It'd only take a few of the oil producing nations to start trading in a different currency. Back in the year 2000 one of those countries started trading oil in Euros. That country was Iraq. What was one of the first actions taken by the US after the US asserted control over Iraq? Replacing the Euro with US Dollars for oil sales.
If one country doing this is enough to spook the US, what does that tell you? Furthermore, this has not been an isolated incident, other oil-rich countries have threatened to leave the US Dollar behind and have faced instability shortly after (Libya, Syria, etc...).
>This might be a huge opportunity for Microsoft and WP but they need to up their game when it comes to the qualities of apps.
That ship sailed a long time ago. I think it's is more probable that I become a millionaire (which won't happen), than for WP to become a significant player in the mobile market. Once a platform starts running software from the competition you know it's game over. WP won't be more successful than OS/2.
>I'm actually beginning to feel bad for the Android vendors.
I don't, I think I paid a fair price for my smartphone (LG-D280f) considering all the crap it comes bundle with (which I can't uninstall) and that I'll never get operating system updates. Even so I still like LG smartphones. I even recommend this brand!
God forbid Microsoft give 7 the boot for support like they did XP. Windows 7 is standard for workstations at the college administration where I work, and suggestions to switch to 8 are met with laughter across the board. We have trouble enough with China trying to hack us literally thousands of times per day, and there is no reason to trust Windows 10 to be any more secure.
god forbid Microsoft try to deprecate OSs after nearly 13 years.
You seem to have invented a decade. Windows 8 RTM was just over 3 years ago.
Also, while I have some sympathy with both the idea that software isn't perfect and the idea that Microsoft need a viable business model, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a product like Windows 7 to come with essential support for a significant period of time, perhaps based on the expected working lifetime of devices where the software is normally installed.
It's true that we don't know how to make perfect software yet, but it's also still the case that those security and bug fixes are only necessary because the product as originally provided was defective. If you're making as much money from a product as Microsoft do from Windows, and if defects in your product cause harm on the scale that bugs in Windows do, I think it's fair to expect you to make good your mistakes for a reasonable period as well.
It also seems to me that Microsoft could do very well from stating a reasonable period of guaranteed support with the purchase but then offering reasonably-priced ongoing support afterwards so it have a real revenue stream to fund long-term maintenance if it turns out that devices running Windows 7 are in use for a long time. This also conveniently removes the incentive to ship successive products that are seen to be worse than what people had before.
> I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a product like Windows 7 to come with essential support for a significant period of time, perhaps based on the expected working lifetime of devices where the software is normally installed.
The best LTS on Linux is 5 years, and used to be 3 years. The best lifecycle support on OS X is, oh well, pick a number. A small number.
If you bought Windows 7 in 2009 and took a free upgrade to Windows 10 then you're supported until 2025, if your hardware lasts that long. So you'd have got roughly 15 years' use of an operating system for roughly $40. It's obviously terrible value....
Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that Microsoft's current support periods are somehow bad. On the contrary, I think they have historically been by far the best in the industry, and that this has been a strong argument in favour of building serious software on Windows.
All I'm saying is that a significant period of support -- longer than the 3 years the posts I was replying to seemed to be suggesting -- is a reasonable expectation for this sort of commercial software, because the developers are supplying an imperfect product in the first place.
In contrast, if the new version of Windows with its compulsory updates removes that ability to keep what you actually bought working as well as it was when you bought it, that is not a good thing, any more than it is when Apple have dumped support for old versions of iOS or OS X well before the end of the useful lifetime of devices they ran on. The position that the software industry wants to keep changing things so everyone else should be forced to keep up whether or not it's actually in their interests is not something I can support.
> The position that the software industry wants to keep changing things so everyone else should be forced to keep up whether or not it's actually in their interests is not something I can support.
Oddly enough, Microsoft already tried that. They ended up with people running 14-year-old code (which cost them money both short term and long term) and a major malware problem.
Check out conficker devastating businesses and costing people a fortune ... almost wholly because they didn't install the patch for it. And these idiots are running supposedly-competent businesses or government departments.
The business branches offer more control over taking updates, but this is a consumer operating system.
Again, this is conflating security patches with more general updates.
As a personal anecdote, the only serious malware that has ever hit any system I run, as far as I'm aware, was a zero day exploit. The system was fully patched when it was hit. In contrast, the amount of productive time I have spent over the past few years recovering from problems caused by non-security-related software updates that I didn't particularly want but couldn't avoid if I wanted to keep the security patches is probably measured in weeks by now.
I'm all for keeping systems secure, but when updates start to take priority over keeping systems useful, you have a problem. Most security patches are fairly low risk and have few if any unrelated side effects anyway, but that is certainly not the case with modern software updates more generally. Just look at the frustration of browser users with Mozilla constantly rearranging the UI or Google actively removing functionality from Chrome, or of course the number of users who never moved from Windows XP to Vista or from 7 to 8 because the changes weren't considered improvements.
In the brave new world of Windows 10, the average individual user will be stuck with all the updates, security or otherwise, whether they want them or not. There's really no excuse for that, even in a consumer-focussed OS. Install updates by default, so less technical users get what they probably want? Sure. Block even knowledgeable users from choosing whether to install specific updates? The only time that makes a difference is if Microsoft want to force an update that the user does not want.
> Just look at the frustration of browser users with Mozilla constantly rearranging the UI or Google actively removing functionality from Chrome
Welcome to the brave new world. (Apple removing functionality as well.)
Windows 10 is moving to a continuous update process that is exactly like Gmail, Facebook and all web apps, and for exactly the same reasons.
At least this avoids the "big bang" updates that left incompetent organizations running buggy, insecure 14-year-old code. (The buggy insecure new code actually does work a lot better ;-)
> Block even knowledgeable users from choosing whether to install specific updates?
How many are of those exist? As far as I can see, the number is between very, very small and zero, and even the best know far less about updates than Microsoft (because Microsoft can see tens of millions of PCs, and it has the source code).
That very small number has a problem because Microsoft is trying to cater to a billion users who don't even pretend to such arcane knowledge.
Otherwise, there's a business branch where you can delay updates for a few months, and one where you can effectively delay them forever.
I mean China literally doesn't stop. Every college, every department, they're all under attack, all the time. Whether it's sanctioned cyber-theft by the Chinese government or one of their thousands of "patriot hackers" they are ALWAYS trying to penetrate our networks and steal our research, personnel information, and so on. This is an indisputable fact, and my university is not alone.
The only piece of software I really miss on OpenBSD is the Android SDK, other than that it has everything I use and it works great. So once again I want to tell everyone reading this, if you haven't tried it and if your hardware is supported I invite you to give OpenBSD a spin.
>Then on top of that, to me, one of the great structural pieces is we don't have with Windows is this problem of Mac OS/iOS. I'm not in some quest to say let me try and replicate Mac OS and iOS or iOS and Mac OS. We don't have the Chrome versus Android.
I love the direction Microsoft is going. I almost feel like this is a new company totally different from the Microsoft of the past. But I seriously disagree with this we are Windows mantra. Having two different operating systems one for desktop another for mobile is a no brainier. To date my favorite Windows is still 7. Frankly I don't see the point of WinRT in the desktop.
I think Windows Phone will never be able to compete with Android/iOS. But a good restart would be to make Windows Phone less restrictive (side loading) and to make the SDK compatible with Windows 7.
Having a core set of shared services and more importantly a code framework that works without specialised versions on every windows device is much, much appreciated from a developer perspective - but whether thats what he is talking about or actually a single version of windows that adapts to each device I am not sure. The latter seems like it would be very hard or even impossible to do, or at least do well.
That being said, yes please make the windows phone less restrictive :) I've developed for Android, iOS and WinPhone and the WinPhone with C# and VS is by far the friendliest, but absolutely hobbled for practical use by their insistence on going via the store. My clients are businesses, not joe public! Businesses want a single, easy to control deployment to all their devices via powershell or similar. They want to be able to test an app in a UAT deployment to test devices, not effectively require it to be in production before they can see something outside of the developers machine.
> I think Windows Phone will never be able to compete with Android/iOS.
A "one" Windows strategy where you can write for the desktop and automatically have a Phone, XBox etc app is incredibly compelling. It's going to mean developers will have this massive market. And it's a market that is far, far more lucrative. Why write an iOS app that you will sell for dollars when you could write one Windows app that sells for $30 on the desktop, $20 on HoloLens, $10 on tablet and $3 on Mobile. And having a truly intelligent cloud behind it ie. not just a dumb key/value store or Hadoop stack but rather deep analytics as a service e.g. predictive modelling etc will make Windows apps far more compelling.
You can really see where Satya is taking Microsoft and it's pretty damn exciting. And I would never bet against them especially in the cloud/analytics space right now.