I'm surprised this isn't already a perk at working at some of these companies, but then again I'm assuming they'd be subjected to a whole swarm of regulations regarding living conditions.
I'm surprised the technology isn't "fast enough" yet. Most top end phones are quad core, output 1080p, have 2-4gb ram, etc. Specs like that easily meet the listed minimum requirements of windows... odd.
They're now basically giving google and apple time to easily catch up to what could of been a killer feature that sells windows phones.
This seems an all too obvious entry into the enterprise environment for their mobile platform whilst strengthening the moat to their current desktop. Possibly for the education market too.
I'm surprised this hasn't come earlier and would be further surprised if this isn't a top priority. I'm 100% sold if it remains a snappy platform running a couple of screens and heavy-ish excel files in a native environment.
It's not exactly apples-to-apples comparison. Whilst on paper the specs are similar, each architecture (e.g. ARM vs x86) has different priorities - power vs performance. But the two's priorities are converging, ARM becoming more powerful and x86 more efficient.
I suppose, in another five years, running a desktop OS from your smartphone will be entirely feasible / practical. At the moment, it's just confined to tablets where higher power draw requirement is much more forgiving (better heat dissipation methods, and bigger battery).
All those tax dollars, bought for around $100M/year[1]. I wonder if they are seeing exponential returns on their lobbying investment, and that's why it went from $25M to $100M in less than a decade, or if it is an attempt to staunch the losses brought about by file sharing. I'm guessing the latter.
His "business" that made about $200,000,000 off obviously copyright infringing material. Kim Dotcom is as sleazy as they come. I think he deserves to sit in a prison cell. Other folk may disagree with me, and that's fine, but he very much deserves to face a jury so that they can decide.
Personally, I agree with you but how Dotcom gets there is very important. We cannot tolerate methods that are not only illegal but violate the basic of principals of our legal code and society. Kim Dotcom is as sleazy as it comes but he does have rights and if he loses his, we will lose ours.
I know plenty of people who host non-infringing copyright items at Megaupload. What I mean is that they share personal files, which themselves have the copyright to. So I'm pretty sure not all of that money comes from hosting Big Corporates copyrighted material.
I don't understand why you put "business" within quotation marks, as a business is a business if it generates money - regardless of the legality of the business.
Google has bothered me for a while with their lack of advertising ethics. I recently cleared and disabled my youtube history and they're still doing targeted advertising for videos I had searched for and watched weeks earlier. Clearly my history was not truly removed, which was my assumption anyway but the fact they so blatantly show it off is rather disrespectful from a user standpoint.
Honestly I think the best bet moving forward for sites is to have a small minimalistic form of advertising (the way HN does advertisement with job postings for example, even while its just for Ycombinators benefit, is a good example of non-intrusive advertising done correctly), and probably a small subscription fee ($1.99? $4.99? pay what you want? hard to set a price) for users to hide advertising and support the site/service they enjoy using.
Better yet, the browsers should easily be able to predict the dominant color of the page by parsing the CSS file and most of the DOM, and pick a complimentary scrollbar contrast accordingly. Maybe do that and allow override to light/dark.
Or, just allow the element to be styled like every other thing on the page. Because...why not again? Imaginary 4th wall that the bar is the only thing on the page that should not be stylable? So that it can match the scroll bars of native applications?
You think users want their browser text to change color / shape / width per web page?
Page scroll is not the only place scrollbars are useful. If you have an overflowing div in the middle of the page, a fat white/grey scrollbar is confusing.
I was honestly hoping they'd give up on the whole touchscreen + mouse/keyboard interface integration, this announcement pretty much confirms they're in it for the long haul. Both inputs are vastly different so their UIs are full of compromises and over-sized controls.
Have you tried Windows 8.1 on a touch screen (especially a tablet)? I find Windows 8.1 awkward to use on a desktop or non-touchscreen computer but for a touchscreen? I absolutely LOVE the interface for launching applications. I'm actually kind of sad it's all going away in favor of something closer to the desktop in Windows 10; I would have liked the Windows 8.1 style to stay when in a touchscreen or tablet mode.
My understanding is that tablet devices will have some defaults to keep them closer to 8.1 than the desktop-friendly changes made for Win10. I am currently running Win10 and can confirm you are able to set the default behavior of the start menu to the 8.1 screen or Win7 menu behavior. Not sure if that addresses all of your concerns but it does seem like Microsoft understands at least some people enjoyed the start screen.
Ah that's good; I installed and tried out Windows 10 a few weeks ago on my tablet / convertible and I didn't see any way to bring a Windows 8.1 like menu back only the Windows 10 start menu. I'll have to look into it, thanks!
If you swipe from the right side of the screen to bring up the notification center, you'll see a "Tablet Mode" button on the bottom that makes the OS more tablet friendly.
This doesn't come off as much as a surprise, because there are better alternatives because google code stagnated and wasn't a priority. Google code still has very old looking interface (especially when contrasted to their active products like G+ and gmail), google code only declined because google didn't want to work on it.
This doesn't do google any favours, as with every product they launch I'll be asking myself if it's worth investing time or money into just for it to stagnate.
Microsoft still lives and breathes with their old proprietary software licensing model. There would have to be some sort of major gain for them to port the browser outside of their ecosystem.
I can see them doing it with IE mobile though as they aren't the most popular player in the mobile market and they need to get people hooked.
This has pretty large implications for countries (namely china) with still a sizable IE6 userbase. IE6 doesn't support TLS by default, making https effectively completely unsupported for that browser.
Isn't it an option? I remember IE5 having TLS1.0 as an option. Just because it's default not enabled doesn't mean it's "effectively completely unsupported". Browser protocol support matrix here:
I like this more for the fact that I get a better idea of what these companies are willing to say publicly about utilizing the data they have on you. TOSes are ultimately meaningless, but comparing sites with things like "your data remains yours" and "your data becomes ours" speaks a lot towards company policy.
