OT Has w7 slowed down recently

On 11/05/2012 18:46, charles wrote:
In ,
wrote:


The Royal Navy is not unique to Britain.

but the others put the county in their name, eg: "Royal Norwegian Navy".

"The Royal Navy" is unique to Britain, a "Royal Navy" is not

Exactly.

In article en.co.uk,
Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article , J G Miller wrote:
Microsoft have evidently recognised the simple fact that if you want
to sell something successfully you have to make it easy for the
people you hope will buy it

By coercing PC manufacturers to pre-install it, and only it, on the PC
product being sold.

How did they get into a position where they have the clout to do this?
By selling a product that didn't work and that people couldn't use?

Are you not aware that the process was rather more subtle than that?

Windows grew into the 'majority choice' for a number of reasons. One of
which was the way they did deals with businesses. Then building a mix of
format and training expectations as a basis for getting others to follow
on. Then doing deals with hardware makers where MS could put a lot of
pressure on the "take the deal we offer or we will either charge a lot more
per copy, or refuse to let you put Windows on any machine you make." In
effect, "all or nothing". Thus a majority habit developes the
characteristics of a quasi-monopoly.

To me, the situation which has developed over a number of years does
act as an exemplar of the difference between computer 'training' and
'education'. I've experienced it via the impact in schools where a
more diverse environment that encouraged 'programming' and learning
how things worked evolved into a more of a monoculture (or duoculture)
of 'closed' commercial systems. One particular driver for this was a
pincer movement in the 1980s-90s. On one side, parents who wanted
their kids trained in "what people use in offices", and school
governers who either ran local businesses and wanted that, or were
themselves in the business of selling Windows boxes and saw it as
a chance to push what they sold.

As Steve pointed out, the upshot can be that either a machine with nothing
installed costs *more*, or you end up paying money for Windows even when
you don't want it. Or have to go to a more costly supplier.

And more recently, the pressure to make machines which will refuse to
run any OS *other* than Windows because the maker 'locks' them. All
for the sake of user 'safety', of course...

People may have noticed some interest in the 'Raspberry Pi' which will
run Linux (or RISC OS) and be a platform for programming by schools,
enthusiasts, etc.[1] However they may not be aware of a drive by big
companies to 'lock' ARM-based systems to let the maker decide what
OS the buyer is *allowed* to run on such machines.

It does not bother me that most people use Windows. What does bother me
is the way the situation that undelies this is in many ways a cosy
cartel of big companies that finds it convenient to have buyers
'habituated' to what suits the companies.

This may be what some think a 'free and competitive market', but I must
admit it doesn't seem much like that to me. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

[1] In essence, trying to shift the balance back towards the more
'educational' and free choice of the earlier period I mention above.

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article , John
Rumm
wrote:
On 11/05/2012 15:55, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
On Fri, 11 May 2012 14:36:31 +0000 (UTC), J G
wrote:

On Friday, May 11th, 2012, at 14:03:11h +0100, Roderick Stewart wrote:

Microsoft have evidently recognised the simple fact that if you want
to sell something successfully you have to make it easy for the
people you hope will buy it

By coercing PC manufacturers to pre-install it, and only it, on the
PC product being sold.

But who would buy a PC with anything else pre-installed? The few
people who don't like Windows probably want nothing pre-installed. The
last time I was buying a PC it cost extra for nothing!

As has been demonstrated by the return rates on many netbooks which were
available in windows and linux versions. Quite a significant minority
of the latter get returned and exchanged for the former. Presumably
just because it "different" or does not play the game on the CD their
mate lent them etc.

"Presumably" it means that some people chose in ignorance, or were mislead.
Although I'd be interested to know where you facts and figures come from.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Jim Lesurf wrote:

And more recently, the pressure to make machines which will refuse to
run any OS *other* than Windows because the maker 'locks' them. All
for the sake of user 'safety', of course...

And what pressure is that, exactly, Jim?

There is an industry-wide recognition that any bootable computer is
vulnerable at the point the BIOS (or equivalent) first boots the OS, as
the BIOS has no way of knowing whether the boot sector has been
compromised (because it doesn't know what a legitimate OS - or more
importantly, malware - "looks" like).

By certifying the OS to the BIOS the computer closes a very significant
security hole.

If you care to search out the relevant reports, there is no indication
that Microsoft is "pressurising" anybody to lock their products to
Windows. Certainly the only talk in the technical press about it is
for protecting appliances rather than proper desktop computers, and it
is most likely to be a vendor decision, looking to reduce support
costs.

The other thing to point out is that the VAST majority of users never
change to a different OS. They buy the product, use it for a few
years, and discard it. It's only geeks and nerds like us who like to
play around installing Linux, W8 previews, and the like.

So, only a tiny minority of people have the *potential* to be affected,
even if it were widely adopted. And, of course, people like us will
always be able to buy a computer, or a motherboard, or a BIOS, that can
boot any OS we like. Why? Two reasons: firstly, wherever there's a
demand, there's a supply. Secondly, whatever Microsoft can do, the
hackers can undo it again in a few days.

I get bored with people who habitually portray Microsoft as some kind
of malevolent, controlling, oppressive force of evil. It's just so
intellectually lazy. If you really want to complain about control and
oppression, take a good close look at Apple's business practices. If
Microsoft had come close to doing what Apple do, they'd be ripped apart
by the courts.

--
SteveT

I get bored with people who habitually portray Microsoft as some kind
of malevolent, controlling, oppressive force of evil. It's just so
intellectually lazy. If you really want to complain about control and
oppression, take a good close look at Apple's business practices. If
Microsoft had come close to doing what Apple do, they'd be ripped apart
by the courts.


So why aren't they then?... Apple that is?.

Or are they providing what people want ?..
--
Tony Sayer

In article , Martin
wrote:
On Sat, 12 May 2012 17:34:40 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article , John
Rumm wrote:
On 11/05/2012 15:55, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:

"Presumably" it means that some people chose in ignorance, or were
mislead. Although I'd be interested to know where you facts and figures
come from.

It's more likely that users couldn't find the applications they needed
and were without the knowledge to use to install and an emulator.

Yes, this is a consequence of people being trained/habituated into
"Computer = Windows" with no awaress of though of any alternatives.
Although it is interesting that many seem happy to adopt android (or
ithingies) for non-desktop uses. Perhaps because it falls outside the
'home/office' mental compartment.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article , Steve Thackery
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:

And more recently, the pressure to make machines which will refuse to
run any OS *other* than Windows because the maker 'locks' them. All
for the sake of user 'safety', of course...

And what pressure is that, exactly, Jim?

Your answer should be in some of the other comments I made. :-)

There is an industry-wide recognition that any bootable computer is
vulnerable at the point the BIOS (or equivalent) first boots the OS, as
the BIOS has no way of knowing whether the boot sector has been
compromised (because it doesn't know what a legitimate OS - or more
importantly, malware - "looks" like).

By certifying the OS to the BIOS the computer closes a very significant
security hole.

Which is fine *if* the *user* can *choose* to modify this as and when they
may choose. Not fine if only the hardware maker can do this, and refuses to
permit it, or makes hardware where it is essentially impossible after
manufacture.

The other thing to point out is that the VAST majority of users never
change to a different OS. They buy the product, use it for a few
years, and discard it. It's only geeks and nerds like us who like to
play around installing Linux, W8 previews, and the like.

I agree. If you read what I wrote previously I did comment on the way most
people have become 'habituated' and are also led by the 'need' to exchange
data in MS formats. The resulting 'churn' suits the industry well. So the
real questions here are about the reasons for the situation we have
reached, and if we might be better off altering the circumstances.

So, only a tiny minority of people have the *potential* to be affected,
even if it were widely adopted. And, of course, people like us will
always be able to buy a computer, or a motherboard, or a BIOS, that can
boot any OS we like. Why? Two reasons: firstly, wherever there's a
demand, there's a supply. Secondly, whatever Microsoft can do, the
hackers can undo it again in a few days.

Your 'firstly' may often fall over the problem that MS may give a
competitive advantage to hardware makers who ensure their hardware only
runs Windows "for security" and they find that buying the OS wholesale is
cheaper if they do that.

Your 'secondly' may be true. I can't comment on that until said systems
actually appear. However I recall reading that MS were mainly approaching
this by having *ARM* based systems 'locked' by the makers in ways the user
could not change. The point being that they thought this was something
they'd more easily get adopted than the row that would erupt if it happened
with the traditional 'intel/PC' chipsets. You might care to reflect on the
long-term impact of that in a world where ARM designs seem to be growing in
applicability.

I get bored with people who habitually portray Microsoft as some kind
of malevolent, controlling, oppressive force of evil. It's just so
intellectually lazy. If you really want to complain about control and
oppression, take a good close look at Apple's business practices. If
Microsoft had come close to doing what Apple do, they'd be ripped apart
by the courts.

Perhaps you have not noticed that the DOJ in the USA and the EU courts have
(repeatedly, I think) taken successful actions against MS for various
dubious business behaviours?

I don't personally regard MS as 'evil', so you'd have to argue with someone
else about that. I regard them as pretty standard for a big international
corp who get themselves into a quasi-monopoly situation. They then exploit
that with every trick and means they think they can get away with. The
shareholders are assumed to expect no less. That's how big international
companies get to be that way, and stay big international companies. By all
means put Apple into that category as well. My focus is on the situation,
not the name of the specific company in a given instance.

In the end it is up to *us* as citizens to decide what we will or will not
allow in terms of 'business practice', etc. And to decide if we wish/need
people to be educated rather than trained/habituated.

So the problem that - as I explained - *does* bother me is the way we have
allowed a situation to develop where many people are habituated and trained
into a "TINA" mindset wrt computers, often with no experience of any
alternatives. That is my concern, not the fact that one particular OS is
chosen by most people for a home/office desktop.

BTW since my personal preference for a desktop for many purposes is RO not
Linux, I have no particular wish to see a 'Linux quasi-monopoly' any more
than a MS one. Although I would be happier with one where the code was all
open source and to save the millions of pounds per year we export to the
USA for commercial OSs. Particularly when it is our *taxes* that are being
taken for this purpose. (That applies to the big 'government' IT projects
that don't directly involve MS as well.)

I want diversity and people feeling able to try things and choose what
*they* like on a decently informed basis. I use RO for many purposes, and
Linux for others because that is what suits me. I've also used Windows (and
Macs, and other systems over the decades) for various purposes. I'd prefer
others to have similar experience and confidence to do as they choose. That
is what would undermind the commercial exploitation of any quasi-monoply
where people feel "TINA" or have no awareness of any alternatives.

What I would like is for all contracts/agreements which 'bundle' OS with
hardware should become public. So we can see why a given maker refuses to
sell hardware without the 'one OS', or charge more for *not* having it.
Sunlight might help us resolve some of the sector practices. And I'd do
this for Apple, too...

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On Sat, 12 May 2012 17:25:49 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article , Stephen
Wolstenholme wrote:
On Fri, 11 May 2012 14:36:31 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller
wrote:

On Friday, May 11th, 2012, at 14:03:11h +0100, Roderick Stewart wrote:

Microsoft have evidently recognised the simple fact that if you want
to sell something successfully you have to make it easy for the
people you hope will buy it

By coercing PC manufacturers to pre-install it, and only it, on the PC
product being sold.

But who would buy a PC with anything else pre-installed?

I would. Not only that, I have done so.

The point being that lets me and the vendor ensure in advance that an
alternative of the kind I prefer does, indeed, install and run OK on the
specific set of hardware I'm buying from them.

Of course, I can then (and do) wipe that and install for myself to
ensure I know what is on the machine, etc.


Yes, I know how to do all that as well, but 99% of PC buyers just want
to plug it in and use Windows. From a sellers point of view it makes
life easier. I don't want to produce multiple versions of my software
just to suite the tiny minority of users who use a PC without Windows.
I have been through that loop once and only sold one copy!

Steve

--
Neural Network Software. http://www.npsl1.com
EasyNN-plus. Neural Networks plus. http://www.easynn.com
SwingNN. Forecast with Neural Networks. http://www.swingnn.com
JustNN. Just Neural Networks. http://www.justnn.com

tony sayer wrote:

So why aren't they then?... Apple that is?.

Easy: because they don't have a near-monopoly. Microsoft was "done"
under the anti-monopolistic laws in Europe and the US.

You can get away with far more if you don't have a very dominant market
position, which Apple hasn't and doesn't.

--
SteveT

Huge wrote:

If you care to search out the relevant reports, there is no indication
that Microsoft is "pressurising" anybody to lock their products to
Windows.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha[gasp]hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Evidence, please.

So that makes it OK for Microsoft's "embrace and extend", then, does it?

It depends what you mean by 'OK'. Microsoft, Apple, Google, Sun....
they are all as bad as each other because they've all got the same two
things: shareholders; and giant egos at the top.

If you don't like the way these businesses conduct themselves, then you
need to move to some little island somewhere where there's no
capitalism.

Cuba, maybe? Ooops, too late.....

--
SteveT