Originally posted by Quizzical People don't buy an OS for the sake of having that OS. People buy an OS for the sake of software that runs on that OS. Only if the software you want runs on multiple operating systems does the quality of the OS become an issue.
This is true for the most part, but there is a bit more to it in the mobile space.
Yes, you can run multiple OSes on a PC - and that's a great and wonderful thing. But you can't so much on a mobile device. Your choice of hardware and Operating System are linked and inseparable. I can't buy an iPhone and install Android on it (technically it could be done, and I've seen some hacks that try to do it, but let's face it, it's not a ready-for-primetime option). I can't go out and take my Samsung Galaxy S5 and install WIndows Mobile on it. I don't think we'll ever see iOS on anything other than Apple hardware (at least officially., although people said that about MacOS and then 1995 came).
There's no technical reason why this is - it's possible to do all of that. But hardware manufacturers right now have the luxury of locking you into a software suite as well, and they are leveraging that as much as possible. If you want XXX OS, or the ability to run YYY software, or ZZZ Hardware -- then whichever one of those factors is the most important inherently drives you to one of a very narrow and limited choices of mobile devices available today.
As that pertains to Windows Mobile -- Android was free, and has pretty liberal licensing. Google was smart, stayed out of the hardware business, and just provided the OS shell (that happens to drive everything through Google's massive data-collecting machine) for vendors, and then sits back and watches the data pour in (and that leads to the real cash cow, capitalizing on your data). Microsoft doesn't have that business model, even giving away the software for free won't do anything for them, they can't turn around and datamine your life and capitalize on it (and even if they ~could~, it would seriously jeopardize their enterprise business, which is very nearly their only significant driver left).
In my opinion, the best thing Windows Mobile could do is integrate with Windows Desktop - in such a fashion that no other ecosystem has currently. People ~would~ be willing to pay for that, especially enterprise, where Windows is still a very dominate force. And while it's pretty easy to see the enterprise angle (security feacures, Exchange services, Office, etc), there are numerous consumer angles that could play well too -- integrate it with XBone and let you play on-the-go (oh, just like PS Vita/PS4), use your mobile device as a input device (kinda like WiiU's tablet), expand XBox Smartglass, allow seamless game streaming from WIndows (ala Steam In-Home Streaming, only to your Windows Mobile device), common signon and account settings (Win8 already has MS Account signon for "single signon") so that once you setup basic services like email, account preferences, etc they transfer magically across devices (I don't have to go and set up email on every device), apps that work across desktop and mobile and console, using Mobile device as augment for the desktop (additional screen, additional input device, etc etc) -- the possibilities go on and on, and if they are tied tightly and done well, it would be a very powerful experience.
I think that's where MS was trying to head with the Windows 8 theme, and they created a lot of possibilities, but they didn't quite connect all the dots, and we had a lot of idea fragments spread all over that never really formed a cohesive hardware/software strategy. If they can connect the dots (and repair a lot of the marketing mess they made for themselves), Windows Mobile could very well be a big deal again, even if it wasn't free.
In my opinion, the best thing Windows Mobile could do is integrate with Windows Desktop - in such a fashion that no other ecosystem has currently. People ~would~ be willing to pay for that, especially enterprise, where Windows is still a very dominate force. And while it's pretty easy to see the enterprise angle (security feacures, Exchange services, Office, etc), there are numerous consumer angles that could play well too -- integrate it with XBone and let you play on-the-go (oh, just like PS Vita/PS4), use your mobile device as a input device (kinda like WiiU's tablet), expand XBox Smartglass, allow seamless game streaming from WIndows (ala Steam In-Home Streaming, only to your Windows Mobile device), common signon and account settings (Win8 already has MS Account signon for "single signon") so that once you setup basic services like email, account preferences, etc they transfer magically across devices (I don't have to go and set up email on every device), apps that work across desktop and mobile and console, using Mobile device as augment for the desktop (additional screen, additional input device, etc etc) -- the possibilities go on and on, and if they are tied tightly and done well, it would be a very powerful experience.
I think that's where MS was trying to head with the Windows 8 theme, and they created a lot of possibilities, but they didn't quite connect all the dots, and we had a lot of idea fragments spread all over that never really formed a cohesive hardware/software strategy. If they can connect the dots (and repair a lot of the marketing mess they made for themselves), Windows Mobile could very well be a big deal again, even if it wasn't free.
I agree with the rest of your post, but this part is key in my opinion so I cut the rest for brevity.
The seamless integrated experience is the one thing that would be key to me. It's what I wanted when I bought the Lumia 928, but like you said they failed to connect all the dots. I do use my Microsoft account for all my Win8 desktops/devices, but it's still not quite there. If they did, it would be quite powerful.
Google could possibly achieve the same thing but they have a lot of stumbling blocks too. The major one being Chrome versus Android. Another being many of the paid Chrome apps are subscription services and that adds up quickly.
From my experience WP8 is far superior to an Android phone, but Android does have the app ecosystem and right now that trumps the better WindowsPhone OS.
For the love of whatever. They better not force this on people. Not everyone wants everything connected or for that matter so easily tied to a specific account. I don't care if said features are there. I want to be able to turn them completely off. I'll completely unplug from online activity when such stuff is forced. I know that day is coming, sadly. I don't own a smart phone. I don't own a tablet, I have no real practical use for them. Needing a Microsoft account for 8 initially was a huge surprise / shock to me.
Edit: For the record. I try to live a pretty simple life for the most part. I own a pc and that's it. I can easily do without it. The last cell phone I owned was pre- smart phones. I value my privacy and I don't want companies forcing me to breech my privacy. If I breech it, I want it to be my choice. I understand that I am a minority from reactions I get. I think that once privacy is completely gone which I imagine is coming. People will look back and miss what we had. being able to choose how much of "you" you want out there. For the record Google Glass scares the shit out of me. Because Google grabs and stores information. It's what they do. If glass becomes standard it's not far fetched to think face recognition and databases aren't far behind. Sorry. Just trying to explain where I am coming from. Kind of random and I won't follow up.
OmaliMMO Business CorrespondentMemberUncommonPosts: 1,177
Originally posted by Denambren
Originally posted by docminus2
I don't get the fuss about memory - memory nowadays is so cheap, why not install more from the start?
psst - before you go out into the world after your cryo-sleep, a lot has changed since the year 2000 - handhelds now dominate the market, Apple is back from the dead, and Windows installs on more than just a PC.
The faster everything switches over to Linux the better.
AMD/NV/Intel are all on a Linux driver kick ATM and games are being ported left and right.
AMD actually released a hotfix driver this week for linux. lol
This is a response to the differences between a bloated windows os compared to a sleek dedicated Linux OS. Android is winning and it shows in MS decisions.
I'm sorry I am biased against MS, I offer no apologies.....I got screwed over with Vista and had to do tech support for that POS for years.
Sorry but the one thing Linux had over MS for years was stability, that died with win 7, haven't had a blue screen in 4 years on numerous PC's. You dream of things switching over to Linux won't happen because 98% of the planet doesn't want to be bothered with setting shit up, they want simple plug and play = go.
Originally posted by Cleffy Of course Mantle is not a serious API. The entire reason for OpenGL and DirectX was to make video drivers more manageable so you don't need to comply with factory drivers like Mantle.
... The same applies to Chrome. Chrome just does not use hardware as well as Linux or Windows can.
...
BTW DirectX is gone. Its been fully integrated into the Windows API. ...
I agree with your statement about Mantle - that is exactly why OpenGL/DIrectX evolved.
You realize ChromeOS is Linux kernal right? YOu could pretty well classify it as just another Linux Distro and not be incorrect.
You also realize they just announced DirectX 12. I don't think it's gone. Integrating it doesn't remove or replace it - it's always been "integrated" with Windows.
What I mean by DirectX is gone is that there are no longer disjointed libraries that accomplish the same thing in Windows. The DirectX components only account for 2 libraries now verse the 6 or so from before and the libraries are used for graphical applications outside of games. Before you could also program a DirectX game without using an OS SDK, this pretty much locks the DirectX version to the OS.
I know they are Linux Kernels, but in the same sense that OSX is a Linux Kernel. Just because they use a Linux Kernel doesn't mean they offer the flexibility for developers and users. When I used a ChromeBook all I could think about is how locked down it is and how many steps it took to accomplish simple tasks.
The faster everything switches over to Linux the better.
AMD/NV/Intel are all on a Linux driver kick ATM and games are being ported left and right.
AMD actually released a hotfix driver this week for linux. lol
This is a response to the differences between a bloated windows os compared to a sleek dedicated Linux OS. Android is winning and it shows in MS decisions.
I'm sorry I am biased against MS, I offer no apologies.....I got screwed over with Vista and had to do tech support for that POS for years.
Sorry but the one thing Linux had over MS for years was stability, that died with win 7, haven't had a blue screen in 4 years on numerous PC's. You dream of things switching over to Linux won't happen because 98% of the planet doesn't want to be bothered with setting shit up, they want simple plug and play = go.
This is also why nobody switched to Windows 8. Windows 7 "just worked" and using Windows 8 was more different from Windows 7 than using Linux. On a planetary scale though, Microsoft is having trouble getting people off of Windows XP, never mind Windows 7.
However, Valve has the right idea about getting people to use Linux. Gamers anyway. An OS built specifically for gaming? That's going to be pretty appealing. It will take a decade or so to really gain any momentum, but it's the one thing that Microsoft has been trying to move away from. Even their gaming console has been pushed as an "Entertainment Console", not a "Gaming Machine".
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by Cleffy I know they are Linux Kernels, but in the same sense that OSX is a Linux Kernel. Just because they use a Linux Kernel doesn't mean they offer the flexibility for developers and users. When I used a ChromeBook all I could think about is how locked down it is and how many steps it took to accomplish simple tasks.
OS X has nothing to do with Linux, it's Darwin, which is BSD-based. BSD and Linux are only related in the fact that they are both derived from Unix and both share some POSIX level of compatibility, meaning a lot of the same basic command lines work and they offer many of same libraries and APIs to make cross-compiling code easier.
So I suppose you could say that Chrome is to Linux as OS X is to BSD, that would be a valid comparison, and you make a good point with that.
Originally posted by Hulluck For the love of whatever. They better not force this on people. Not everyone wants everything connected or for that matter so easily tied to a specific account. I don't care if said features are there. I want to be able to turn them completely off. I'll completely unplug from online activity when such stuff is forced. I know that day is coming, sadly. I don't own a smart phone. I don't own a tablet, I have no real practical use for them. Needing a Microsoft account for 8 initially was a huge surprise / shock to me.
For what it's worth, as much as I am advocated a deep level of integration, I totally agree with you. Privacy is extremely important and I can't believe we haven't made a bigger deal about it over here in the US. I guess it just goes to show how lazy and complacent we have become as a nation.
Political jabs aside, I think that is the one area where Microsoft can, and should, distinguish itself from Google. Google wants you for your data, and they are willing to give you free stuff to get it because your data is valuable. Microsoft wants to sell you software, not mine you for your data, and they should stay in that business. I think Windows 8 with Bing is a step in a dangerous direction for them.
It's entirely possible to offer things like online connectivity and unified account access without sucking every last ounce of data from that. Although that does require two things: the user trusting that the company isn't sucking their privacy for profit, and the company actually not pulling/storing all that extraneous data not specifically associated with the functions they are offering. If Microsoft could accomplish both.. I think right now many users and businesses trust MS when they say they aren't collecting your data, otherwise we wouldn't see the proliferation of Exchange and SQL servers out in the enterprise world.
If they shift to a data-mining model, they risk blurring the lines. Once individuals stop trusting them for privacy, companies will follow suit shortly thereafter. Sure, shakey desktop/consumer sales hurt, but If they endanger their enterprise cash cow, MS is in real trouble. Starting down the datamining path openly at the OS level is somewhat of a risky strategy. I won't argue that they don't datamine, they very clearing and aggressively market Bing for that very purpose, but they haven't ever integrated that into their software business model.
If the next thing out of Redmond is free Azure-hosted Exchanger servers for your SMB, so long as you agree to some unobtrusive and highly targeted Bing advertising... then it's game over.
My only real problem with Windows 8 was that it felt halfway done.
To me it felt like they started making a whole new OS but then said "ah, let's just leave some of the old stuff in there".
The metro thing actually looks really nice and isn't bad to use. But so much stuff still used the desktop, even windows stuff control panel etc. It was like bouncing between two OSs constantly.
I know some people look at the Metro as just a start menu but it feels like a whole separate OS. And I found myself just booting up and going straight to the desktop, since you can do everything from the desktop but you can't do everything from Metro.
My only real problem with Windows 8 was that it felt halfway done.
To me it felt like they started making a whole new OS but then said "ah, let's just leave some of the old stuff in there".
The metro thing actually looks really nice and isn't bad to use. But so much stuff still used the desktop, even windows stuff control panel etc. It was like bouncing between two OSs constantly.
I know some people look at the Metro as just a start menu but it feels like a whole separate OS. And I found myself just booting up and going straight to the desktop, since you can do everything from the desktop but you can't do everything from Metro.
Its because the metro interface is almost a seperate OS, its not capable of running anything of any real size, think of it more as a tablet 'bolt on' where you have to boot into desktop mode in order to do anything, it can run mini-apps, think mobile phone variety, mostly gimmicks, but for everything else, you need the full version of windows, which means you have to switch to the desktop OS. But yes, it does feel a bit 'half done' mostly because imo, its trying to be two different things, and as a result made a complete dogs doings in the process, so much so that i seriously doubt they can make the 'RT' competitive with the existing tablets. Microsoft has shown itself to be out of touch with demand and also with customer expectation for a while now, they don't seem to know what it is that their prospective customers want, so they are unable to cater to them, their latest incarnation of Surface for instance, doesn't appear to have taken any notice of what went wrong with the previous 2 incarnations, and is probably going to tank just as badly, Windows 8 proved to be relatively unlovable on the home front, their user base is barely able to compete with Mac's! and now their trying to shoehorn in on the Tablet market, its just not going to happen though, its late, its deficient, and its not what is generally wanted. Microsoft need to get their act together big time, or their next OS is going to be 'into administration'
Originally posted by Hulluck For the love of whatever. They better not force this on people. Not everyone wants everything connected or for that matter so easily tied to a specific account. I don't care if said features are there. I want to be able to turn them completely off. I'll completely unplug from online activity when such stuff is forced. I know that day is coming, sadly. I don't own a smart phone. I don't own a tablet, I have no real practical use for them. Needing a Microsoft account for 8 initially was a huge surprise / shock to me.
For what it's worth, as much as I am advocated a deep level of integration, I totally agree with you. Privacy is extremely important and I can't believe we haven't made a bigger deal about it over here in the US. I guess it just goes to show how lazy and complacent we have become as a nation.
I don't think it's about being lazy or complacent. I just don't think most of us care about privacy anymore. I mean, honestly I could give a damn who knows what about me. Other than my SSN and other identity theft related bits of info, I could really care less if Googe/Apple/Microsoft know I visit MMORPG.com 100 times a day and shop at New Egg etc lol. Most people I think are just more open these days, it's rather old school now to be very private.
I do have to chuckle a bit when people go on about the NSA etc. spying on them with XBone cameras. I ask them, do you really think the NSA wants to watch you eat pizza, play video games, jerk off, and then pass out on the couch? I'm sure they have better things to do. People are pretty delusional at times to think they are so important that someone wants to watch them all day.
My only real problem with Windows 8 was that it felt halfway done.
To me it felt like they started making a whole new OS but then said "ah, let's just leave some of the old stuff in there".
The metro thing actually looks really nice and isn't bad to use. But so much stuff still used the desktop, even windows stuff control panel etc. It was like bouncing between two OSs constantly.
I know some people look at the Metro as just a start menu but it feels like a whole separate OS. And I found myself just booting up and going straight to the desktop, since you can do everything from the desktop but you can't do everything from Metro.
Its because the metro interface is almost a seperate OS, its not capable of running anything of any real size, think of it more as a tablet 'bolt on' where you have to boot into desktop mode in order to do anything, it can run mini-apps, think mobile phone variety, mostly gimmicks, but for everything else, you need the full version of windows, which means you have to switch to the desktop OS. But yes, it does feel a bit 'half done' mostly because imo, its trying to be two different things, and as a result made a complete dogs doings in the process, so much so that i seriously doubt they can make the 'RT' competitive with the existing tablets. Microsoft has shown itself to be out of touch with demand and also with customer expectation for a while now, they don't seem to know what it is that their prospective customers want, so they are unable to cater to them, their latest incarnation of Surface for instance, doesn't appear to have taken any notice of what went wrong with the previous 2 incarnations, and is probably going to tank just as badly, Windows 8 proved to be relatively unlovable on the home front, their user base is barely able to compete with Mac's! and now their trying to shoehorn in on the Tablet market, its just not going to happen though, its late, its deficient, and its not what is generally wanted. Microsoft need to get their act together big time, or their next OS is going to be 'into administration'
They are in a rather lousy position though. The standard Windows design is so terribly old and outdated. I mean the last real big change before Windows 8 was Windows 95! The problem is, people are stubborn and so damn used to this system. I think they were trying not to do too much at once with Windows 8 but like I said, it just made it feel half done. iOS is in a similar position I think, they need to refresh the OS and breath some life into it but they don't want to risk alienating their current user base.
I think sometimes you just have to take a chance, all or nothing! Balls to the wall! Whole new OS!!! lol
I really don't see Chrome or Android as a good alternative. Its popular yes, but a good OS? Right now the best mobile OS is easily Windows Phone. It simply utilizes the hardware better and more efficiently. Windows Phone also has a better main language. Android is mostly written in Java and Windows Phone in C#. C# is easier to program for, has seen more usage due to its usage in web development, and runs more efficiently than Java. I would say its simply embarrassing how Android uses the same hardware compared to Windows Phone. The same applies to Chrome. Chrome just does not use hardware as well as Linux or Windows can.
People don't buy an OS for the sake of having that OS. People buy an OS for the sake of software that runs on that OS. Only if the software you want runs on multiple operating systems does the quality of the OS become an issue. There is tons of software for Android and iOS. For Windows RT/Phone, not so much. Even if 2/3 of the software you want runs on Windows RT/Phone but all of it runs on Android or iOS, Windows is a non-starter. Until Microsoft gets that fixed, Windows RT/Phone is going nowhere.
Many years ago, OS/2 was a better OS than Windows. And this was much more glaring than, say, comparing Vista to Windows 7, as this was back in the days when Windows was unstable. But Windows had lots of software and OS/2 didn't, so Windows won.
If everyone went by your logic then Android would not exist either. A lot of people bought an Android device at the time, knowing it didn't even have a fraction of the apps that iOS did. Even at the time of my first android device (Galaxy S2) there were still tons of apps which were not on android, some of them you would argue were extremely popular apps.
Android was in the same place as Windows. It was launched after iOS and didn't have the app support of iOS. You can even see this to this date. There are tons of apps which are iOS exclusive and a lot of big name apps come on iOS first and then they come to Android. The only apps not on iOS are the ones which Apple doesn't allow. If you use iOS and the app can be made for iOS, you know you are definitely going to get it! E.g. swift key would give anything to be able to release an app for iOS.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
Originally posted by Dreamo84 I don't think it's about being lazy or complacent. I just don't think most of us care about privacy anymore. I mean, honestly I could give a damn who knows what about me. Other than my SSN and other identity theft related bits of info, I could really care less if Googe/Apple/Microsoft know I visit MMORPG.com 100 times a day and shop at New Egg etc lol. Most people I think are just more open these days, it's rather old school now to be very private.
If that were as far as it goes, I'd be ok with it too.
But it doesn't. I'll spare you my tinfoil hat version, but it goes a lot deeper than them just looking at what sites you visit or shop at.
I'm not at the point of going through TOR for everything and wrapping my cell phone in aluminum foil after it's turned off, but I am at the point where I seriously consider what services and items I am willing to trade my privacy and personal data for.
Originally posted by Torvaldr I'm curious though, what do you think we lose by letting loose this info? If Microsoft has its way with a more unified sync'd platform across devices, what will we be giving up or what do we lose?
I don't think that unified sync leads to problems. Let me separate that from deep data mining.
I do think that having a single login does allow for deep data mining. If anything, Google proves that. I am not saying that Microsoft does or does not do this with their Microsoft Account integration into Windows - I'm just warning that they definitely should ~not~ do it.
That being said, deep data mining can reveal a lot about you apart from what web sites you look at and where you shop.
It's no secret they can pretty much tell where you live, how much you make, your relative financial health, what interests you have, etc. Most nearly every signon these days asks at least enough information to be able to glean the answers to these questions.
It can reveal how you will vote. Take note this article is nearly 2 years old, so it's already ancient in tech terms. This part is really scary in a democracy, if you think about it.
Even without your personal name involved, they (again, intentionally ambiguous) can pretty well tell who you are, who all your friends and family are, who you work with, and can track your movements.
If they know about your interests and buying habits, what's preventing them from going one step farther. you do the wrong internet search or click on the wrong link - you ~could~ be flagged as some sort of criminal, and subject to more intensive monitoring, or possibly even persecution without having committed any actual crime. (Minority Report precog-like data routine?). They know who your friends and familiy are, they know what medicine and health care you need to stay alive, they know where you are standing, after all.
I'm taking this to some pretty far conclusions that aren't necessarily reality right now, but you can see what the arbitrary and careless collection of big data can allow very easily, and I'm sure there are infinite other more nefarious purposes I haven't even imagined that are possible with even the amount of data that is collected now.
Originally posted by Hulluck For the love of whatever. They better not force this on people. Not everyone wants everything connected or for that matter so easily tied to a specific account. I don't care if said features are there. I want to be able to turn them completely off. I'll completely unplug from online activity when such stuff is forced. I know that day is coming, sadly. I don't own a smart phone. I don't own a tablet, I have no real practical use for them. Needing a Microsoft account for 8 initially was a huge surprise / shock to me.
For what it's worth, as much as I am advocated a deep level of integration, I totally agree with you. Privacy is extremely important and I can't believe we haven't made a bigger deal about it over here in the US. I guess it just goes to show how lazy and complacent we have become as a nation.
Political jabs aside, I think that is the one area where Microsoft can, and should, distinguish itself from Google. Google wants you for your data, and they are willing to give you free stuff to get it because your data is valuable. Microsoft wants to sell you software, not mine you for your data, and they should stay in that business. I think Windows 8 with Bing is a step in a dangerous direction for them.
It's entirely possible to offer things like online connectivity and unified account access without sucking every last ounce of data from that. Although that does require two things: the user trusting that the company isn't sucking their privacy for profit, and the company actually not pulling/storing all that extraneous data not specifically associated with the functions they are offering. If Microsoft could accomplish both.. I think right now many users and businesses trust MS when they say they aren't collecting your data, otherwise we wouldn't see the proliferation of Exchange and SQL servers out in the enterprise world.
If they shift to a data-mining model, they risk blurring the lines. Once individuals stop trusting them for privacy, companies will follow suit shortly thereafter. Sure, shakey desktop/consumer sales hurt, but If they endanger their enterprise cash cow, MS is in real trouble. Starting down the datamining path openly at the OS level is somewhat of a risky strategy. I won't argue that they don't datamine, they very clearing and aggressively market Bing for that very purpose, but they haven't ever integrated that into their software business model.
If the next thing out of Redmond is free Azure-hosted Exchanger servers for your SMB, so long as you agree to some unobtrusive and highly targeted Bing advertising... then it's game over.
I don't think Microsoft will be heading into Google's Direction. I am pretty sure Microsoft will be moving into the subscription based model where you pay $20 a month for the OS on all your devices with one account, Xbox Subscription, One Drive, MS Office, and additional fees for Microsoft's developers tools like Visual Studio.
Originally posted by Torvaldr I'm curious though, what do you think we lose by letting loose this info? If Microsoft has its way with a more unified sync'd platform across devices, what will we be giving up or what do we lose?
I don't think that unified sync leads to problems. Let me separate that from deep data mining.
I do think that having a single login does allow for deep data mining. If anything, Google proves that. I am not saying that Microsoft does or does not do this with their Microsoft Account integration into Windows - I'm just warning that they definitely should ~not~ do it.
That being said, deep data mining can reveal a lot about you apart from what web sites you look at and where you shop.
It's no secret they can pretty much tell where you live, how much you make, your relative financial health, what interests you have, etc. Most nearly every signon these days asks at least enough information to be able to glean the answers to these questions.
It can reveal how you will vote. Take note this article is nearly 2 years old, so it's already ancient in tech terms. This part is really scary in a democracy, if you think about it.
Even without your personal name involved, they (again, intentionally ambiguous) can pretty well tell who you are, who all your friends and family are, who you work with, and can track your movements.
If they know about your interests and buying habits, what's preventing them from going one step farther. you do the wrong internet search or click on the wrong link - you ~could~ be flagged as some sort of criminal, and subject to more intensive monitoring, or possibly even persecution without having committed any actual crime. (Minority Report precog-like data routine?). They know who your friends and familiy are, they know what medicine and health care you need to stay alive, they know where you are standing, after all.
I'm taking this to some pretty far conclusions that aren't necessarily reality right now, but you can see what the arbitrary and careless collection of big data can allow very easily, and I'm sure there are infinite other more nefarious purposes I haven't even imagined that are possible with even the amount of data that is collected now.
It's not just about what companies might do. If there's only one link that needs to be broken. Safety in numbers just isn't good enough. I want to mitigate my own risk to the best of my knowledge while using the services that I want to use. Giving what information I want to give. If they want to anonymously data mine me at a distance. Fuck it. I personally don't care. That doesn't bother me. I just don't need stuff simplified for convenience. I saw the one post and I guess that was my point. Please make features like that optional!
Frankly it is nice not having a phone tied to my hip. When people call me it was generally bad news anyway. LMAO! Win, Win. Less expenses, less hassle. My line of thought there. No one company makes anything in this area that is a must have.
Originally posted by Hulluck For the love of whatever. They better not force this on people. Not everyone wants everything connected or for that matter so easily tied to a specific account. I don't care if said features are there. I want to be able to turn them completely off. I'll completely unplug from online activity when such stuff is forced. I know that day is coming, sadly. I don't own a smart phone. I don't own a tablet, I have no real practical use for them. Needing a Microsoft account for 8 initially was a huge surprise / shock to me.
For what it's worth, as much as I am advocated a deep level of integration, I totally agree with you. Privacy is extremely important and I can't believe we haven't made a bigger deal about it over here in the US. I guess it just goes to show how lazy and complacent we have become as a nation.
Political jabs aside, I think that is the one area where Microsoft can, and should, distinguish itself from Google. Google wants you for your data, and they are willing to give you free stuff to get it because your data is valuable. Microsoft wants to sell you software, not mine you for your data, and they should stay in that business. I think Windows 8 with Bing is a step in a dangerous direction for them.
It's entirely possible to offer things like online connectivity and unified account access without sucking every last ounce of data from that. Although that does require two things: the user trusting that the company isn't sucking their privacy for profit, and the company actually not pulling/storing all that extraneous data not specifically associated with the functions they are offering. If Microsoft could accomplish both.. I think right now many users and businesses trust MS when they say they aren't collecting your data, otherwise we wouldn't see the proliferation of Exchange and SQL servers out in the enterprise world.
If they shift to a data-mining model, they risk blurring the lines. Once individuals stop trusting them for privacy, companies will follow suit shortly thereafter. Sure, shakey desktop/consumer sales hurt, but If they endanger their enterprise cash cow, MS is in real trouble. Starting down the datamining path openly at the OS level is somewhat of a risky strategy. I won't argue that they don't datamine, they very clearing and aggressively market Bing for that very purpose, but they haven't ever integrated that into their software business model.
If the next thing out of Redmond is free Azure-hosted Exchanger servers for your SMB, so long as you agree to some unobtrusive and highly targeted Bing advertising... then it's game over.
While I sympathize with your privacy concerns, I don't think there's that much money to be had in promising to protect your customers' privacy. Enough for smaller businesses to prosper, sure, but enough to support a company on the scale of Microsoft? No. Facebook has demonstrated that an awful lot of people don't care a bit about privacy over anything short of naked pictures of them being posted online.
However, Valve has the right idea about getting people to use Linux. Gamers anyway. An OS built specifically for gaming? That's going to be pretty appealing. It will take a decade or so to really gain any momentum, but it's the one thing that Microsoft has been trying to move away from. Even their gaming console has been pushed as an "Entertainment Console", not a "Gaming Machine".
Neither consumers in general nor gamers in particular are going to gradually shift to Linux over the course of a decade or so. Transitions like that either happen fast or don't happen at all. How long did it take for BlackBerry to go from the premier smartphone maker to an also-ran just hoping to stave off bankruptcy? How long did it take MySpace to go from the king of social media to a deserted wasteland?
I really don't see Chrome or Android as a good alternative. Its popular yes, but a good OS? Right now the best mobile OS is easily Windows Phone. It simply utilizes the hardware better and more efficiently. Windows Phone also has a better main language. Android is mostly written in Java and Windows Phone in C#. C# is easier to program for, has seen more usage due to its usage in web development, and runs more efficiently than Java. I would say its simply embarrassing how Android uses the same hardware compared to Windows Phone. The same applies to Chrome. Chrome just does not use hardware as well as Linux or Windows can.
People don't buy an OS for the sake of having that OS. People buy an OS for the sake of software that runs on that OS. Only if the software you want runs on multiple operating systems does the quality of the OS become an issue. There is tons of software for Android and iOS. For Windows RT/Phone, not so much. Even if 2/3 of the software you want runs on Windows RT/Phone but all of it runs on Android or iOS, Windows is a non-starter. Until Microsoft gets that fixed, Windows RT/Phone is going nowhere.
Many years ago, OS/2 was a better OS than Windows. And this was much more glaring than, say, comparing Vista to Windows 7, as this was back in the days when Windows was unstable. But Windows had lots of software and OS/2 didn't, so Windows won.
If everyone went by your logic then Android would not exist either. A lot of people bought an Android device at the time, knowing it didn't even have a fraction of the apps that iOS did. Even at the time of my first android device (Galaxy S2) there were still tons of apps which were not on android, some of them you would argue were extremely popular apps.
Android was in the same place as Windows. It was launched after iOS and didn't have the app support of iOS. You can even see this to this date. There are tons of apps which are iOS exclusive and a lot of big name apps come on iOS first and then they come to Android. The only apps not on iOS are the ones which Apple doesn't allow. If you use iOS and the app can be made for iOS, you know you are definitely going to get it! E.g. swift key would give anything to be able to release an app for iOS.
Android had the advantage that what you could get from Apple was very restricted. iPhones are expensive (phones that are "free" with a two-year subscription just amortize the phone payments over two years), and Apple only allowed you to use AT&T as your carrier. That left vast swaths of the potential market vacant, and Android mostly filled them. Windows is not going to undercut Android on price, nor is Microsoft going to find lucrative markets that Google arbitrarily decided to stay out of.
Originally posted by Hulluck For the love of whatever. They better not force this on people. Not everyone wants everything connected or for that matter so easily tied to a specific account. I don't care if said features are there. I want to be able to turn them completely off. I'll completely unplug from online activity when such stuff is forced. I know that day is coming, sadly. I don't own a smart phone. I don't own a tablet, I have no real practical use for them. Needing a Microsoft account for 8 initially was a huge surprise / shock to me.
For what it's worth, as much as I am advocated a deep level of integration, I totally agree with you. Privacy is extremely important and I can't believe we haven't made a bigger deal about it over here in the US. I guess it just goes to show how lazy and complacent we have become as a nation.
Political jabs aside, I think that is the one area where Microsoft can, and should, distinguish itself from Google. Google wants you for your data, and they are willing to give you free stuff to get it because your data is valuable. Microsoft wants to sell you software, not mine you for your data, and they should stay in that business. I think Windows 8 with Bing is a step in a dangerous direction for them.
It's entirely possible to offer things like online connectivity and unified account access without sucking every last ounce of data from that. Although that does require two things: the user trusting that the company isn't sucking their privacy for profit, and the company actually not pulling/storing all that extraneous data not specifically associated with the functions they are offering. If Microsoft could accomplish both.. I think right now many users and businesses trust MS when they say they aren't collecting your data, otherwise we wouldn't see the proliferation of Exchange and SQL servers out in the enterprise world.
If they shift to a data-mining model, they risk blurring the lines. Once individuals stop trusting them for privacy, companies will follow suit shortly thereafter. Sure, shakey desktop/consumer sales hurt, but If they endanger their enterprise cash cow, MS is in real trouble. Starting down the datamining path openly at the OS level is somewhat of a risky strategy. I won't argue that they don't datamine, they very clearing and aggressively market Bing for that very purpose, but they haven't ever integrated that into their software business model.
If the next thing out of Redmond is free Azure-hosted Exchanger servers for your SMB, so long as you agree to some unobtrusive and highly targeted Bing advertising... then it's game over.
While I sympathize with your privacy concerns, I don't think there's that much money to be had in promising to protect your customers' privacy. Enough for smaller businesses to prosper, sure, but enough to support a company on the scale of Microsoft? No. Facebook has demonstrated that an awful lot of people don't care a bit about privacy over anything short of naked pictures of them being posted online.
They don't have to protect anything. Just give the choice to use such features. How much a given person connects. If they go the route of Facebook. I'm out most definitely. I got a $1200 boat anchor. I understand that they don't care either. All to well. It's just funny that people completely flipped out over one thing. But all this other stuff. Nothing. Sorry for the derail.
6. Uncertain upgrade paths going forward. How much is upgrading going to cost going from 8.1 to 8.x and on to Win9? Am I going to need to lay out a lot of money just to keep upgraded? How long will they support my current version (8 or 8.1) when the next comes along? If I get really deeply tied into their ecosystem how painful will it be for me to pull out of it? Those uncertainties keep me from jumping in with both feet without an exit strategy.
Microsoft generally supports an OS for 10 years after the initial launch, unless there are free upgrades from it. They could, for example, discontinue support for plain Windows 7 on the basis that everyone with Windows 7 can upgrade to Windows 7 Service Pack 1 for free. For all I know, they might have already done that.
However, Valve has the right idea about getting people to use Linux. Gamers anyway. An OS built specifically for gaming? That's going to be pretty appealing. It will take a decade or so to really gain any momentum, but it's the one thing that Microsoft has been trying to move away from. Even their gaming console has been pushed as an "Entertainment Console", not a "Gaming Machine".
Neither consumers in general nor gamers in particular are going to gradually shift to Linux over the course of a decade or so. Transitions like that either happen fast or don't happen at all. How long did it take for BlackBerry to go from the premier smartphone maker to an also-ran just hoping to stave off bankruptcy? How long did it take MySpace to go from the king of social media to a deserted wasteland?
It always looks sudden after the fact, until you start looking at the details that weren't constantly on the front page or the top news link.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Comments
This is true for the most part, but there is a bit more to it in the mobile space.
Yes, you can run multiple OSes on a PC - and that's a great and wonderful thing. But you can't so much on a mobile device. Your choice of hardware and Operating System are linked and inseparable. I can't buy an iPhone and install Android on it (technically it could be done, and I've seen some hacks that try to do it, but let's face it, it's not a ready-for-primetime option). I can't go out and take my Samsung Galaxy S5 and install WIndows Mobile on it. I don't think we'll ever see iOS on anything other than Apple hardware (at least officially., although people said that about MacOS and then 1995 came).
There's no technical reason why this is - it's possible to do all of that. But hardware manufacturers right now have the luxury of locking you into a software suite as well, and they are leveraging that as much as possible. If you want XXX OS, or the ability to run YYY software, or ZZZ Hardware -- then whichever one of those factors is the most important inherently drives you to one of a very narrow and limited choices of mobile devices available today.
As that pertains to Windows Mobile -- Android was free, and has pretty liberal licensing. Google was smart, stayed out of the hardware business, and just provided the OS shell (that happens to drive everything through Google's massive data-collecting machine) for vendors, and then sits back and watches the data pour in (and that leads to the real cash cow, capitalizing on your data). Microsoft doesn't have that business model, even giving away the software for free won't do anything for them, they can't turn around and datamine your life and capitalize on it (and even if they ~could~, it would seriously jeopardize their enterprise business, which is very nearly their only significant driver left).
In my opinion, the best thing Windows Mobile could do is integrate with Windows Desktop - in such a fashion that no other ecosystem has currently. People ~would~ be willing to pay for that, especially enterprise, where Windows is still a very dominate force. And while it's pretty easy to see the enterprise angle (security feacures, Exchange services, Office, etc), there are numerous consumer angles that could play well too -- integrate it with XBone and let you play on-the-go (oh, just like PS Vita/PS4), use your mobile device as a input device (kinda like WiiU's tablet), expand XBox Smartglass, allow seamless game streaming from WIndows (ala Steam In-Home Streaming, only to your Windows Mobile device), common signon and account settings (Win8 already has MS Account signon for "single signon") so that once you setup basic services like email, account preferences, etc they transfer magically across devices (I don't have to go and set up email on every device), apps that work across desktop and mobile and console, using Mobile device as augment for the desktop (additional screen, additional input device, etc etc) -- the possibilities go on and on, and if they are tied tightly and done well, it would be a very powerful experience.
I think that's where MS was trying to head with the Windows 8 theme, and they created a lot of possibilities, but they didn't quite connect all the dots, and we had a lot of idea fragments spread all over that never really formed a cohesive hardware/software strategy. If they can connect the dots (and repair a lot of the marketing mess they made for themselves), Windows Mobile could very well be a big deal again, even if it wasn't free.
For the love of whatever. They better not force this on people. Not everyone wants everything connected or for that matter so easily tied to a specific account. I don't care if said features are there. I want to be able to turn them completely off. I'll completely unplug from online activity when such stuff is forced. I know that day is coming, sadly. I don't own a smart phone. I don't own a tablet, I have no real practical use for them. Needing a Microsoft account for 8 initially was a huge surprise / shock to me.
Edit: For the record. I try to live a pretty simple life for the most part. I own a pc and that's it. I can easily do without it. The last cell phone I owned was pre- smart phones. I value my privacy and I don't want companies forcing me to breech my privacy. If I breech it, I want it to be my choice. I understand that I am a minority from reactions I get. I think that once privacy is completely gone which I imagine is coming. People will look back and miss what we had. being able to choose how much of "you" you want out there. For the record Google Glass scares the shit out of me. Because Google grabs and stores information. It's what they do. If glass becomes standard it's not far fetched to think face recognition and databases aren't far behind. Sorry. Just trying to explain where I am coming from. Kind of random and I won't follow up.
What? That's not new.
I have Windows on my Pocket PC.
Sorry but the one thing Linux had over MS for years was stability, that died with win 7, haven't had a blue screen in 4 years on numerous PC's. You dream of things switching over to Linux won't happen because 98% of the planet doesn't want to be bothered with setting shit up, they want simple plug and play = go.
What I mean by DirectX is gone is that there are no longer disjointed libraries that accomplish the same thing in Windows. The DirectX components only account for 2 libraries now verse the 6 or so from before and the libraries are used for graphical applications outside of games. Before you could also program a DirectX game without using an OS SDK, this pretty much locks the DirectX version to the OS.
I know they are Linux Kernels, but in the same sense that OSX is a Linux Kernel. Just because they use a Linux Kernel doesn't mean they offer the flexibility for developers and users. When I used a ChromeBook all I could think about is how locked down it is and how many steps it took to accomplish simple tasks.
This is also why nobody switched to Windows 8. Windows 7 "just worked" and using Windows 8 was more different from Windows 7 than using Linux. On a planetary scale though, Microsoft is having trouble getting people off of Windows XP, never mind Windows 7.
However, Valve has the right idea about getting people to use Linux. Gamers anyway. An OS built specifically for gaming? That's going to be pretty appealing. It will take a decade or so to really gain any momentum, but it's the one thing that Microsoft has been trying to move away from. Even their gaming console has been pushed as an "Entertainment Console", not a "Gaming Machine".
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
OS X has nothing to do with Linux, it's Darwin, which is BSD-based. BSD and Linux are only related in the fact that they are both derived from Unix and both share some POSIX level of compatibility, meaning a lot of the same basic command lines work and they offer many of same libraries and APIs to make cross-compiling code easier.
So I suppose you could say that Chrome is to Linux as OS X is to BSD, that would be a valid comparison, and you make a good point with that.
For what it's worth, as much as I am advocated a deep level of integration, I totally agree with you. Privacy is extremely important and I can't believe we haven't made a bigger deal about it over here in the US. I guess it just goes to show how lazy and complacent we have become as a nation.
Political jabs aside, I think that is the one area where Microsoft can, and should, distinguish itself from Google. Google wants you for your data, and they are willing to give you free stuff to get it because your data is valuable. Microsoft wants to sell you software, not mine you for your data, and they should stay in that business. I think Windows 8 with Bing is a step in a dangerous direction for them.
It's entirely possible to offer things like online connectivity and unified account access without sucking every last ounce of data from that. Although that does require two things: the user trusting that the company isn't sucking their privacy for profit, and the company actually not pulling/storing all that extraneous data not specifically associated with the functions they are offering. If Microsoft could accomplish both.. I think right now many users and businesses trust MS when they say they aren't collecting your data, otherwise we wouldn't see the proliferation of Exchange and SQL servers out in the enterprise world.
If they shift to a data-mining model, they risk blurring the lines. Once individuals stop trusting them for privacy, companies will follow suit shortly thereafter. Sure, shakey desktop/consumer sales hurt, but If they endanger their enterprise cash cow, MS is in real trouble. Starting down the datamining path openly at the OS level is somewhat of a risky strategy. I won't argue that they don't datamine, they very clearing and aggressively market Bing for that very purpose, but they haven't ever integrated that into their software business model.
If the next thing out of Redmond is free Azure-hosted Exchanger servers for your SMB, so long as you agree to some unobtrusive and highly targeted Bing advertising... then it's game over.
My only real problem with Windows 8 was that it felt halfway done.
To me it felt like they started making a whole new OS but then said "ah, let's just leave some of the old stuff in there".
The metro thing actually looks really nice and isn't bad to use. But so much stuff still used the desktop, even windows stuff control panel etc. It was like bouncing between two OSs constantly.
I know some people look at the Metro as just a start menu but it feels like a whole separate OS. And I found myself just booting up and going straight to the desktop, since you can do everything from the desktop but you can't do everything from Metro.
Its because the metro interface is almost a seperate OS, its not capable of running anything of any real size, think of it more as a tablet 'bolt on' where you have to boot into desktop mode in order to do anything, it can run mini-apps, think mobile phone variety, mostly gimmicks, but for everything else, you need the full version of windows, which means you have to switch to the desktop OS. But yes, it does feel a bit 'half done' mostly because imo, its trying to be two different things, and as a result made a complete dogs doings in the process, so much so that i seriously doubt they can make the 'RT' competitive with the existing tablets. Microsoft has shown itself to be out of touch with demand and also with customer expectation for a while now, they don't seem to know what it is that their prospective customers want, so they are unable to cater to them, their latest incarnation of Surface for instance, doesn't appear to have taken any notice of what went wrong with the previous 2 incarnations, and is probably going to tank just as badly, Windows 8 proved to be relatively unlovable on the home front, their user base is barely able to compete with Mac's! and now their trying to shoehorn in on the Tablet market, its just not going to happen though, its late, its deficient, and its not what is generally wanted. Microsoft need to get their act together big time, or their next OS is going to be 'into administration'
I don't think it's about being lazy or complacent. I just don't think most of us care about privacy anymore. I mean, honestly I could give a damn who knows what about me. Other than my SSN and other identity theft related bits of info, I could really care less if Googe/Apple/Microsoft know I visit MMORPG.com 100 times a day and shop at New Egg etc lol. Most people I think are just more open these days, it's rather old school now to be very private.
I do have to chuckle a bit when people go on about the NSA etc. spying on them with XBone cameras. I ask them, do you really think the NSA wants to watch you eat pizza, play video games, jerk off, and then pass out on the couch? I'm sure they have better things to do. People are pretty delusional at times to think they are so important that someone wants to watch them all day.
They are in a rather lousy position though. The standard Windows design is so terribly old and outdated. I mean the last real big change before Windows 8 was Windows 95! The problem is, people are stubborn and so damn used to this system. I think they were trying not to do too much at once with Windows 8 but like I said, it just made it feel half done. iOS is in a similar position I think, they need to refresh the OS and breath some life into it but they don't want to risk alienating their current user base.
I think sometimes you just have to take a chance, all or nothing! Balls to the wall! Whole new OS!!! lol
If everyone went by your logic then Android would not exist either. A lot of people bought an Android device at the time, knowing it didn't even have a fraction of the apps that iOS did. Even at the time of my first android device (Galaxy S2) there were still tons of apps which were not on android, some of them you would argue were extremely popular apps.
Android was in the same place as Windows. It was launched after iOS and didn't have the app support of iOS. You can even see this to this date. There are tons of apps which are iOS exclusive and a lot of big name apps come on iOS first and then they come to Android. The only apps not on iOS are the ones which Apple doesn't allow. If you use iOS and the app can be made for iOS, you know you are definitely going to get it! E.g. swift key would give anything to be able to release an app for iOS.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
If that were as far as it goes, I'd be ok with it too.
But it doesn't. I'll spare you my tinfoil hat version, but it goes a lot deeper than them just looking at what sites you visit or shop at.
I'm not at the point of going through TOR for everything and wrapping my cell phone in aluminum foil after it's turned off, but I am at the point where I seriously consider what services and items I am willing to trade my privacy and personal data for.
My opinion is that MS should make a separate OS for portable devices.
To me win8 felt like a multiplatform game, one that makes compromises to work on several platform but feels perfect on none.
I guess I will stay on W7 for a long time...
I don't think that unified sync leads to problems. Let me separate that from deep data mining.
I do think that having a single login does allow for deep data mining. If anything, Google proves that. I am not saying that Microsoft does or does not do this with their Microsoft Account integration into Windows - I'm just warning that they definitely should ~not~ do it.
That being said, deep data mining can reveal a lot about you apart from what web sites you look at and where you shop.
It's no secret they can pretty much tell where you live, how much you make, your relative financial health, what interests you have, etc. Most nearly every signon these days asks at least enough information to be able to glean the answers to these questions.
They can tell a lot about your medical condition
It can reveal how you will vote. Take note this article is nearly 2 years old, so it's already ancient in tech terms. This part is really scary in a democracy, if you think about it.
They know where you are, and probably what you are doing there If you carry a cell phone, regardless of if it's a smart phone or not, they (I use that term completely ambiguously) can tell where you are standing within a few hundred meters. If you have a smart phone, they can tell within a few inches. If your in a store, they can probably tell exactly what you are looking at. This part is similarly scary if the data is in the wrong hands (think child predator).
Even without your personal name involved, they (again, intentionally ambiguous) can pretty well tell who you are, who all your friends and family are, who you work with, and can track your movements.
If they know about your interests and buying habits, what's preventing them from going one step farther. you do the wrong internet search or click on the wrong link - you ~could~ be flagged as some sort of criminal, and subject to more intensive monitoring, or possibly even persecution without having committed any actual crime. (Minority Report precog-like data routine?). They know who your friends and familiy are, they know what medicine and health care you need to stay alive, they know where you are standing, after all.
I'm taking this to some pretty far conclusions that aren't necessarily reality right now, but you can see what the arbitrary and careless collection of big data can allow very easily, and I'm sure there are infinite other more nefarious purposes I haven't even imagined that are possible with even the amount of data that is collected now.
I don't think Microsoft will be heading into Google's Direction. I am pretty sure Microsoft will be moving into the subscription based model where you pay $20 a month for the OS on all your devices with one account, Xbox Subscription, One Drive, MS Office, and additional fees for Microsoft's developers tools like Visual Studio.
It's not just about what companies might do. If there's only one link that needs to be broken. Safety in numbers just isn't good enough. I want to mitigate my own risk to the best of my knowledge while using the services that I want to use. Giving what information I want to give. If they want to anonymously data mine me at a distance. Fuck it. I personally don't care. That doesn't bother me. I just don't need stuff simplified for convenience. I saw the one post and I guess that was my point. Please make features like that optional!
Frankly it is nice not having a phone tied to my hip. When people call me it was generally bad news anyway. LMAO! Win, Win. Less expenses, less hassle. My line of thought there. No one company makes anything in this area that is a must have.
While I sympathize with your privacy concerns, I don't think there's that much money to be had in promising to protect your customers' privacy. Enough for smaller businesses to prosper, sure, but enough to support a company on the scale of Microsoft? No. Facebook has demonstrated that an awful lot of people don't care a bit about privacy over anything short of naked pictures of them being posted online.
Neither consumers in general nor gamers in particular are going to gradually shift to Linux over the course of a decade or so. Transitions like that either happen fast or don't happen at all. How long did it take for BlackBerry to go from the premier smartphone maker to an also-ran just hoping to stave off bankruptcy? How long did it take MySpace to go from the king of social media to a deserted wasteland?
Android had the advantage that what you could get from Apple was very restricted. iPhones are expensive (phones that are "free" with a two-year subscription just amortize the phone payments over two years), and Apple only allowed you to use AT&T as your carrier. That left vast swaths of the potential market vacant, and Android mostly filled them. Windows is not going to undercut Android on price, nor is Microsoft going to find lucrative markets that Google arbitrarily decided to stay out of.
They don't have to protect anything. Just give the choice to use such features. How much a given person connects. If they go the route of Facebook. I'm out most definitely. I got a $1200 boat anchor. I understand that they don't care either. All to well. It's just funny that people completely flipped out over one thing. But all this other stuff. Nothing. Sorry for the derail.
Microsoft generally supports an OS for 10 years after the initial launch, unless there are free upgrades from it. They could, for example, discontinue support for plain Windows 7 on the basis that everyone with Windows 7 can upgrade to Windows 7 Service Pack 1 for free. For all I know, they might have already done that.
It always looks sudden after the fact, until you start looking at the details that weren't constantly on the front page or the top news link.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
well the future of gaming it seems to go for Linux OS, so Windows are making a strife for tablets it sounds logic ...
i miss something ?