Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Nevertheless, Microsoft is doomed (Score 1) 93

by jkrise (#48062805) Attached to: Samsung Paid Microsoft $1 Billion Last Year In Android Royalties

All large companies have the same IP strategy and they behave exactly the same simply because they can.

Sorry. Google, Motorola, Samsung, etc. have used patents purely in defensive mode. Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, Erricsson etc. are the litigious bastards.

If these patents would be worthless, they wouldn't pay anything in the first place.

When these patenting agreements were drawn up, Android had a much smaller marketshare. So rather than getting caught up in litgation, some large Android makers chose to pay. But not Motorola, and they are yet to pay a penny. Now that Android is the undisputed king in mobile and tablets, even Microsoft making Android devices through Nokia; there is not much compulsion to continue paying.

Phones and tablets do not replace desktops and laptops.
Agreed, they don't. However people hesitate a lot before upgrading the desktop OS. And desktops and laptops last more than 8 to 12 years, so not much revefnue for Microsoft from those markets. Hence my prediction that they are doomed.

Comment: Nevertheless, Microsoft is doomed (Score 5, Interesting) 93

by jkrise (#48062381) Attached to: Samsung Paid Microsoft $1 Billion Last Year In Android Royalties

What the large monies paid by Samsung indicates is the enormous mindshare and marketshare for Android. Windows on the mobile and tablet space is non-existent. For some years Microsoft might make money out of Android sales using these patent threats, being the litigious thugs they are.

But in a few years - say three at the max, Android makers will realise that these patents are really worthless, and back away from their agreements.

In any case a few billions in patent royalty is pocket change for Microsoft, and their bloated manpower will plunge them into the death spiral since Windows is becoming fast irrelevant in the only space it serves - viz, the desktop.

Comment: Re:Start menu usage dropped in lieu of what? (Score 0) 269

by jkrise (#48027059) Attached to: Microsoft's Asimov System To Monitor Users' Machines In Real Time

I've been using a desktop for more than 15 years. It is not a good habit to pin apps to the task bar. Putting up the shortcuts for the browser and email client is good enough most of the time.

When rarely used apps need to be called up, the Start Menu is the best way to do it.

Using a keyboard instead of a mouse on the desktop is like using the mouth instead of the penis for sex. Some like you seem to like it that way but do not speak for the rest of us.

Comment: Re:This was the point (Score 1) 47

by jkrise (#48026343) Attached to: Microsoft Revives Its Hardware Conference

Why should MS decide what tablets and phones need as minimum hardware?

Not only minimum, but maximum as well. MS gets to decide the biggest screen size, the highest speed CPU that can run Windows - tablet edition, on a non-desktop form factor. MS does not want vendors selling full fledged Windows on tablet form factor devices even though it is technically feasible.

Hardware had to be compatible to sell bundled with Windows.

MS does not want to encourage vendors who also provide open source drivers with their hardware. In this day and age, if MS made a reference standard for writing drivers hat did not require any signing, many vendors would only be too happy to innovate.

MS's goal is not to promote innovation, but to restrict vendors from making PCs that can also run Linux flawlessly. Having lost the tablet and phone business to Linux and Android, MS wants to keep on stifling the Linux desktop for as long as they can. One way they do this is to give incentives to vendors that make only Windows compatible hardware. Also the driver signing and Windows Update gives them a lever to destroy any vendor who gets too cosy with the Linux world.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-u...

From Vista and up, the hardware can be designed to give out intentional error messages that are ignored by Windows, and thus the hardware becomes unusable in Linux.

Comment: Renaming never worked to improve reputation (Score 4, Insightful) 426

Windows 7 was better received by the market because it was BETTER than Vista. Windows 8 was crap and got he reception it deserved. Merely releasing 9 without removing the crapstatic TIFKAM interface will result in poor reputation.

The reasons Internet Explorer got a bad reputation:

1. It was tied to the operating system, unnecessarily. The browser has exactly zilch to do with the operating system. ActiveX controls, tying versions of the browser with versions of the OS, varying behaviour of same browser version on different OS versions etc. If IE is renamed, it should be delinked from the OS like other browsers.

2. Intentional non-compatibility with standards, because of the arrogant assumption that with marketshare they can bully the World.

3. No sandboxing, no protection from ads, popups, malware downloads, sucking upto to the MAFIAA in proprietary standards and DRM.

Fix these issues in the browser FIRST, then call it Internet Shit-hole, but people will still buy it.

Comment: Re:Microsoft cannot fool all the people all the ti (Score 5, Insightful) 337

by jkrise (#47645759) Attached to: Microsoft Surface Drowning?

I can't believe how sentimental people were towards a junkpile like XP

Sentimental, eh? More like hard-nosed and very very practical and down to earth.
Will XP get my real useful application software running? YES.
Will my software run on 7 or 8? NO.

So, no sentiment towards Microsoft - simply stick with what works.

Stuff that works isn't junkpile; stuff that consumes more space but gets in the way of getting work done is a large pile of junk. So the adjective suits Windows 7 or 8, not XP.

Every successful person has had failures but repeated failure is no guarantee of eventual success.

Working...