was pundit proclamations and not from those who used, developed, or supported the platform. And ease of use issues are a lame attempt at bashing.
Linux is very easy to use. Linux is moving along nicely and is headed for the lead position. If you have difficulty using Linux it is perhaps because you have difficulty learning. That is probably derived from the fact that you put so much into learning one OS that you don't want to exercise your brain again to learn something new to you.
So basically there never was a true declaration of the year of the desktop except from those that loved to mock, and ease of use is relative as Windows and the Mac OSes were difficult to use for their respective user-base when these people first began. We can safely state that any opinion of difficulty is attributable to those who do no want to learn.
This is not Apache's territory. they should not be doing anything to affect my browsing session. Nothing at all. Period.
And who the hell cares about the digital advertising alliance. They don't dictate anything having to do with advertising on my computers.
What the hell is going on here? These people seem to be violating every tenant of privacy. This makes Apache an outlaw. It's ridiculous to say the least. They say they don't tolerate...., well we should never tolerate their interference.
If you guys are supporting Apache because they are Apache you need to stop and reexamine your position. I don't use IE but all browser makers should be pampering the users not the advertising industry, and the web server manufacturer should never pamper advertisers.
I believe the requirements were that you had to buy a piece of hardware. It didn't require you purchase a whole PC.
What you say may be true, but the basic facts are that Microsoft is hoping to make up the difference on their lock in software store. You know the one that gets Gabe Newell and other game developers upset?
Any reasoning about a dramatic difference in price is just a smoke-screen. A bit of analysis shows that it has been this way for the whole time that Windows has been available. An alleged sudden realization (that there's such a loss due to pricing) without other factors really is pandering to the cheerleaders. So, what does it matter? They are trying to gain adoption in the face of so much rejection.
One really has to think about the fact that many of these system builders are going to try to keep people on an OS that they are familiar with. If they do that they'll stick to Win7 or XP. There's really no reason for them to migrate customers to Win8 unless Microsoft sells them Win8 cheap. That means that Microsoft expects to make up the difference on volume sales.
I can't see how this really matters. The price of Win8 is low already primarily for the reason they want you to adopt it. The reason they accept a lower price to increase adoption is that they feel they'll be making up the difference in that 30% they are going to be charging for their software store.
I saw a poll where they asked if people would be adopting Win8. probably 85-95% of the people said no. Win8 is a disaster in the making. Win7 is just fine for now. It'll probably last another 5 years without any real issues UNLESS Microsoft starts sabotaging it to force consumers to Win8.
Due to such a high upgrade refusal percentage I can't see how offering this would really matter.
Traffic shaping in all regards is a bad thing. A car analogy would be where the manufacturer says that the cars will drive on average 400,000 miles when in reality they hobbled the car so as to only get an average of 100,000 miles, doing so because the roads are too crowded.
Traffic shaping in all regards is a bad thing. These ISPs should be increasing their services and reducing prices. The onus has been passed from the ISP to the consumer. Instead of capping and throttling the ISPs should be building out. Rather, they just keep increasing the prices and reducing the service by throttling and capping. The money they make should be invested in significant increases in equipment to speed up and increase the pipes. It is not the consumer's responsibility to NOT use what they paid for -- even by force.
Storage manufacturers aren't doing the same things as ISPs. Most manufacturers do label on their retail boxes indicating the true size of 1 megabyte. The ISP are actually fraudulently selling their offerings. A 12 mb connection is not 12 megabytes, it is 12 megabits, which is a sizable difference in bandwidth. I've had this discussion in my store with many a customer believing they purchased massive bandwidth.
They are forging packets back to a service independent of those that buy. That itself has to be highly illegal.
His arguments are fine. He's spot on. Throttling and capping is bait and switch, almost fraudulent. Hell, they even lie to the consumer when they buy the service indicating a bandwidth without telling the customer to divide by 8 (as in megabits vs megabytes).
Of course, they are guaranteed. Google has been able to accomplish this because they have used new technologies that have brought down the cost of implementation significantly. The US's established ISPs have not even begun to re-invest. They want to suck the bucks out of everyone for as long as they can.
The rest of the world offers significantly higher speeds than the US and you don't hear their customer base complaining that their services are being hobbled. And stop muddying the waters with superfluous word use. The only thing limiting their offering is everyone else. And when Google expands that'll become less and less an issue.
Come on. These ISP are throttling (buying technologies to limit bandwidth in both directions) rather than spending to increase their bandwidth (building out their infrastructure). If the did that they'd be satisfying customers and not restricting everyone. People that torrent and use a lot of bandwidth are doing so because that's what they bought, and they deserve to be able to use it. Because these ISPs sold you a bill of goods that stated your bandwidth is X amount and then set it up to share in your neighborhood, then turned around and started throttling you, doesn't make the torrenter the bad guy.
What does it take to get you guys to understand: They sold you bandwidth, then limited you by sharing that same connection with those in your neighborhood, when you started using it by downloading via torrents they began throttling you because others in your neighborhood couldn't use the bandwidth they sold them, then they capped your usage. Seriously, that's a massive bait and switch. These guys should be held legally liable.
Comcast should not be throttling anything. That was part of their agreement to buy NBC Universal.
It is not the torrenters, it is the ISPs not advancing their technologies and building it out, rather they want to soak up the big bucks by ever increasing the cost of the services that they hobbled (as per above). Look at what Google did: $70.00 (+ $300 connection fee) and you get a gigabit upload and download without caps. Given time we should see more of Google's offerings in other cities. Comcast, et al, you are on notice. And let's not forget what almost every other country in the world has done by offering massive increases in bandwidth and no caps.
He didn't express discontent. He committed mass murder.
What bothers me isn't that he was acquitted, but that he asked for a jury trial, a trial by his peers, and was denied. Generally a judge rules when there's a matter of law rather than a matter of fact that has to be determined. In this case he charged with a criminal offense and he therefore required a jury trial.
Indeed. Microsoft is a monopoly. It's real hard to loose money as a monopoly.
This is nothing more than creative accounting meant to give them a mean tax write-off at FY-End. They didn't really make money. Nothing they bought that showed a loss could possibly eliminate billions a quarter in revenue and profit.
There's no such thing as Post-PC. Those that claim it are just people with bad attitudes. Shun them.
There will always be PCs and they will be the primary method of content consumption and creation. Your grand children will use them.
Those who would be inclined to reject technology will always reject the PC. They will have a choice of using an Android tablet or an Android cell phone. Those within this segment of the population are a tiny fraction of consumers inclined to do something else besides understand and utilize technology. Good for them. Yet, they are only a small percentage. Today virtually everyone that has a tablet or smart phone also have and use a PC. There will always be a decline. Part of the cause of that decline is due to some who wouldn't otherwise have bought a PC and firms such as Intel and AMD not creating product advances fast enough. The industry seems stagnant. We have been at the 3 ghz marker for a long time. We need itsy bitsy PCs with the power of super computers that we use with a keyboard and mouse and can still be upgraded.
I've been in this industry for over 25 years. I've used Apples from the beginning. I have kept up on developments of the industry for that long at least. Apple licensed it from Xerox and it is hard to understand how they couldn't have known what they were licensing.
You probably need to go back and read some of the history written by those involved in it. There's plenty. Apple visited Xerox and played with the devices, etc. Both Jobs and Gates admit to taking from Xerox. Apple did a cya by licensing it.
Apple did try to sue Microsoft for copyright on the interface elements many years later. They lost. You just can't copyright certain things such as the feel of a chair or carpet or the dash of a car. You can't do the same with a computer software interface nor with the look of a machine.
Apple licensed it from Xerox. Sort of hard to not know what you were licensing.
Jobs was obsessed with brands. He wanted to make a brand. He was obsessed with the look of certain products. He simply followed what others had done. This doesn't mean that's bad. It's good. But let's put his quality efforts into perspective.