[JorgeA]

hoak, on 22 September 2012 - 07:03 PM, said:

While Windows 9 might be the 'tock' that saves us from the cringe fest that is Windows 8, it seems a safe bet that we're not far from Microsoft taking the old 'hamburger scam' t the next level; 'Hambugers 99¢! (cooked and with bun $5.00)'... Or, god forbid, a 'subscription OS'!

You may note be that far off the mark. The article that I linked to above, cites a newspaper interview with Ballmer, where he says

Quote

I think when you look forward, our core capability will be software, (but) you'll probably think of us more as a devices-and-services company. Which is a little different. Software powers devices and software powers these cloud services, but it's a different form of delivery....

Other tidbits from that interview:

Quote

Q: What is Microsoft's plan if Windows 8 doesn't take off?

A: You know, Windows 8 is going to do great.

Q: No doubt at all?

A: I'm not paid to have doubts. (Laughs.) I don't have any. It's a fantastic product. ...

And:

Quote

It also brings us into this world of much more mobile computing and more mobile form factors. I think it's going to be hard to tell what's a tablet and what is a PC.

Ballmer's fundamental mistake. As we have noted a number of times in this thread, a PC is not a tablet, and a tablet is not a PC.

--JorgeA

[JorgeA]

jaclaz, on 23 September 2012 - 02:59 AM, said:

For NO apparent reason a possible explanation of the creative process (re: "new" Windows Logo):

Spoiler

https://plus.google....sts/Y72MoM5ASb2

That's great, I love it!!!

--JorgeA

[JorgeA]

hoak, on 13 September 2012 - 01:41 PM, said:

JorgeA, on 12 September 2012 - 11:19 PM, said:

So, putting Thurrott's declarations together, "the desktop must die" and the Metro-faced PCs we use will be running on ARM.

What will that mean for gaming, CAD, video and photo editors, financial analysts, and anybody else whose work and interests require the use of high-powered machines?

Well obviously not today but the theory is sound; ARM architecture can scale just fine to meet high-power computing requirements, and some software Developer/Publishers might like the idea of a 'reboot' on a new platform, with DRM and a walled garden that works and offers at least the promise of more profitability. However when you factor in that it will be Microsoft's DRM, Microsoft's walled garden, and Microsoft's dysfunctional Metro/Modern/NCI (where did NCI come from?) interface -- it's difficult to understand how any Developer/Publisher without a twenty year contract with Microsoft could find this any more appealing then any rational Consumer that's functioning above the neck...

Bad news, hoak -- while researching something else, I came across this bit of information.

There's also this.

Quote

In December 2011, Microsoft published a document entitled "Windows Hardware Certification Requirements" for client and server systems. As the introduction explains:

This release to web (RTW) document contains the Windows Hardware Certification requirements for Windows 8 Certified Systems. These requirements are Microsoft’s guidelines for designing systems which successfully meet Windows performance, quality, and feature criteria, to assure the optimum Windows 8 computing experience. Successfully following this guidance will allow a partner to receive certification for their system.

On page 116 of this document, there are some details about the circumstances under which Secure Boot can be disabled:

MANDATORY: Enable/Disable Secure Boot. On non-ARM systems, it is required to implement the ability to disable Secure Boot via firmware setup. A physically present user must be allowed to disable Secure Boot via firmware setup without possession of Pkpriv. Programmatic disabling of Secure Boot either during Boot Services or after exiting EFI Boot Services MUST NOT be possible. Disabling Secure MUST NOT be possible on ARM systems.

Unless the Windows 8 hardware certification requirements have changed since that was written, it looks like our hypothetical switch over from Intel to ARM systems on our desks would mean the end of multibooting with other OS's. Yet another way in which Microsoft with Windows 8 is restricting user choice.

EDIT: It's conceivable that ARM PCs might be enabled at the factory to boot other OS's (maybe), but here is some more background on the issue:

Quote

“UEFI's Secure Boot is implemented at OEM (originial equipment manufacturer) level, all new PCs purchased (with the intent of loading your favorite distro) will have Secure Boot." This cripples them as far as Malmrose is concerned.

“Yes, you can disable it. But 'disabling' something that's 'secure' makes you bad.” Besides as Malmose told me, “the keystroke(s) needed to get Linux to run on machines post-2012 will be simple at first, becoming increasingly complex at a non-shocking rate. It's a monumental shift at OEM level.” Malmrose fears that this will desktop Linux “too difficult to new users, [and this will cause] slow death by suffocation” for Linux.

--JorgeA

This post has been edited by JorgeA: 23 September 2012 - 02:47 PM

[Joseph_sw]

Quote

UEFI's Secure Boot is implemented at OEM (originial equipment manufacturer) level,

My personal opinion that hardware OWNER should be allowed to change the PK ,
but it seems MS want, that only the OEM should able to do that.

[hoak]

While obviously Microsoft will (and already has) lock down ARM platforms it licenses Windows RT with OEM partners as well as ARM hardware it licenses outright -- the good news is ARM licensure is not mitigated by just three licensees, so we'll likely never see Microsoft prevailing on ARM the way it has on x86 -- there are just too many licensees, and anyone that wants to can inexpensively license ARM and build a new system with any BIOS boot configuration, that loads any OS (or excludes any OS) that pleases them.

ARM hardware and licensure is and should remain very free market so, and if alternatives to Windows RT are as competitive and credible (as we know them to be), it's a forgone conclusion that Microsoft is shooting themselves in the foot with a triple salvo of: 1) a higher price point, 2) exclusivity with their OEM hardware partners, and 3) an even more exclusive Microsoft ecosystem... Who is going to pay more for the same hardware just because it has Windows RT on it, when you can run Linux or Android on it and Run Windows 7 under emulation for substantially less?

[Joseph_sw]

I see ...

I always wonder why when MS talk about enforced secureboot they always said "ARM, ARM ARM" never "Tablet" or "SmartPhone" or even "PC",
yet, on other occasion keep campaigning a Tablet is a PC, a PC is a Tablet.

I got this vibe that closing the ARM (missuse of secureboot), is MS moves to secure the monoply on the future ARM-based PC,
as ARM chips will began used in consumer PC somewhere in near future, MS will insist that the OS must be securebooted (read: locked) there as well.

Profits for MS:
- Walled Garden
- Easier to enforce obselecene (or 'Migration' as MS said it).

OEM might also welcome this,
as it would enable them to sell more hardware/PC for newer OS,
as existing PC is locked to previous OS.

[Tripredacus]

Quote

The company said it only learned in July that it didn’t offer its browser choice software to some 28 million computers running Windows 7 Service Pack 1, or 10 percent of the computers that should have received it. It blamed a technical error and said it has already started distributing a fix.

This change to OS has to be done by the OEMs. Microsoft is not technically responsible since they do not actually sell any of these computers, or even set them up. Microsoft would have made an announcement to their European Partners concerning required changes to how the OS is deployed. Those Partners are required to make these changes... I am sure that Microsoft isn't taking it lightly that some of their partners were not following the rules. I'm not sure what the penalties would be tho.

Quote

Windows RT, the version of the software for tablets and other devices that run on chips designed by ARM Holdings Plc, prohibits any browser except for Internet Explorer, according to a May blog post by Mozilla Corp., maker of the rival Firefox browser. The software is to be introduced Oct. 26.

Can you use different browsers on Android or Apple devices? What about Amazon's Kindle? Aren't these devices the choice themselves, rather than what you can install on them?

Quote

Oww, come on, google for it...

You could always just Ask Jeeves...

Quote

Stop ragging on Microsoft. Don't you KNOW that their highly paid Professional Experts have metrics and focus groups and crystal balls to support their design choices?? Shame on you, you hater...

The Nokia Lumia phone is a great example of why the common excuse of Samsung vs Apple in the "how different can you make it?" It is refreshing to see a different type of phone design. Most phones just look way to similar as it is. This Lumia, and the original Droid X are examples of how a phone design doesn't need to be so generic. And I'm not referring to what shows up on the screen.

Quote

From everything I've seen and heard, the Android phone is comparable to Linux, ie more flexible and powerful but it can get complicated to use so it's a power user phone,

Maybe the Android is more like Windows than Linux. Typically most people who use Linux are beyond power users or at least enthusiasts. I have an Android phone and while it could be complicated if I dug into it, I don't use it that way. So I consider that to be closer to Windows than Linux. Maybe if Linux had more marketplace standing I would change my mind. But I can say that none of my relatives have a Linux computer.

Quote

He personally loves his Galaxy S III and has it unlocked, overclocked, and tweaked like crazy, but he prefers the employees who are not as technical to have an iPhone because they are less likely to "mess it up" so it makes his job easier.

You don't HAVE to unlock the thing you know...

Quote

On page 116 of this document, there are some details about the circumstances under which Secure Boot can be disabled:

MANDATORY: Enable/Disable Secure Boot. On non-ARM systems, it is required to implement the ability to disable Secure Boot via firmware setup. A physically present user must be allowed to disable Secure Boot via firmware setup without possession of Pkpriv. Programmatic disabling of Secure Boot either during Boot Services or after exiting EFI Boot Services MUST NOT be possible. Disabling Secure MUST NOT be possible on ARM systems.

The Windows 8 Hardware Certification replaces the previous Windows Logo Program. It is NOT a requirement in order to sell a product with Windows 8 on it. It is only a requirement to acquire the Certification... which basically means you can sell a product that has the "Windows 8 Certified" sticker on it. So basically, this limitation should only exist on Windows RT systems with the Certified Sticker, and NOT be a problem on non-certified Windows 8 ARM systems. The problem is that for the first year, only the 3-5 ODM/Partners has access to Windows RT. Once that grace period is passed and the other OEMs can build RT systems, you will then see the non-certified Windows 8 RT systems hit the market.

[jaclaz]

Tripredacus, on 24 September 2012 - 08:53 AM, said:

You don't HAVE to unlock the thing you know...

Oh, yes you DO.

Or, sooner that you might expect, the IGC (International Geek Committee) will send someone to get back your diploma and badge (besides ALL your screwdrivers, and YES including the pentalobe one ):
http://www.theregist...4/apple_screws/
http://www.ifixit.co...ew-your-iphone/


jaclaz

[JorgeA]

Joseph_sw, on 24 September 2012 - 04:40 AM, said:

I got this vibe that closing the ARM (missuse of secureboot), is MS moves to secure the monoply on the future ARM-based PC,
as ARM chips will began used in consumer PC somewhere in near future, MS will insist that the OS must be securebooted (read: locked) there as well.

Joseph_sw,

That's one of the things I'm concerned about. The more kownledgeable a user I become (if I may say so myself ), the greater value that I find in things such as multibooting -- which may or may not be possible in future Windows-on-ARM systems.

If I can't multiboot from two OS's on the hard disk, can I still boot off an optical disc or USB thumb drive? Part of my increased knowledge also involves the use of live CDs to scan computers for malware that can't be found from inside Windows. (Just last week I found three adwares on my wife's computer by using a live CD.) But if I can ONLY boot to the Microsoft-approved, preinstalled OS, then this becomes impossible. As would using a live rescue CD to repair Windows or salvage data from a sick PC.

--JorgeA

[JorgeA]

Another small way in which Windows 8 is inferior to Windows 7 and Vista: shutdown dialog lacks the option to put the computer in hibernation.

One more thing that you can do from the much-maligned Start Menu, that is not possible with that cool, fantastic, fabulous Metro Start Screen.

--JorgeA

[tsampikos]

I have a question according to Smartscreen. Let's say that we disable the Windows 8 native smartscreen protection (the trojan horse one), or not activate it at all during setup. Will then be the same like in Windows 7, where smartscreen is only activated on Internet explorer and windows explorer? Or will it be completely disabled?

This post has been edited by tsampikos: 25 September 2012 - 12:14 AM

[jaclaz]

JorgeA, on 25 September 2012 - 12:03 AM, said:

@Kelsenellenelvian has written about the possibility that the Windows 8 SmartScreen Filter is a threat to user privacy.

Here's something else to chew on. What do you think? Is this something else to worry about on the privacy score, or not really?

Do you think that Windows 7 Activation is profoundly different form that?

jaclaz

[hoak]

JorgeA, on 25 September 2012 - 12:03 AM, said:

Is this something else to worry about on the privacy score, or not really?

It's not what we can see, trace and measure that concerns me; as I'm sure Microsoft already has some well composed 'plays nice' legal boiler plate about how this is just anonymous information collected for security and 'making your product experience better'. What worries me is what we don't see, that doesn't show up via Windows Performance Counters because it's totally obfuscated by design the Windows network stack -- and the only indication we'll have that anything is going on is something will show up in WireShark (if that)... However annoying you may find him personally, Richard Stallman seems to be hitting on all cylinders with respect to closed source hegemonic OS publisher/developer with big government contracts and the ultimate outcome this has with respect to privacy, security and freedom...

This post has been edited by hoak: 25 September 2012 - 05:12 AM

[jaclaz]

hoak, on 25 September 2012 - 05:01 AM, said:

However annoying you may find him personally, Richard Stallman seems to be hitting on all cylinders with respect to closed source hegemonic OS publisher/developer with big government contracts and the ultimate outcome this has with respect to privacy, security and freedom...

Well, let's try not to confuse Freedom (which is one thing) with Privacy amd Security (which are other things).

Besides that, when you go and buy a car you don't pretend to have the source code of the built-in navigator, nor of the car diagnostic system if you are worried about these things phoning home or providing informations to the manufacturer, you go and buy a bycicle INSTEAD. (if you prefer you have no or little choices).

With OS, you have the choices, so bragging about these issues is mostly nonsense, just get a Linux, or better, BSD , and avoid whining.

It is important to know what happens in detail, and have viable alternatives, should one not like these features.

These "bad" behaviours can be changed by simply not buying that OS and saying aloud WHY exactly you didn't, but it's not like they would be censoring your speech, limiting your mobility or similar.

jaclaz

[hoak]

jaclaz, on 25 September 2012 - 05:18 AM, said:

Well, let's try not to confuse Freedom (which is one thing) with Privacy amd Security (which are other things).

I'm not, but Stallman makes a very strong case in his recitation of how all three are compromised.

jaclaz, on 25 September 2012 - 05:18 AM, said:

With OS, you have the choices, so bragging about these issues is mostly nonsense, just get a Linux, or better, BSD , and avoid whining.

It is important to know what happens in detail, and have viable alternatives, should one not like these features.

These "bad" behaviours can be changed by simply not buying that OS and saying aloud WHY exactly you didn't, but it's not like they would be censoring your speech, limiting your mobility or similar.

I agree, but Microsoft does employ some incredible talent, and it is disappointing to see the direction(s) they're taking with so many things we've taken for granted for so long -- and that hasn't exactly hurt them financially... And I'm not so sure Microsoft's decision making is effected much by consumer OS sales or the few of us that use alternatives.

This post has been edited by hoak: 25 September 2012 - 05:30 AM

[Tripredacus]

JorgeA, on 24 September 2012 - 07:15 PM, said:

Another small way in which Windows 8 is inferior to Windows 7 and Vista: shutdown dialog lacks the option to put the computer in hibernation.

I am error:

Quote

Windows 8 doesn’t offers easier ways to access shutdown dialog by throwing user into two worlds: Modern and Traditional desktop. Windows 8 modern UI adds confusion, inconveniences to the user, Windows 8 not user friendly OS at all. User in Windows 8 needs to learn how to shutdown Windows 8 which is simple task in Windows 7

[JorgeA]

jaclaz, on 25 September 2012 - 04:41 AM, said:

JorgeA, on 25 September 2012 - 12:03 AM, said:

@Kelsenellenelvian has written about the possibility that the Windows 8 SmartScreen Filter is a threat to user privacy.

Here's something else to chew on. What do you think? Is this something else to worry about on the privacy score, or not really?

Do you think that Windows 7 Activation is profoundly different form that?

jaclaz

Umm, I haven't the slightest idea -- that's why I'm asking!

How about a straight answer. If Windows 7 Activation maintains a constant tether to a MS server somewhere, then I suppose the answer would be that it's not profoundly different. But don't know whether Win7 does that. Do you, and if you do -- does it?

--JorgeA

[JorgeA]

hoak, on 25 September 2012 - 05:01 AM, said:

JorgeA, on 25 September 2012 - 12:03 AM, said:

Is this something else to worry about on the privacy score, or not really?

It's not what we can see, trace and measure that concerns me; as I'm sure Microsoft already has some well composed 'plays nice' legal boiler plate about how this is just anonymous information collected for security and 'making your product experience better'. What worries me is what we don't see, that doesn't show up via Windows Performance Counters because it's totally obfuscated by design the Windows network stack -- and the only indication we'll have that anything is going on is something will show up in WireShark (if that)... However annoying you may find him personally, Richard Stallman seems to be hitting on all cylinders with respect to closed source hegemonic OS publisher/developer with big government contracts and the ultimate outcome this has with respect to privacy, security and freedom...

Thanks hoak, I'll have to look up this Richard Stallman guy. The name sounds vaguely familiar.

--JorgeA

[JorgeA]

jaclaz, on 25 September 2012 - 05:18 AM, said:

Well, let's try not to confuse Freedom (which is one thing) with Privacy amd Security (which are other things).

The three are interrelated. To take an example that we'll all (hopefully) be familiar with, in George Orwell's 1984 the protagonist, Winston Smith, lacked both freedom and security because there was no privacy -- all he did and said was monitored, or reported.

Now, I'm not saying that Microsoft is (yet) monitoring everything we type and everywhere we go on our computers -- but I am asking what the meaning (if any) might be of what that guy on MDL had discovered.

--JorgeA

[JorgeA]

Tripredacus, on 25 September 2012 - 08:53 AM, said:

JorgeA, on 24 September 2012 - 07:15 PM, said:

Another small way in which Windows 8 is inferior to Windows 7 and Vista: shutdown dialog lacks the option to put the computer in hibernation.

I am error:

Quote

Windows 8 doesn’t offers easier ways to access shutdown dialog by throwing user into two worlds: Modern and Traditional desktop. Windows 8 modern UI adds confusion, inconveniences to the user, Windows 8 not user friendly OS at all. User in Windows 8 needs to learn how to shutdown Windows 8 which is simple task in Windows 7

Yeah, clearly his English (or else his writing in any language) isn't very good. But I did look around my Win8 RP's shutdown options, and didn't find hibernation. On my Vista Start Menu it's the button that looks like a power button.

However, with Start Menu X installed, I can put the Win8 system in hibernation right off the shutdown menu.

--JorgeA