That's the only thing keeping me on Windows.

...is my deep down conviction that M$ believes that the announcement IS the fix. Oh, you might have to put a new skin on something, but just announcing that you're listening to complaints and looking at the problem is sufficient. Regardless of what actually happens. Personally, I only have one laptop running Windows 11 (it came that way) so I'll be able to monitor the changes, but my other Intel machines are running either 10 or Linux.

...but is too deeply embedded not to continue using.

Sounds like Microsoft's business model.

> When I researched it last, 8GB/256GB was about what Windows laptops offered at this price point.

True. That is true. But typically, (there are always exceptions) the memory in Windows laptops is SO-DIMM in sockets accessible through a hatch in the back, the drive is either m.2 or ssd (or sometimes both) also removable, and the laptop comes apart.

As opposed to the memory soldered in and the two halves of the laptop body glued together.

The last time I bought a Windows laptop, it was offered with the CPU and graphics I wanted, but with not enough memory or storage for my purpose. So I bought it with minimum ram and storage and swapped out the ram for the architectural max and the SSD for something really large.

That's a lot more difficult to do with a macbook. Macs are boutique priced, but paradoxically are pretty much throw-away items.

The macbook I was assigned for work has a D key that no longer functions. It's not the keycap and electronic contact cleaner did not help.

I've had keyboards die in Windows laptops, and replacing them involves some tinkering (and about a thousand little screws) but is relatively straightforward. Cost $15 for the keyboard and about an hour of my time.

Replacing the keyboard on a macbook is often not worth the trouble. In my case, my work said they'd issue me another one and I should send this one back to be safely recycled.

I've been a Mac user for some time, starting with the G4, and like Beluga caviar, they've evolved into an expensive, commodity product. Which for a computer should be a contradiction in terms.

Mind you, I have one (1) non-web-based application for which I still use Windows, and if that ever gets ported to linux, I'll abandon Windows and never look back. But having bouncy icons is not enough reason to pay the Mac tax.

8 GB of "unified memory", sharing that pool with cpu, gpu and whatever they're calling "neural net" these days. Almost certainly soldered in, not expandable.

256 or 512 GB main storage. I'm speculating, but I suspect that also is glued in, (or the case is glued together not expandable except by USB port.

All this for about $150-$200 more than a comparably outfitted Windows laptop.

Mind you, I profoundly dislike Windows. But people tend to buy Macs for creation, and this one seems to be outfitted primarily for consumption, which is not Apple's audience.

This has been a known thing for many years among those of us who have to actually get work done.

When we hear "Leveraging our core competencies to facilitate a paradigm shift in our synergistic approach, we must socialize the key takeaways to ensure we are driving value-add initiatives and pivoting to a future-ready, best-of-breed solution that moves the needle on our deliverables" our first thought is "empty suit". Unless the suit in question is playing the game for empty suits further up the food chain. That's always possible.

There does seem to be an inverse relationship between the number of managerial buzzwords in a sentence and actually making good decisions.

But say "bingo" after a paragraph of gobbledygook will still get you in trouble.

My guess is that we're entering the final stage of Universe 25.

...a satellite crashes near Piedmont, New Mexico...

I'm wondering if the gaming industry didn't recognize a bubble started by the couf which is now in the final stages of crashing.

I'm also wondering if GenZ's attraction to simplification, analog presence, raw dogging, and other factors left the industry with nowhere to go when their main audience (which I guess would include me) aged out.

This seems a variation on the tactic of making a new, unpopular thing an integral part of an older popular thing in order to ramp up usage.

What it may do instead is drive people to Libre Office.

I have an actual license for Office 2000, and used it for at least a decade across several computers. Microsoft gets (rare) kudos for keeping Office 2000 up to date with plugins for new file types. But at some point I had to leave it behind, and Libre was a better solution for me than Office 365.

So I suspect after they see Office lose traction for a year or so, they'll rebrand it back to what it was and just not mention Copilot anymore.

Or renew efforts to make Copilot baked into the OS. My understanding is that you can still uninstall it with Windows 11.

Have we decided yet whether Copilot is the new Clippy, or the new Bob?

I guess it's inevitable that data confirms it.

"Microsoft's Risky Bet That Windows Can Become The Platform for" ....well anything.

Personal music devices, several tries at phones, tablets, wearables, search engines, productivity assistants, music streaming, pretty much The Internet, voice controlled devices, probably others I've forgotten. Oh, Windows RT. And Gadgets.

In almost every case, they got into the market late and tried to dominate using strongarm marketing techniques that really don't work anymore. The computing public has for the most part wised up.

Following their record on trying to capture the market by providing hooks that only work with Windows, I suspect it'll go the way it went in the past -- everyone will hate it and will clamor for its removal. In the meantime, the systems that actually work will dominate. Microsoft will try the three E's, that won't work, and they'll grudgingly adopt the same methods and standards that everyone else is using.

Happy new year, by the way.

Well said. And I'd add that the fact it doesn't play well on Wall Street is a good thing.

I seem to recall that the reason "targeted layoffs" and "restructuring" raised stock prices was due to the expectation that the company would be more profitable on the short term. But many times it's an indication of suits pursuing quarterly profits at the expense of the company's future. Or more specifically, make the company more attractive for purchase.

An example might be laying off the entire engineering department and concentrating on marketing the heck out of current products. This works (sometimes) but only long enough for the execs to jump ship before people discover it's been hulled below the water line.

I'm all for NOT rewarding this kind of behavior, frankly. It just leaves behind a collection of violated, failing companies.

I think Goldman is basically coming to the same conclusion. In fancier words.

As to companies replacing personnel with AI, to execs who don't know any better, this may seem like a gold mine. Expect moving forward companies selling products containing code nobody understands. And probably, marketing materials containing six fingered hands.

I'm by no means an expert, but I doubt the ability of modern universities to teach community in any meaningful, successful way. This seems like a course correction that's way too late, enacted by the same people responsible for the original problem.

They already tried that -- our ultra-woke (or whatever they're calling it these days) hard left sociology largely came from universities. They've already created a social community. One that did not work. How are the same people going to now teach a society that DOES work?

It feels like universities are a dead concept, they just don't know it yet. The required changes to renew relevance have become too large to be practical.