Read more.Quote:
And Microsoft will showcase new Windows 10 devices at IFA 2015.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
And Microsoft will showcase new Windows 10 devices at IFA 2015.
H'mm well fair enough why not but I remember when win 3.1 (or was it Xp) was launched at Olympia in London and was pack with people interested in windows..after a year or so no one bother to go.
They would have to give me that $10 million to use Windows 10, there's far to many privacy concerns along with not knowing what they plan to do after providing free updates for the "life time of the device", that's now suspected to mean only 2 years of free updates.
That's more or less where I am. I've currently got more questions than answers and, short of getting acceptable (to me) answers, I'd need that kind of inducement, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
The conservative estimate would be "however long your Windows 7 or 8 license (whichever you upgraded from) would have lasted for support. i.e. Windows 7 sunsets January 14, 2020 and Windows 8 January 10, 2023.
Privacy concerns are pretty much identical to Windows 8: disable Bing integration if you want, or don't use a Microsoft Account at all if you're uber-paranoid.
Microsoft subsists on Enterprise use. If they do anything that could even tangentially be though of as a data loss risk (that cannot be trivially and reliably disabled) then they isntantly shoot themselves in the foot.
After 30 days (afaik) the license of the old operating system is transferred to the new which means that it will become invalid, in effect replacing your previous license, going on an article I read on Forbes the free upgrades for the "life time of the device" could be 2 years for home editions, and 4 for pro editions.
Yes the privacy concerns are similar to Windows 8 but they ain't the same, for one Windows 8 didn't have Cortana that must have the location services (tracks current location and location history) enabled to work along with the speech and input personalization service (sends your speech data to Microsoft). As not many people used Windows 8 IDK if it also sent your location to Microsoft when you powered up your device, or if it generated a unique advertising ID for each user, if it collected information about your contacts including names and nicknames, recorded your website history, or shared your WiFi password.
Microsoft does indeed subsists on Enterprise use, that's why there's two editions (Home, Pro) with distinctly different approaches to how those customers are treated.
Reading your linked Forbes 'article' says nothing about the same 30day FUD that was started a couple of weeks ago with Hexus posting bogus information from an unreliable site, and the rest of his information comes from Computerworld. He admits that he has bad information, and Microsoft hasn't given him any answers to make his information good. Mr. Kelly is the shoot from the lip type 'reporter', and tends to be as reliable for real information as is the Onion...Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
As for all the rest, I'll not bother repeating my experience with 10's preview. It's not hard to find. I don't know what the final privacy policies are any more than the next regular person does - but I do know fud and misinformation when I see it. And there's a lot of it floating around these days.
Not wishing to jump on the same merry-go-round yet again, but my response to that would be .... yes, because of a series of at best ambiguous, and perhaps misleading, statements and announcements from MS.Quote:
Originally Posted by GuidoLS
So one has to wonder .... are that really that incompetent? Or are they having exactly the effect that was intended? And if so, why? Testing the water temp? Flying a series of kites? Just provoking discussion? If the latter, it's effective, but a lot of the discussion has been rather adverse.
Actually the 30day information was based on information from the German website ComputerBase, and the information in the Forbes article/opinion piece is based on information ComputerWorld gleaned from slides presented on a financial analyst briefing.Quote:
Originally Posted by GuidoLS
IIRC he doesn't say that he has bad information, he says we have no way of knowing because even after directly asking Microsoft for clarification all he got told is that Microsoft is "not yet sharing full details of the service model”, so we are left with two weeks to go before release and millions of people having reserved copies of Windows 10 yet still Microsoft refuse to state what the 'Lifetime of the Device' is, they refuse to say what the lifecycle support is going to be, and they have failed to explain the consequences of forced updates.
Perhaps that's because Microsoft is not providing that information, at what point are Microsoft going to tell people what the implications are? When it rolled out reservation to upgrade customers license, when it stopped releasing Insider Preview builds ready for RTM yesterday, next week, on the 29th, never?Quote:
Originally Posted by GuidoLS
While I won't even pretend to deny the ambiguity of the MS announcements, I sincerely think that a LOT of the misinformation being reported (or, as I prefer, repeated) is due as much to the current culture of the net as it is to any pronouncements (or lack of) from MS. A lot of no-name sites that want/need to be noticed, even if they're wrong, are turning out to be the 'sources' of these reports - and they're being repeated as either factual, or a tiny disclaimer in 2pt font is hidden at the bottom of the page somewhere. And judging from some of the responses here, as well as many other sites, people still aren't getting past the headlines, even in the 21st century.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
Bottom line - the speculation may be fun for some, but you and I and the majority of the people here know that nothing on the web matters until MS puts it in print, and dots all the I's and crosses all the T's. Everything is speculation or willful misinformation until then. And yes, MS is, in part, responsible for some of that.
ComputerBase has already been called out for posting bad information, and they offered nothing to say that the 30 day garbage was based in any kind of reality. Not a link. Not a communication from MS. Not a psychic medium with a crystal ball. Nada.
Mr. Kelly offers nothing but his word he has viewed some slides - and it seems he's the only person in the world to view them, because he's either violating an NDA and everyone else is close-mouthed, or he's a certain kind of special, or he's so under-followed that he figures nobody would not his exaggeration, er, outright lie. Kind of like the following story on the same page that says that Win7 and Win8/8.1 users will be forced to upgrade, regardless of if they want to or not.
It may piss off the entire world, but MS will announce when they announce - there's no law or commandment that makes anyone use their product, or update. And until July 29th, the RTM is vaporware, so there's not going to be a final EULA/Privacy statement, etc.
So a screenshot doesn't count?Quote:
Originally Posted by GuidoLS
Either way given the choice of no information or supposedly "bad" information I know what I would choose, after all if it's bad information shouldn't Microsoft, following on with its new ethos of involving customers at every level, disaffirm or provide an explanation on what their plans are?
I'm guessing you didn't download the slides Microsoft published on their investors website on the June 26 then? You know them slides that you say "Mr. Kelly offers nothing but his word [that] he has viewed", these Power point slides right here. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by GuidoLS
Indeed there's no law or commandment that says people must upgrade, Microsoft owns Windows so they can do whatever, and charge whatever they like, but Microsoft also has a responsibility to convey that information to customers so they can make educated decisions and right now, for whatever reason, that’s not the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by GuidoLS
Given the number of bad screenshots we've had here lately, no, they don't count. re: first set of fake specs for Skylake, along with others, some of which were so bad that the spelling wasn't even close to correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
Actually, yes I did. And he never said he read them - he claimed it was a leak that was offered over on ComputerWorld. Either it was a leak, or it was a PPT post on the investor page. It can't be both. Not in the real world.Quote:
I'm guessing you didn't download the slides Microsoft published on their investors website on the June 26 then? You know them slides that you say "Mr. Kelly offers nothing but his word [that] he has viewed", these Power point slides right here. :rolleyes:
And that still doesn't answer the lie on the follow-up story. And considering all the disclaimers in that PPT, I'm not entirely sure why anyone would take the information listed on it as gospel. There's a LOT of ifs, ands and buts. Which is, once again, why it hasn't gone mainstream.
This is the internet. Even when they convey coherent information, it's twisted, distorted or ignored. And people are still ignoring the fact that there is no way in Hades that the EU is going to allow MS to convert a license to a shorter period than already exists. That means that 2/4 year scenario is before the 2020 EOL of Windows 7.Quote:
Indeed there's no law or commandment that says people must upgrade, Microsoft owns Windows so they can do whatever, and charge whatever they like, but Microsoft also has a responsibility to convey that information to customers so they can make educated decisions and right now, for whatever reason, that’s not the case.
And yes, I'd rather wait on final, official word than to react based on an often wrong reactionary website.
I agree on the nature of the web, but MS are surely astute enough to be aware of rumour mills, chinese whispers, viral stories etc, and so on, which is WHY their half-assed semi-announcements, leaks, tweets, etc, over something so fundamental and central to millions (hundreds of millions??) of people's core computing needs is so damn irresponsible?Quote:
Originally Posted by GuidoLS
When making remarks about "changing monetisation", and so on, if they don't explain what they mean, it's absolutely inevitable that people will speculate. The solutions are obvious - either they explain, or don't speculate in the first place .... unless speculation was the object of the exercise.
And yet that's more information than Microsoft have provided to customers that they've offered reserved copies of Windows 10 to, isn't it.Quote:
Originally Posted by GuidoLS
On the balance of probability who should people believe? A company that blankly refuses to share full details of the service model, or a possibly fake, possibly accurate screenshot of the afore mentioned 30day period before the license of the old operating system is transferred to the new and there's no going back.
Sorry but wasn't you just saying that Mr. Kelly offers nothing but his word he has viewed some slides - and it seems he's the only person in the world to view them?Quote:
Originally Posted by GuidoLS
Now you seem to be saying well yes they exist and you've seen them, what is it? Either Mr. Kelly is offering nothing but his word and he's the only person to have viewed them, or they do exist and you're being as inconsistent as Microsoft are when they speak about Windows 10.
And quibbling about semantics isn't really helping your cause, sure Mr. Kelly uses the term "leak" and perhaps that's a bad choice of words on his part, but that doesn't change the fact that those slides were published by Microsoft themselves, something that becomes clear if you read the Computerworld article that Mr. Kelly bases his opinion on.
IDK what this lie is that you refer to in the follow-up story but if it's anything like your previous rose-tinted view I'm guessing it probably hits a little close to the mark for you to get so worked up about it. ;)
Sure there's a lot of ifs, ands and buts, and the PPT slides come with disclaimers just like everything that gets presented to investors when discussing future revenue, but that's still more information than Microsoft are willing to provide customers who reserved copies of Windows 10 over a month and a half ago, it's still more information than they have drip feed people previewing Windows 10 builds.
When exactly are Microsoft going to turn those ifs, ands and buts into something more concrete, when are they going to define what the 'Lifetime of the Device' is? What the support lifecycle is going to be? What the consequences of forced updates are?
With less than two weeks before release don't you think Microsoft owes it to the millions of people who have reserved copies of Windows 10 what their letting themselves in for, what the implications and long term cost of this supposed free upgrade is going to cost them?
Would this be the same EU that took 14 years to look into a complaint made by Novell, the same EU that fined Microsoft a whopping $794 million, less than 0.1% of it's annual revenue. :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by GuidoLS
I was willing to lend your views on Microsoft some credulity but if you seriously think the EU could prevent Microsoft from doing what ever the hell it pleases you really have been drinking the Microsoft flavoured kool-aid for too long. :)
We disagree. Simple as that. That $794 million was for not including a browser choice in a service pack... so yes, I think they'd do worse to MS for violating licenses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
Anyone that can read can see exactly what Mr. Kelly said. It wasn't semantics, or a poor choice of wording. He claimed his information was from a leak on another website. Either it was, and he gave the wrong site, or it wasn't, and he has some credibility issues. Given some of his other articles, I'm going with b. You're free to interpret things however you choose. Isn't life grand?
I'm not going to play the circular argument game, and I'm not going to be backed into a corner trying to defend a company I have flatly stated that I do not care to defend. I neither need nor desire your approval of my views. Either you'll upgrade, or you won't. That decision was never going to be based on anything I posted one way or the other. And on the other side of that kool-aid equation are those that are drunk on the hater-aid. Are you willing to be placed in that position publicly? If not, I would be pleased if you'd stop trying to put me in the other camp. This is, I think, the second time you've done so. Personal attacks are, at best, the last offense of the petty. How about we avoid pettiness?