OT Has w7 slowed down recently

On 14/05/2012 21:10, Java Jive wrote:
On Mon, 14 May 2012 20:56:16 +0100, Steve Thackery
wrote:

J G Miller wrote:

It is irrelevant how important to how few people something is,
whether ot not it is important in principle.

I'm trying to work out where Jim's "principle" comes from. What basis
does he have to support his argument that it is wrong in principle to
lock a computer to a particular OS?

Who says it is? Where does this principle actualy come from? What
authority does it have?

I presume it comes from the original open design of the PC
architecture, which was released to the world by IBM on that basis. It
seems to me that locking the PC into one particular OS violates that
priniciple of open architecture.

Not convinced that IBM ever wanted an open system - they just needed a
platform to fill a gap in their product line, and needed it in a
timescale that precluded their normal development cycle. Hence a machine
cobbled together from standard manufacturers data sheets etc.

If only a tiny minority of people care about it, then it sounds a lot
more like a personal opinion than a principle. And in that case, it
has no weight at all.

I think I have to agree with J G M here, a principle is something that
is right or wrong, regardless of the numbers of people involved.

Indeed... alas its the numbers that usually decide in the end.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 14/05/2012 23:34, Paul Ratcliffe wrote:
On Mon, 14 May 2012 20:53:34 +0100, Steve
wrote:

Why does Jim select computers to make a stand on, whilst not
complaining about being unable to install Linux or RO on his telly?

Because, you clueless halfwit, a PC has always been a general purpose
device that the USER can decide what it does, not the manufacturer.

Micro$oft now want to force you to run M$ operating systems on all new
hardware. Not only that, I shouldn't wonder that they want to force you
to run M$ only apps. on "their" computers.
Once they've got you by the balls, they'll start squeezing even more
and charge you for running apps. you rent from them on the OS you
rent from then on the (what used to be) general purpose computer you
have laid out good money to buy.

Do you get it yet?

Yes, they want to be more like Apple ;-)

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 15/05/2012 08:25, Steve Thackery wrote:
Paul Ratcliffe wrote:

Because, you clueless halfwit, a PC has always been a general purpose
device that the USER can decide what it does, not the manufacturer.

Agreed.

Micro$oft now want to force you to run M$ operating systems on all new
hardware. Not only that, I shouldn't wonder that they want to force you
to run M$ only apps. on "their" computers.
Once they've got you by the balls, they'll start squeezing even more
and charge you for running apps. you rent from them on the OS you
rent from then on the (what used to be) general purpose computer you
have laid out good money to buy.

But there's the rub: everything you've just said is pure conjecture with
no evidence to support it. The only case where MS appears to require
mandatory secure boot is on W8 ARM devices.

No, to be fair, they have plenty of form here, and have had numerous
pops at this in the past with their coercion of manufacturers and trying
to embrace and extend the extensible firmware interface, or wanting to
implement systems round security chips and processors etc. They spent
lots of effort evangelising their "trusted computing" or "Palladium"
platform some years back.

Remember this?:

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html

However, IF Microsoft were ever mad enough to require secure boot with
no option to switch it off on normal Intel x86-based PCs, then I'd be at
the front of the campaign to change it, alongside Jim and yourself.

Well they might certainly like it, and I am sure they will get it from
some of the big OEMs.

I am not convinced they will get it universally from every motherboard
maker though. There is too much competition in that market to let any
pent up demand to go unsatisfied for long.



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Friday, May 18th, 2012, at 16:12:06h +0100, John Rumm explained:

Yes, they want to be more like Apple ;-)

http://www.zdnet.COM/blog/hardware/microsoft-to-charge-customers-99-to-remove-oem-crapware/20446?tag=nl.e539

In message , John
Rumm writes
Not convinced that IBM ever wanted an open system - they just needed a
platform to fill a gap in their product line, and needed it in a
timescale that precluded their normal development cycle. Hence a
machine cobbled together from standard manufacturers data sheets etc.
If only a tiny minority of people care about it, then it sounds a lot
more like a personal opinion than a principle. And in that case, it
has no weight at all.
I think I have to agree with J G M here, a principle is something that
is right or wrong, regardless of the numbers of people involved.
Indeed... alas its the numbers that usually decide in the end.
I know they were very unreliable in the hard drive department, but
didn't A.M.Sugar once boast that his bringing ultra cheap PCs onto the
market was what increased the competition and the blossoming of the x86
platform? Remember the Sinclair, Apple, Apricot, Amiga, Atari,
Acron, RM nimbus etc. Now names only recognised by those of us drawing
our pension.
--
Clive

On 16/05/2012 21:04, Steve Thackery wrote:
Clive wrote:

You're free to buy an Apple Mac, so long as you don't mind paying top
dollar for something just a little better and very expensive
programmes to boot.

And if fact I'm free to buy any desktop hardware I like (apart from
Apple), as none of it is locked.

My point is that there is no evidence that this situation will change,
as far as desktop hardware is concerned. Only brand new products
(ARM-based Windows 8 tablets) will be locked (along with the long list
of others I gave previously, which nobody seems to be complaining about).

Why do we complain about Microsoft locking W8 tablets when Apple already
does the same?

Perhaps because the mac platform has always been a closed system of
integrated software and hardware (if you ignore their brief flirtation
with licensing prior to Jobs' return), whereas x86 PCs have not. Its
human nature to object to having something taken away from you, far more
than never having it in the first place. (look at the fuss made when
Sony closed off the ability to boot other OSs on the playstation).


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

John Rumm wrote:

...... whereas x86 PCs have not.

Indeed, and I'd be very upset if this happened. But we aren't talking
about x86 PCs, we're talking about ARM-based computers (tablets and
phones, to be specific).

--
SteveT

On 19/05/2012 09:19, Steve Thackery wrote:
John Rumm wrote:

...... whereas x86 PCs have not.

Indeed, and I'd be very upset if this happened. But we aren't talking
about x86 PCs, we're talking about ARM-based computers (tablets and
phones, to be specific).

Yes I realise that, however I am sure MS would not object if they could
extend the control they hope to exert on these platforms back to PCs.
They have certainly pushed hard for that level of control over generic
x86 hardware in the past.

More to the point, once MS throw their weight behind making windows and
associated applications run on non x86 hardware[1] then there is no
reason for ARM based machines can't start appearing on the desktop and
competing in that space (although far cheaper, smaller, and less power
thirsty than current examples)

[1] A windows targeted for ARM but equipped with either x86 emulation,
or better still, DEC style dynamic recompilation and translation
technology, and could prove a viable stepping stone to more architecture
flexibility, much as it allowed Apple to transition from 68K to PowerPC,
thence x86.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/