There's no need for patching, the code builds and runs on ARM, it simply doesn't ship because it's not needed. There's no enterprise software that will run on if for a couple years anyway and by then next release will be there. So removing it saves on testing, RAM, HD space and support along with battery life & security (less attack surface).
If you do a poll on Windows 8 and the new Metro interface, you'll actually find that the majority is positive. It's obviously not 100%, but it's more than 50%. People are actually excited about Win8 coming.
So you might want to get a larger sampling than the people who tried it in your shop.
And what enterprise you think will buy non-x86/amd64 tablets ? There's no enterprise software for them and there won't be for a few years at least. The iPad has barely any itself.
MS will arrive with Win8 tablets that can run existing entreprise software, that can join domains : the x86/amd64 versions.
There's no point in having those features on the ARM port because there's simply no software to take advantage of it and there won't be for a significant time.
Lesson of the day : Windows 7 is Windows NT 6.1
You clearly are clueless
And he proved you wrong with his link, so how about you stop being an arrogant d*ck and have the humility to recognize you don't know what you're talking about ?
The truth is that you have absolutely NO basis to claim that Windows NT (it's latest incarnations being Win7 / Win8) is not portable today. You're just making baseless claims based on your wishes.
You have absolutely no clue as you've shown in your previous posts as to how MS develops Windows, even less when it comes to secure software.
Now feel free to prove me wrong, give FACTS showing that NT is not portable TODAY.
If you weren't such an idiot you would know that :
- Windows NT was built with portability as a central goal. It didn't run on x86 to start with, they chose the i860, an exotic CPU on purpose to avoid x86-centric assumptions. It ran on a wide variety of CPUs from x86 to i860 to PPC to Mips to Alpha to even Sparc (not released publicly) to Itanium to amd64 to now ARM.
- Linux was originally built as x86 only, totally contradicting your claims, they had to pretty much rewrite the kernel to make it portable, so the OS built from the ground up with portability was NT, not Linux !
- Microsoft is viewed today by pretty much the entire security industry as THE company when it comes to secure software development. Every security head from Dan Kaminsky to Charlie Miller to Bruce Schneider will tell you that. You clearly have no clue about the subject
So really, you're clueless and got it totally wrong.
That's probably due to the fact that Iran has never invaded another country, while it found itself attacked by Iraq without any valid justification. Back then Iraq was supported by pretty much the entire western world. I won't even go into how the CIA overthrew Iran's elected government to replace it with a dictatorship(the Shah)
End result: Iran has every reason to build up its defences. History has shown Iran that the western world's propaganda about justice and fairness only applies to them, not to other countries, that the western world will support unjustified attacks on Iran and thus they need to be able to defend themselves.
The funny thing about this article is that he essentially never mentions (a) design flaws or (b) perverse economic incentives to sell defective software. IMO these are probably the two biggest reason why MS has such a terrible reputation on security.
If you actually knew what you're talking about, you'd know that MS has a VERY GOOD reputation on security. It used to be awful, but they completely cleaned up their act these past few years and now when you talk to security consultants(IO Active, Leviathan, iSec partners,
In the security world, your reputation is based on real things: the # of issues your code has, how hard you make it for people to exploit your code, whether your system is secure by default,
Take a look at SQL Server, compare its security record to any other database with a decent market share on the market.
So you're telling us that the installs you have done were botched and had to be redone. Why would that say anything about the quality of Windows 7 ?
Because let's be frank, if you can't keep a Windows 7 stable, you have no business touching other people's computers.
You sound *EXACTLY* like a Windows fanboy complaining about Linux because he has no clue about how to use it.
Buddy, 44% of this country voted for McCain, after 8 years of Bush, Jr. If you think Iran using a tactical nuke wouldn't push them plus a bunch of middle-of-the-road people over the edge to annihilate Iran, you're crazy. The U.S. doesn't do the "well, maybe it was deserved and we should consider our options" thing very well. We'd destroy first and consider many years afterward.
No they won't, because this would have implications in regard to China and Russia as well as pretty much the entire world, with a backlash against the US that the world has never seen before, and tactical nukes would then lose their entire value as the US could never use them again, as Russia/China would have every reason to treat it the same way the US did : massive nuclear retaliation.
The fact that 44% voted for McCain doesn't change anything, the people in power and at the Pentagon know what's at stake. They're more interested in keeping the US's strategic influence and military advantage than pleasing a bunch of republican retards
You're right. We'd sit off shore and bomb 'em back into the stone age. There wouldn't be an invasion, because there'd be nothing left to invade. If you think for one second that a nuke dropped on a U.S. army force would give the U.S. cause to sit back and rethink the whole thing, you're sadly ignorant of history.
Nope, you wouldn't even start to invade, because you know the US public would absolutely not accept casualties at that level, as no behavior from a country besides setting off a nuke in the US would justify the killing of 10-20'000 US soldiers(and more in the following years from radiation). That's the whole point of having nukes for Iran.
If Iran were to set off a nuke in the U.S. or against U.S. forces, there wouldn't be any invasion. We'd annihilate the entire country. THAT is why a single nuke isn't a deterrent to the U.S. It is a saber to rattle against Israel, but not the U.S.
You're actually quite ignorant about the strategy of your own country.
Setting off a nuke in the US would certainly trigger massive US reprisals.
Launching a nuke on attacking US forces far outside the US would certainly not, the whole point of tactical nuclear weapons during the cold war was to repulse attacking enemy armies without setting off a total nuclear war
Oh really ? Don't you wonder what is the only country besides the US to have F-14s ? Iran...
Besides that they have a number of M-60 tanks and such, far from being a small player.
The Iranian civilian airliner DID take off from a military airport and was flying damn close to a conflict area and no-fly zone.
a) There was no no-fly zone for civilian airliners
b) It was clearly a civilian airliner, an Airbus radar signature is every different from a fighter plane, bomber of even a military transport
Finally, Iran can't possibly develop enough nuclear weapons or launch systems to "defend itself" against the U.S. The idea is ludicrous.
It's far from being ludicrous, Iran has US soldiers sitting in two of its neighbours, the US has repeatedly threatened regime change in Iran, and a nuke well placed on a US army attacking Iran would have a very very profound effect on US strategy and would prevent any invasion of Iran, something that chemical weapons can't do since the US army has gear to protect somewhat effectively against that.