Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 21st Sep 2011 22:06 UTC, submitted by kragil
Windows After the walled garden coming to the desktop operating system world, we're currently witnessing another potential nail in the coffin of the relatively open world of desktop and laptop computing. Microsoft has revealed [.pptx] that as part of its Windows 8 logo program, OEMs must implement UEFI secure boot. This could potentially complicate the installation of other operating systems, like Windows 7, XP, and Linux.
Thread beginning with comment 490394
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Thu 22nd Sep 2011 20:05 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl
Member since:
2010-06-08

Whatever they pay, they still inflate the price because of that. I don't really care about how much they pay, I care about having a choice not to be affected by this bundling.

It is quite obvious ... he bought a song on an iPod an tried copying to her really cheap mp3 player ... it didn't work .. when it was explained it was because the mp3 was meant to work only on his iPod he said "makes sense"


You see, you are disproving your own point (which was seriously people just expect this.). He knew it was iPod (i.e. Apple), still he expected to copy the song to other device because it's a natural thing to expect. Only after he started to dwell on it more, he agreed that since it's Apple, that won't work. But normal expectation - it should work. So when it doesn't work - it's not a norm. That was my point.

Edited 2011-09-22 20:06 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[7]: Comment by shmerl
by lucas_maximus on Thu 22nd Sep 2011 22:08 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by shmerl"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Whatever they pay, they still inflate the price because of that. I don't really care about how much they pay, I care about having a choice not to be affected by this bundling.


No we care about getting shit done.

I explained to you but you ignored that I can get discounts from MS.

It is quite simple ... it works for us. If you don't f--king like that too f--king bad. I don't really care how much you value freedom ... It it called a "deal" and it has been done since the start of time ... get a clue would you.

You see, you are disproving your own point (which was seriously people just expect this.). He knew it was iPod (i.e. Apple), still he expected to copy the song to other device because it's a natural thing to expect. Only after he started to dwell on it more, he agreed that since it's Apple, that won't work. But normal expectation - it should work. So when it doesn't work - it's not a norm. That was my point.


I am not disproving my own point. The point was that nobody unless us geeks really give a shit. He bascially said "oh wait I bought some apple shit and it didn't work with some TESCO shit ... well okay fair enought".

Thus the Hoover example. but you didn't quite catch on.

Edited 2011-09-22 22:13 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Thu 22nd Sep 2011 23:50 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Haha. May be you do, but I don't have any deals with MS and I don't get any discounts from them, as most people as well. We pay more for the obvious reason of the Windows tax. As simple as it gets. And why can't we voice our opposition for this ridiculous claim of money for something that isn't used? This bundling is really illegal no matter what discounts you are talking about.

Regarding the DRM - I was saying that it's unnatural and against normal expectations of freedom. Not sure if you argued with that or not, your example was only supporting what I said.

Edited 2011-09-22 23:50 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3