We aren't talking about new versions. He was saying that they were going to later charge people to use the version of Windows 10 they upgrade to today. It's like the chain posts about Facebook charging people if they don't repost something on their wall. It's an absurd claim which anyone with any sense of reality knows is false.

Sigh... You're pointing to a throughly debunked and retracted claim. Having your router deny all connections causes the networking stack to retry them, hence the overblown connection numbers. The IP addresses listed at things like the NetBIOS and DNS broadcast IPs (used by machines on a local network to identify each other).

http://www.zdnet.com/article/w...

Everything you're saying is just rubbish.

Oh I see, you're just insane. Got it.

Apple has never said that they won't charge a subscription for iOS. That doesn't make it any less absurd to say they will.

And you know what? Microsoft *has* said that there will not be a subscription for Windows 10. Multiple times. They've said *very clearly* that the device will receive updates so long as it's supported (meets the minimum system requirements, and subject to usual OEM support commitments for drivers and such). It is a *lie*, nothing less, to tell someone that MS is ever going to charge a subscription for them to keep using Windows 10 on their device.

You obviously have no idea what the word "spyware" means. By no accepted definition does anything in Windows 10 contain even a trace of it. Indeed, Microsoft is incredibly conservative (probably too much so) in personal information it collects and uses. Compare this to say, Android or Chrome OS, and it's laughable to suggest that Windows is "spying" on you.

Ugh, not more of this BS. Windows 10 will never cost you a subscription. It does not contain spyware. Repeating these lies will not make them true.

It most definitely does not work that way.

Wait, so Apple shouldn't have been allowed to use its iPod monopoly to gain a foothold in the smartphone market? Or its monopoly of the smartphone market to gain a foothold in the tablet market? Or that Google shouldn't have been allowed to use its internet advertising monopoly to gain a foothold in the mobile device market?

Never mind that the tablet market *is* the PC market (is the laptop market, etc). Or that Microsoft basically invented the tablet market. Or that Windows Vista was going to have an app store but that it was killed because of over-regulation.

Antitrust regulations are there for good reasons. But none of those reasons have anything to do with handicapping successful companies or preventing them from leveraging their strengths to remain relevant in a changing market.

Oh, and it boggles my mind that you think Microsoft should be fined for trying to adapt, while simultaneously you claim that they're failing at it. You don't really think these things through before you post them, do you...

Except that you can still install any desktop app you wish. Or side load Metro/Modern apps for free (just have to install a *free* dev license and renew it every few months).

And it's not "taxed" at anything, and certainly not "30%+". The cut they take is from 20% to 30% max, and it's not a "tax." It's a fee to support the Store infrastructure. Considering everything they take care of for you regarding distribution, marketing, installation, updates (including updating frameworks/libraries like the CRT or WinJS) it is hard to argue that it isn't worth the price of admission.

Except that this statement is meaningless and compares apples and oranges. But research is for nerds, am I right?

Or the fact that Apple provides webkit as a core part of their OS's API set (upon which much of the included UI and apps are built)?

You act like history hasn't completely and utterly validated Microsoft's (ahead-of-it's-time) assertion that the web platform would be crucial to the future of computing.

Because the system requirements page says 10.6.3 is the minimum.

Actually it makes it so that IE can only worry about writing to D2D/DWrite and whether there's GPU acceleration or not is something IE doesn't have to worry about.

The changes to the API surface from Windows 2000 to Windows 7 are innumerable. You must be joking if you think the only change is transactional filesystem access.

Of course "you can get the same functionality." You could write the entire OS yourself if you wanted. But if you actually want to push things forward your best bet is to build upon the works of others, like the huge amount of infrastructure the Windows team has put into each successive release.

I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the Microsoft agreement doesn't say what you just said. It says you can't immediately go work on *exactly the same thing* at a competitor. Plenty of people go off to work at competitors, they just work on a different kind of project for at least a year.

The same #define is used for all APIs/DDIs these days. Take a look at shobjidl.idl (shell interfaces) for example.