Posts by h4rm0ny

Re: Plug in cars ain't green.

"The French have nuclear powered trains? Not directly. Maybe the electricity they use is generated by nuclear power, but that's all."

Yes, that's what they meant and there's no "but that's all" about it. The French trains move because of an energy source that is clean and is cost-effective and is statistically safe. The fact that they don't actually have onboard nuclear reactors is irrelevant.

Lumia 710 is definitely lower than that now. I got mine SIM-free and new from Carphone Warehouse for £165. That was earlier this year.

I doubt it's direct copying. Apple pioneered the Colour Vampire style and for the last six or seven years, monochrome has been the way you tell people you're trendy. Now people are bored with that and have recalled it's actually quite nice to have colourful things around you. There's going to be a backlash against this idea that minimalist = simple. Look at the WP7.5 interface. Simple as they come and easy to use, but bright and cheerful with it. It's going to be like the Beatle's Yellow Submarine in the tech world two years from now and Apple are going to have to stick with their "Look at me, I'm Damian Hirst" approach and look seriously dated and over-serious, or go the colour route in which case they'll look like they're copying things. I imagine they will try to forge a new look for their devices that is noticeably different to the bright colours, but not as dull as their existing range. Perhaps they'll go pastel as it's the only way they can leave the minimalism without jumping on the glossy and bright funwagon.

In fact, you heard it here first: my prediciton for Apple future themes are pastel.

Re: NFC

Apple has quite a knack for coming in at the right time. There were lots of MP3 players before the iPod, the market was just establishing itself and beginning to take off, then Apple came in with a streamlined one of their own and the world's greatest marketing. Similar for smartphones - the iPhone didn't really bring anything especially new, but it came in as Smartphones were really becoming de rigeur. They can probably afford to wait for Microsoft and Google and Visa to establish NFC as common and do the same again. It's risky as, but I think they know they wont manage to become the standard this time (too many BIG players in NFC with too much interest in keeping things standard), but I'd say they've got a year before lack of NFC really starts hitting sales. It's not much in the public conciousness just yet.

But I could be wrong. Android and Microsoft are ahead of Apple here, so I imagine they'll make people very aware of that, if they can.

Re: @h4rm0ny - Severe disconnection between two brain hemispheres

"You're being largely misinformed here. Microsoft is not selling keys, they are signing boot loaders with their own key so there is still one single key being used, Microsoft key. Please stop spreading incorrect information."

There was no intent to cause any confusion. The signature used to verify a boot loader or OS by UEFI is called a "platform key". The service Microsoft are providing is to sign and include Red Hat's platform keys. So the statement is correct. Red Hat's VP Tim Burke uses the same terminology I do in their press release: Microsoft will provide keys for Windows and Red Hat will provide keys for Red Hat Enterprise Linux and Fedora".

There are multiple keys. I wasn't clear in what I wrote, though. Sorry about that - unintentional.

Re: "MS have mandated that Secure Boot can be disabled on any x86 device "

"And what have they (MS) mandated for any non-x86 device (Windows RT or whatever the name is today)? Why the difference?"

Why are you asking questions that have already been answered several times? As you perfectly well know, WinRT devices come with Secure Boot turned on and not configurable by the user (as far as I'm aware). Presumably the difference is because MS want to sell these things as a complete hardware+software solution, like the iPad. It's a shame. Hopefully they will be forced to change this and allow keys from other OS's to be installed.

Re: still vulnerable to the old attacks if the SecureBoot technology is not turned on by default

"and for other OSes whose binaries have been signed by Microsoft."

This part is wrong and the rest of your post follows from it. Red Hat asked MS to provide them a key because MS offered it cheaper than Red Hat could do it themselves. There's no requirement that a key be provided by Microsoft.

Re: We told you so

"I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Microsoft and the UEFI knew about this long ago or even designed it into the software to shut out all other OSs."

You have a demonstrated attack that threatens any installed OS (Ubuntu, Windows, BeOS, anything), a countermeasure released by a specifications foundation made up overwhelmingly by hardware manufacturers which protects against it and which can be (and is) used by multiple OS producers (MS, Red Hat, Ubuntu) and somehow this becomes an attempt by MS and "the UEFI" (what the BIOS replacement running on my motherboard?) to shut out all other OS's?

Re: Obviously this is on purpose

"On the face of it you're correct, except that the BIOS doesn't have to have an off switch. Bit of a bugger then if you get a machine and find you can't turn it off."

You're in luck. Microsoft have required manufacturers to allow a physically present user to turn off Secure Boot on any x86 system. It's part of the specification that has to be met in order to receive a Windows 8 sticker.

You are seemingly unaware that both Red Hat and Ubuntu also use Secure Boot. It's a security feature that is not limited to MS and there's no "holding the entire PC manufacturing industry to ransom". They have mandated that Secure Boot can be disabled on any x86 device thus enabling any OS manufacturer to take advantage of this security feature. Is that what you're angry about?

Re: Severe disconnection between two brain hemispheres

"Why would you pay for an OS that does not trust you ?"

Because malware operates on the principle that the OS cannot tell the difference between "you" telling it something and the malware telling it something. You don't complain about the OS not trusting you if the hash of a downloaded program doesn't match what it's supposed to be, so why are you complaining about the fingerprint of the boot loader not matching what it's supposed to be? Its not any more the OS not trusting you than your virus scanner checking a program you are installing.

"Folks running other OS do not want to disable secure boot but in detailing the specs, Microsoft had no objection to UEFI storing and using one single encryption key (Microsoft's one, of course) so those folks have to disable secure boot if they want to run other OS than the one Microsoft dictates (f.y.i. including older or not authorized versions of Windows)."

Microsoft also had no objection to people storing more than one single encryption key (they are already selling keys to Red Hat for a small fee and Red Hat could do it themselves if they wanted). Besides, what is wrong with turning off the security feature if you don't want it? It's no more difficult than turning off your virus scanner if you don't want it.

Re: Um, no, actually...

"Unfortunately I'm not exactly the best qualified to answer this, but here goes."

Just thinking that puts you ahead of a lot of posters here. ;)

"As I understand it the problem is basically MS hijacking the territory re secure boot, and demanding that OEMs implement UEFI by default, without any obligation to give other OS providers an automatic right to be able to have their own keys for authentication by the UEFI system, i.e. everybody has to go cap in hand to MS.

This is incorrect. You don't have to get a certificate from MS to have a signed boot loader. Indeed, you don't actually need a signed boot loader just because a device is UEFI, only if it's using Secure Boot which is a feature of UEFI that can be turned on or off by the device manufacturer and usually by the user also. (And note, UEFI is not the property of Microsoft. It's the new BIOS). You can get a signature from a number of places or even do it all yourself if you want to. Red Hat bought a certificate for their boot loader from Microsoft because MS had the infrastructure in place and were cheapest. They could have done it themselves but this would have cost them a lot more. They're actually saving themselves money by buying what they need from Microsoft.

"Ubuntu and Redhat have already sorted a deal with MS, but everyone else will have to have UEFI disabled."

Point of clarification: not UEFI disabled, but Secure Boot disabled. Think of it like turning off AHCI in the BIOS, with UEFI being the BIOS. Note, MS require any x86 devices to allow disabling of Secure Boot as part of their certification process, so signatures wont be needed except for ARM devices which makes them similar to things like the iPad.

"Anyone else is welcome to correct the above."

Likewise, if I've got anything wrong in *my* explanation, someone do my post the same courtesy.

Re: Does that mean...

"I can install a penguin based OS on a "Built for Windos" machine?"

Your question shows a misunderstanding. UEFI is not Secure Boot. Secure Boot is a feature of UEFI. And Secure Boot actually prevents this attack so this is not an exploit that would allow you to bypass it and install a Linux bootloader. But your question is also a red herring as you already could if it's an x86 machine. Microsoft certification requires that the user be able to turn off Secure Boot which is all you need. On RT platforms you cannot turn off Secure Boot, but this isn't a work around for Secure Boot anyway, so it wont let you install an ARM Linux on a WinRT device.

Re: Not that useful on a 4

The iPhone4 came out two years ago, though. Is it reasonable to ask that devices always be built with hardware capabilities two years ahead of current needs? Is the expectation that hardware development should always be ahead of software development? Do you expect the OS writers to say 'this hardware they've given us, we shouldn't use it to its full capabilities so that when we release a new version two years from now, it will still run on this hardware." Is that coherent?

Re: An honest question

That's probably less the case than it was. Office 2013 supports both ODF and the new, actually implementable OOXML (as opposed to the mess that was rushed through ISO five or so years ago). Both should be supported by any mainstream office product for many years to come. I think generally MS Office is preferred because it offers a lot more in the way of enterprise features, a nicer interface and supports a lot of more advanced features that tend not to be supported in Open Office. I just find it a lot nicer all round and paying $99 for being more productive over a year is easily worth it for me. This is becoming even more true with the online capabilities of MS Office. But each their own. Document compatability is much less of an issue than it used to be.

Re: End of the line

"Can you open that case again as most people end up with a mobile phone at the end of their contract!"

That is true and a difference between phone contracts and MS Office. But I was addressing the OP's argument that people will always spend more money up front to save money in the long-run. Phone contracts are just one example out of many, that most people just don't think that long-term. And frequently people plunge straight back into a contract for the sake of getting something more up to date, just as many will stay with the rental model of MS Office for the sake of always having the latest version.

Re: Whatever.

"Anybody who voluntarily continues to use vi is obviously a masochist who likes things to be far harder than they need to be and as such is not qualified to say what makes a good end-user experience."

I use vi for any scripts I want to write and also any web-programming, e.g. PHP or Django development, which whilst an IDE probably would offer advantages, I find I don't actually need.

Besides, I've spent ten years learning shortcuts and commands in vi. I'm not going to quit when I've just passed the half-way stage, am I?

Re: Sorry...

"Huh? Well of cause it will take four years, your comparing the 4 times cheaper home edition to the 4 times more expensive Professional edition. So, how much of a saving is there if you compare apples to apples instead of trying to pull a fast one on us? About $40 saving for the home user, for 1 year. After that it's about $60 more expensive and gets more so each year."

The subscription version for Home however is for five users. The purchase install is for one device. If you're the only one, then buy the purchased version. If you want your whole family to have it, including children at school or Uni., then get the subscription one for five people. I don't get why some people look at a choice of options, and then get angry that one of the options is not as good for them as the other. Get the one that suits you. Purchase prices are comparable to the purchase price of previous versions of Office.

Re: End of the line

"For many family types, an annual subscription is going to highlight just how much Microsoft stuff is costing them, instead of it being hidden in the upfront purchase price. After the first annual renewal, I can see many cash strapped families thinking how can I avoid this."

Have you ever looked at how many people buy their mobile phones on contract rather than buying SIM-free upfront? Case closed, I think.

"For small businesses, the idea of all your data being somewhere out in the etherworld ... no, lots of owner managers are not going to buy that one."

Nothing in this model demands that your data be stored online. And businesses can deploy their own clouds. Doesn't have to be SkyDrive. It can be your own server in your own office if you want. Or just don't use the cloud at all. The software still installs locally.

"Sounds like - with this strict one device licence - you'll have trouble if a PC breaks down, and either needs replaced, new hard drive installation."

Less problems if you think about it. If I have the old-fashioned install on my machine and it breaks, I have to re-obtain, re-install elsewhere. With the streaming version, I just grab my spare device (or someone else's), log-in and use Office again. I've tried the Streaming version and it took about two minutes and I was up and running and as far as I could see it was pretty much feature for feature comparable. And it still works with all my data locally. I think some people don't understand the difference between local installs, streaming version and the Online Office.

"Pure and simply another money grabbing exercise by Microsoft. Nothing else. I see no benefit whatsoever to the average user."

Permanent updates, ability to use anywhere with or without installing, integrated video calling, included online storage and syncing, licencing based on user rather than device (if preferred), a choice of purchasing model that best suits you, a more secure system of plugin writing and deployment than the old VB Macro monstrosities and all the other refinements of a new version of Office.

Re: You can't throw money at it.

"As a small business owner, I have never felt comfortable with on-line applications. There have been times when a drive went tits up and I didn't have a backup of my data, but I am more diligent about that now. I could (and did) get some data back from a recovery company (at quite a cost). My biggest fear is that I won't have access to the application or my data when I really need it. If my internet goes down, I can still print out invoices with my accounting system that resides on my computer. If I had an on-line accounting systems I would be screwed. I would be even more screwed if their internet, server farm or entire business packed it in. I couldn't even throw money at the problem. I would also be stuck with manually inputing all of my accounting for the year into a purchased accounting software package. There went my week or two. Losing my correspondence and other business documentation could be just as bad."

So install one of our five licences locally, just as you did with Office 2010 or whichever. You don't have to use the online or streaming versions only - those are just convenient extras. The only difference is that the local install will occasionally check if your subscription is still valid and throw up a message prompting you if it isn't.

Re: EU law

Presumably you can sell a permanent licence and if you are renting on a month by month basis, you can't. Or at best, you could try and sell the last few months of rent. Bit like buying a house vs. renting, it seems to me. Is it unfair in the latter scenario that you can sell the deeds to your house but trying to sell the last week of your tenancy is difficult? I honestly think that someone trying to sell on the last $8 (one month) of MS Home Office subscription is really just crazy.

Re: Ok if you have unlimited

"Ok if you have unlimited Internet, a steady connection and only go where you can get a wireless signal."

You can use the subscription version offline. It still installs. It's just that the purchased version wont expire and the subscription version will. So long as your device is allowed to connect up once a month or similar, it should stay working.

"What if you are someone who doesn't change to the newest product every year."

Well technically, it will be about every four years before you start to cost yourself slightly more by renting. But to answer your question, if this is the case then you buy the permanent version. Would you prefer it if there were only one sales model that suited only you?

Re: Bit confused by this "HD Voice" mularkey.

Personally, if the often poor voice quality can be improved, I'm all for that. Mind you, I liked HD over SD as well and I remember the vast numbers of posts on here that angrily argued how it was unnecessary and they couldn't see the difference or you were an idiot to care about it if you could.

Re: The new Office doesn't ship?

@ShelLuser - you never seem to bother to actually look into Windows 8 at more than the most cursory level to see if what you list as a big problem is actually easily resolvable or even a problem at all.

Example: When you start Word 2013 you make the default page sound like some difficult thing to escape from. No, you don't have to press Escape even, you can just click on the blank document template that is right there prominently displayed. I actually find the recent document list useful (it's certainly better than previous versions, what with being compartmentalised into locations and having everything clearly titled in a different font). But if you don't want this as your default - you can turn it off. Open up options, it's right there on the default option page that first appears - Show Start Screen on Start-up. Just untick this and you go straight into a blank document every single time. It literally took me thirty seconds to do that.

"Talk about fail.. I mean honestly; why not give us users a choice. You know; allowing a wide range of end users to use your products the way WE want ?"

Why did you not bother to make a trivial check to find that there actually is a choice before pouring your anger out on a forum posting inaccurate comments? Seriously, more than half the time I use Word, I want to open up an existing document and it's one click to get a blank from the default page anyway. This is not cause for the endless angry posts you make here.

"And here we are now: Microsoft reinventing he wheel without paying attention to any prior cause. As usual. While ending up making things much harder on the end user. As usual again it seems."

I'm sorry to say it, but another flying off the handle post from you without any fact checking as usual. You spend four paragraphs talking about lack of choice (translation, an extra click, compensated for by reduced multiple clicks in other use cases) when the option is right there on the first tab in Options.

"Thing is, previous UI changes have been optional at first, and were much less drastic - they were still based around mouse and keyboard. Win8 introduces (and somewhat forces) a UI that only makes sense via touch. It does this even if it detects that no touch input is available."

Then I don't believe you have actually used Win8 to any significant degree. It works just as well as Win7 with mouse and keyboard - I have no touch screen with it and have been using it comfortably for over a month now. It's faster to do most tasks and better handles my multi-monitor set up. I've yet to find anything that is more difficult in Win8 with keyboard and mouse than in Win7 and in many cases, it's quicker.

Re: What would I have liked?

"uSD card slot, 'admin' logon with sudo rights, higher res display, removable battery twice the size, USB host port, SSH server."

SSH capability, e.g. a SSH capable shell - useful (albeit not to most people). But an SSH server? What are you planning to do with your phone?

Re: Notes

"Not even a full 720p screen?"

Why on earth would you need a 720p screen on something that is 4"? There are televisions that are 720p. About six years ago, you would have thought 720p on an 18" monitor was nice. I'm all for progress, but some things just seem excessive to me.