Maybe
Maybe the Reg could start a section URL'ed /MacRumours for all of these stories. Or, to save time, just point at that site.
3439 publicly visible posts • joined 11 Jun 2009
A certain Fawlty Towers episode where the Colonel discusses with Basil the time he took a date to the cricket. Certain terms were used in the description of the match participants that wouldn't be acceptable now but were on broadcast tv then so attitudes certainly do change. It's not as if she even used the actually word itself it is just implied. The complainant is clearly a puritanical twunt themselves.
"Also there is a very good change it will infringe on a shit load of patents (compression and encryption of RTP streams for example)."
IANAL but I don't think that would matter in the EU as software isn't covered and as your examples are effectively mathematical algorithms I'm not entirely sure they can be patented either.
Indeed it's too expensive, probably not quite by £100, but far too close to the iPad price. Like it or not it is the market leader and to get your sales you need to offer a lot more for the same price (more than microsSD and mpx in the camera) or the same for a chunk less. I've also used it and found it to be not quite as snappy in use as the iDevice which was far smoother and snappier.
I'm getting splinters on the fence at present because I really want to be able to get something other than an iPad as I already have enough iDevices but I'm not quite feeling compelled just yet when all the Apad devices hit the same price point.
"I can't help but notice you don't mention the way that, for all your (incorrect) claims about the 13" MBP having an IPS panel, it still has a fairly crappy screen resolution."
So the Mac has 1280x800 vs 1366x768 i.e. it is 32 pixels deeper but 86 narrower. Big f*cking deal.
There could be plenty of things to complain about (Intel graphics vs the old nvidia etc) but that really isn't worth it.
I think I recall my shitty old 15" dell that came with Windows 2000 installed had a higher screen resolution than these. Like I stated before, I cannot understand why people are berating apple for 1280 on a 13" screen when these 15"+ screens only have a poxy 1366 which is lower than a circa 2001 Dell. In short, they're all equally shit with regards resolution.
Searching on Dabs for 3.5" internal drives reveals this list...
Western Digital (61)
Seagate (45)
Hitachi (26)
HP (18)
Samsung (6)
Toshiba (5)
Fujitsu (5)
Lenovo (2)
IBM (1)
Buffalo (1)
Letting positions 1 and 2 take out 3 and 5 doesn't make sense especially after Maxtor got swallowed whole. I know these figures will vary by seller but the top 5 are essentially the top 5 across most. Samsung and HP HD manufacture split off together or some other smaller player combo - maybe - but not the top two.
I don't think that any further consolidation in this industry involving WD or Seagate serves the consumer in any way.
It is unfortunate, but the massive expanse of the Public sector and the benefits under Labour were and are unsustainable. The ferryman now wants paying and so, as usual, those at the bottom of society will get screwed. The best choices are not necessarily being made but you can't keep borrowing on new sovereign credit cards to pay your current bill.
"immigrants aren't interested in benefits, they travel to another country looking to work earn money and pay taxes. illegal immigrants are most defiantly not interested in benefits as they will not be entitled to them."
They travel to another country looking to work to earn money - definitely true, and they tend to work a damn site harder than the locals as they often come from extremely poor/harsh circumstances and are grateful of the opportunity. Looking to pay taxes - can't agree with you there. Plenty of them like working cash in hand and I certainly don't hold it against them as successive Governments have shown they don't deserve the money through income tax, let them collect it through more efficient cycling of the money through goods and services whereby others get to share.
You're confusing "prepared to pay the price" with "not having a choice". Until very recently it was near impossible to get many items due to lockups with regional distributors and the fact you forgo a warranty on so many items. You still suffer the latter. Now more sites have sprung up to cater for the fact they know there's a country out there full of shoppers who'd happily buy from them to save money. Global recessions can sometimes have good outcomes as companies have to diversify their income sources.
My thoughts exactly. The rules aren't there just to piss you off they are there to secure the data and to provide a standardised hardware platform for support purposes - something that costs enterprises a bloody fortune. You therefore can't have Jonny Fanboi rocking up with his homebuild gaming rig, laptop, tablet etc and expecting to connect it to your network.
As for the previous responder not having come across rules that stipulate that you cannot attach your own hardware to the corporate network and that it is a disciplinary offense that may result in dismissal, I would suggest that he cannot have worked in many true enterprises because that rule has been present in every one I've worked at over the course of the last 15 years. How would M Gale like their financial records, medical records etc sprayed all over the internet because some numpty was allowed to connect their kit to the network?
"If users persist in connecting their own PCs to your network, you can take advantage of the same managed desktop techniques used to support home workers and temporary staff: virtual desktops with access to separate virtual LANs."
Or just fire the fucking idiot for gross misconduct - it's generally stipulated in the rules and regulations in the terms of employment (must confirm to IT policy etc) that you are not allowed to do it.
Location of the hosting is what defines the law the site should operate under in my opinion. There are other factors such as who owns the site and where they reside i.e. your site hosted in Hong Kong or US with .co.uk domain may not break local law which should render it ok but it doesn't mean it pans out that way.
However the TLD for the country can pull your name resolution as they control that and their Government can control them. You can host your site wherever but Nominet can still pull your .co.uk registration if told to.
This is yet another law that is there to pamper and pander to the stupidity of the end user. "I can't work out how to change cookie settings so that means you should write a law to protect me". Utter bullshit. Yet more support for the notion that there needs to be a driving test for the internet.
I think the problem is that we're now past the point where the bundling matters. It served it's purpose to the point that if you ship a machine to the general public (not the Reg readership) that has linux installed they will likely come back asking for windows. Not because it's better, not because they cannot do what they want to, but because it's bloody everywhere. This means that finding someone to demonstrate how to do things is easy, getting add-ons that work is easy (plug in, insert disk). Familiarity is there. Oh, and the apps for those that need them. The fact that for years you've had to run performance crippling AV software on Windows, or reinstall the OS every 18 months (XP), or constantly update the bastard really hasn't dented the desire for the OS. That should give an indication of what any other OS is up against. I have to use it at work and don't in general at home, but respect the stranglehold that it has.
Think Stockholm Syndrome for operating systems. People are using it by choice in a kind of fucked up way.
Agreed. In the office you are a prisoner. You have a set routine and you are using their productivity suite day-in day-out. What do you do at home? You go one of two ways - you get something else because you don't want to pay and/or just want something else, or you get what's familiar to you which can now be had for cheap by piggy-backing your home license on your workplace one. It's not the greatest deal in the World but it's a pretty smart move.
If you can't see anything wrong then think about your child's future opportunities for employment when the shite they posted as a youth comes back to bite them on the arse. Think along the lines of a future boss finding out what you did whilst wagging class back in 1987 or similar - the internet doesn't forget.
"Also, plugging a wifi adapter in without fucking about with drivers.
Also, connecting to a wireless network without having to right-click "troubleshoot problems" to kick the thing into life every other time you try to get online."
I'd leave Linux and wireless internet out of the argument if I were you - Ubuntu is renowned for working as a LiveCD then not working with the wireless connection once installed. Normally fixed by downloading a .fw file but it's not an area I'd be boasting about.
But why did the specification state two round trips were required in the first place? Have they in some way potentially compromised the setup? I have no knowledge in this area and would be interested in finding out from someone who deals with this for a living as it does sound a little like "our engineers did this and it may weaken things but at least you then think you're safe but, shit, we saved some overhead"
"You’re probably already supporting users who want to connect their smartphone to the company systems, at least for email - and if you're not doing it officially, check whether users aren’t just forwarding messages to webmail they can read on their phones – which is a whole different security and compliance headache."
You'll probably find they don't do that for long as termination normally results.
"the irrepressible Eric made a point of saying that the world's governments should let net companies regulate themselves when it comes to privacy"
What a totally insincere shithead he really is. Like he gives a flying one about anybody's privacy. Earth to Eric - it's why you are now being regulated you tit.
"Yet when we look at how we buy hardware for business it's not a one size fits all approach. Instead it's common to buy different specifications and capabilities to suit different business needs.
So shouldn't it be the same when considering desktop operating systems?"
Generally major enterprise likes a one size fits all with the desktop as it means they only need one OS skill-set - namely the more common one. Hence if some of your users in the enterprise need windows you may as well give it to everyone as MS will often price it nicely with a site license deal if you say you're considering something else.