Next version of Windows is...

On 10/06/2014 05:17 PM, Silver Slimer wrote:
On 14-10-06 04:56 PM, Caver1 wrote:

The number of Windows users that have ever wanted to "unlock" the OS is
not worth caring about. For most Windows users the primary requirement
for those users is that they can get work done efficiently. Managing an
"unlocked" system is contrary to that requirement.

I do believe that unlock was in reference to Android not Windows.
How is a system that you have control of contrary to getting work done
efficiently?
All Linux Users have control of their systems and have no problem
working efficiently.
Most Windows users don't have the capability to manage the systems that
they use.
Not giving control of the system is MS's way of controlling their
customers.

And how exactly does Microsoft not allow a user to manage his own
system? I'm very curious.

You cannot access the the operating system files. Even with the elevated
permissions of the built in Admin.
True most people don't care or shouldn't. There are many of us that are
capable and want control of our computer. You have to get rid of or
change the permissions of the trusted install just to manage programs
that you as the user, Admin, built in Admin installed.
The system is much more than just installing and using programs.


Although there are apps that have some of the functionality of MS
Office, I've not seen one that is a true competitor in any sense. The
time wasted trying to execute the same tasks that users have done for
years if not decades in MS Office drives them back to that suite in
short order.

There are a couple. Then again most users don't need the total
functionality of MSOffice. Business or personal.

Agreed.

In short, MS doesn't have to "capture market", they just don't have to
lose a lot of what they already have, and that isn't as big a task as it
might seem. Remember, MS is a primarily software company.

MS is starting to lose portions in large chunks. The mobile market is a
long way from MS's capture. Being that users usually stick with what
they first use MS will never capture it.

Microsoft was NEVER close to capturing the mobile market though. Even
though they have the resources to innovate in any field they touch,
they're more of a me-too company rather than a creative one.


I agree. Even though MS is not close to capturing the mobile market and
never will, they want to and will try. Can't blame them for trying.

--
Caver1

Caver1 wrote:
On 10/04/2014 06:01 PM, Neil wrote:
On 10/4/2014 11:13 AM, Caver1 wrote:
(Much snipped for brevity)

MS has lost nearly $2 billion on the Surface since it has been on
the market. MS is hoping to turn that loss into aleast a break
even.

Perhaps their vision is larger than that. The Surface introduced
the idea of
a Windows-based tablet that offered features beyond those
available from iStuff and Androids. Now, Windows-based tablets are
coming onto the market
at very low prices, for example the Winbooks that run from $99 for
a 7" basic tablet to $199 for a 10" full version. Something had to
kick-start that market, and since MS' main business is the
software, once could
see the
investment in the Surface as a marketing expense that will be
recouped by the sales of other products running Windows OS and
software.


Just like MS to sell at a loss to try to capture the market. Don't
think it will work this time.
My daughter paid $219 for a 10" Asus Android tablet. $199-$219 not
a big difference. She does her office work, manipulates images and
more with it without unlocking. Unlock it and you can install
anything you want and have complete control. Can't unlock Windows
and have control.


The number of Windows users that have ever wanted to "unlock" the OS
is not worth caring about. For most Windows users the primary
requirement for those users is that they can get work done
efficiently. Managing an "unlocked" system is contrary to that
requirement.

I do believe that unlock was in reference to Android not Windows.

Yes, you were referring to Android users, and I was pointing out the
irrelevance of such a thing to Windows users.

How is a system that you have control of contrary to getting work done
efficiently?

Most people don't need to know the inner workings of their OS because their
work is done via apps, which is why the runner-up to Windows is Apple, which
isolates the user even more.

Although there are apps that have some of the functionality of MS
Office, I've not seen one that is a true competitor in any sense. The
time wasted trying to execute the same tasks that users have done for
years if not decades in MS Office drives them back to that suite in
short order.

There are a couple.

For example???

Then again most users don't need the total
functionality of MSOffice. Business or personal.

Agreed, but they do need the basics to work right or at least as the
instructions say they do, and in the open-source apps that I have tried (or
still use to help support folks), that is a problem.

In short, MS doesn't have to "capture market", they just don't have
to lose a lot of what they already have, and that isn't as big a
task as it might seem. Remember, MS is a primarily software company.


MS is starting to lose portions in large chunks. The mobile market is
a long way from MS's capture. Being that users usually stick with what
they first use MS will never capture it.

MS is primarily a software company, and their foray into hardware is aimed
at expanding the market for their software, so you'd have to look at the
sales of software to make such a determination. What software is
challenging MS-Office's market share, for example? Their direction is clear,
and once users have the ability to run the same MS softwre on all their
devices, the sales of Wiindows-based hardware will increase. I doubt that
MS' hardware -- Surface, Nokia phones, etc. -- will be the largest volume,
but that has never been an issue for MS.

--
best regards,

Neil

On 14-10-06 10:54 PM, DevilsPGD wrote:
In the last episode of , Silver Slimer
said:

Microsoft was NEVER close to capturing the mobile market though. Even
though they have the resources to innovate in any field they touch,
they're more of a me-too company rather than a creative one.

While true, they did have a reasonable percentage of the market in the
Windows Mobile 6 era. It's gone, for a number of good reasons, none of
which resolve around the state of Windows Phone 8 (which is actually
awesome, but likely not destined to challenge anyone)

I wouldn't be surprised to discover that Windows Phone 8 is excellent
but I have to admit that I have yet to use it for a significant amount
of time and especially have yet to see anyone with it. Its relative
rarity is going to discourage developers from producing for it which
will simply exacerbate its problem of a lack of quality applications. I
have a Blackberry myself and have trouble getting _decent_ applications
for most of what I want to do. I imagine that the problem is the same on
Windows phone.

--
Silver Slimer
OpenMedia Supporter

On 14-10-07 01:57 AM, Caver1 wrote:

And how exactly does Microsoft not allow a user to manage his own
system? I'm very curious.

You cannot access the the operating system files. Even with the elevated
permissions of the built in Admin.
True most people don't care or shouldn't. There are many of us that are
capable and want control of our computer. You have to get rid of or
change the permissions of the trusted install just to manage programs
that you as the user, Admin, built in Admin installed.
The system is much more than just installing and using programs.

I have to admit that this is true. Everything about GNU/Linux is open so
if there's a need to modify anything to your liking, that's fine. One of
the things I can't stand is that certain pieces of hardware are
incredibly easy to configure but others are incredibly difficult. For
instance, connecting each of my Windows computers to a laser printer
connected to the router wirelessly is ridiculously easy. With GNU/Linux,
after four hours of trying every imaginable configuration, it still
refused to work. I doubt any modification of the operating system would
help that too.

Microsoft was NEVER close to capturing the mobile market though. Even
though they have the resources to innovate in any field they touch,
they're more of a me-too company rather than a creative one.


I agree. Even though MS is not close to capturing the mobile market and
never will, they want to and will try. Can't blame them for trying.

Capturing it wouldn't hard to do though. They can start by actually
listening to their customers and giving them what they want. If the
biggest concern is a lack of applications, they might want to take a
lead role in producing these applications the way Blackberry did.
Third-party stuff for Blackberry 10 is ridiculously awful in most cases
but the native applications work pretty well. I imagine that many
applications for Windows phone simply don't exist and Microsoft has done
nothing to address this absence, choosing instead to produce features
nobody actually asked for.

--
Silver Slimer
OpenMedia Supporter

On Tue, 7 Oct 2014 09:04:16 -0500, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

The abillity to develop apps in a single environment for all Windows devices
is quite recent and not yet entirely implemented, but that is the direction
that MS is going (both announced and partially implemented). The result of
this capability is that developers won't have to develop apps for any
particular Windows device. Surely, the implications of this are easy to
grasp.

Yes. All your personal data will be in the "cloud", which means it'll
be stored on somebody else's computer. I can easily grasp the
implications of that.

Rod.

Silver Slimer wrote:
On 14-10-06 10:54 PM, DevilsPGD wrote:
In the last episode of , Silver Slimer
said:

Microsoft was NEVER close to capturing the mobile market though.
Even though they have the resources to innovate in any field they
touch, they're more of a me-too company rather than a creative one.

While true, they did have a reasonable percentage of the market in
the Windows Mobile 6 era. It's gone, for a number of good reasons,
none of which resolve around the state of Windows Phone 8 (which is
actually awesome, but likely not destined to challenge anyone)

I wouldn't be surprised to discover that Windows Phone 8 is excellent
but I have to admit that I have yet to use it for a significant amount
of time and especially have yet to see anyone with it. Its relative
rarity is going to discourage developers from producing for it which
will simply exacerbate its problem of a lack of quality applications.
I have a Blackberry myself and have trouble getting _decent_
applications for most of what I want to do. I imagine that the
problem is the same on Windows phone.

The abillity to develop apps in a single environment for all Windows devices
is quite recent and not yet entirely implemented, but that is the direction
that MS is going (both announced and partially implemented). The result of
this capability is that developers won't have to develop apps for any
particular Windows device. Surely, the implications of this are easy to
grasp.

--
best regards,

Neil

On 10/7/14 8:43 AM, Wolf K wrote:

It Just Works

Something that seems to work much, much better in the OS X world.

And why this 5.5 year old iMac is still my primary use computer over a 1
year old Win7/Win8 desktop I built for both simplicity and speed.


--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 25.0
Thunderbird 24.6.0
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

On 10/7/14 5:40 AM, Neil Gould wrote:
Caver1 wrote:
On 10/04/2014 06:01 PM, Neil wrote:
On 10/4/2014 11:13 AM, Caver1 wrote:
(Much snipped for brevity)

(And more snipped for brevity)

How is a system that you have control of contrary to getting work done
efficiently?

Most people don't need to know the inner workings of their OS because their
work is done via apps, which is why the runner-up to Windows is Apple, which
isolates the user even more.

I'm a bit unclear as to your point, here, Neil.

If most people get their work done via apps, to which I agree they don't
want to tinker with their OS. Even though they would be more productive
and/or the system would easier for them to use. And if that's the case,
what difference does it make if Apple isolates the user from the system
more than MS does?

If your referring to the fact there are more apps to choose from for
Windows, then I agree. Far more apps are available for Windows,
especially for specialty uses. I have a hunch there are more apps
available for OS X than is the commonly held belief by the non-OS X
users, due to unfamiliarity with OS X. That may be due to the thought
the only place you can get OS X apps is via the Apple Store. Yet some
of the more powerful/capable OS X apps are not sold there because they
violate some desire of Apple.

Although there are apps that have some of the functionality of MS
Office, I've not seen one that is a true competitor in any sense. The
time wasted trying to execute the same tasks that users have done for
years if not decades in MS Office drives them back to that suite in
short order.

There are a couple.

For example???

Then again most users don't need the total
functionality of MSOffice. Business or personal.

Agreed, but they do need the basics to work right or at least as the
instructions say they do, and in the open-source apps that I have tried (or
still use to help support folks), that is a problem.

Sadly, I have to agree with you about open source products. And when
the normal user wants to see change and things fixed, you are sometimes
shouted down with various reasons.

I will say, it's possible Libre Office may have had some change in this
area. I no longer user it, but the latest version I have does have a
couple of fixes for issues that drove me away.

In short, MS doesn't have to "capture market", they just don't have
to lose a lot of what they already have, and that isn't as big a
task as it might seem. Remember, MS is a primarily software company.


MS is starting to lose portions in large chunks. The mobile market is
a long way from MS's capture. Being that users usually stick with what
they first use MS will never capture it.

MS is primarily a software company, and their foray into hardware is aimed
at expanding the market for their software, so you'd have to look at the
sales of software to make such a determination. What software is
challenging MS-Office's market share, for example? Their direction is clear,
and once users have the ability to run the same MS softwre on all their
devices, the sales of Wiindows-based hardware will increase. I doubt that
MS' hardware -- Surface, Nokia phones, etc. -- will be the largest volume,
but that has never been an issue for MS.

And their move towards doing everything on the "cloud" in general is,
IMO, another reason tablets and phones can takeover the majority. Just
like the days when you had a dumb terminal on your desk and the "power"
was in the basement, that power is now in the cloud with MS's or someone
else's servers.

No one ever seems to have an answer to my question of "What if the
internet goes down?" Last night's Scorpion series on CBS had a plot
line where that internet situation came into play. One of Tom Clancy's
novels (sorry, can't remember the name), included a similar situation.



--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 25.0
Thunderbird 24.6.0
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

On 10/7/14 11:02 AM, Neil Gould wrote:
Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Tue, 7 Oct 2014 09:04:16 -0500, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

The abillity to develop apps in a single environment for all Windows
devices is quite recent and not yet entirely implemented, but that
is the direction that MS is going (both announced and partially
implemented). The result of this capability is that developers won't
have to develop apps for any particular Windows device. Surely, the
implications of this are easy to grasp.

Yes. All your personal data will be in the "cloud", which means it'll
be stored on somebody else's computer. I can easily grasp the
implications of that.

The use of the cloud, as in "somebody-else's computer" is not required.
Perhaps you haven't seen the numerous "personal cloud" drives that one can
purchase and easily install, even lacking the knowledge that such a thing is
simply an HD in an ethernet case. The savvy user can even access it remotely
without problems. Since all of the devices have SD card, usb and ethernet
ports, it is not necssary to have a "cloud" at all.

I've not heard of these "personal cloud" drives.

How would they be different from a remote desktop connection, such as
Teamviewer?

But, none of this has to do with the apps themselves being able to run on
all Windows devices, which is what I was pointing out. One development cycle
provides apps for all devices. Hmmm... let's see if that catches on! ;-D



--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 25.0
Thunderbird 24.6.0
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

On 14-10-07 10:43 AM, Wolf K wrote:
On 2014-10-07 9:08 AM, Silver Slimer wrote:
On 14-10-07 01:57 AM, Caver1 wrote:

And how exactly does Microsoft not allow a user to manage his own
system? I'm very curious.

You cannot access the the operating system files. Even with the elevated
permissions of the built in Admin.
True most people don't care or shouldn't. There are many of us that are
capable and want control of our computer. You have to get rid of or
change the permissions of the trusted install just to manage programs
that you as the user, Admin, built in Admin installed.
The system is much more than just installing and using programs.

I have to admit that this is true. Everything about GNU/Linux is open so
if there's a need to modify anything to your liking, that's fine. [Etc
and so and so forth...]

All valid points, but they apply to a minuscule user-demographic, and
one that's shrinking. It will reach some stable proportion within a few
years, if it hasn't already.

The transition from user-tinkering/maintenance/etc to It Just Works
happens with all disruptive technologies. It took about four generations
with the car, about three with radio, and is taking two with computers.
There will always be hobbyists who like messing about with mature and
obsolete technologies. It's fun. ;-)

GNU/Linux is generally already stable though. It still needs a bit of
tinkering and a lot of it is out of reach for the general user but it's
so close to becoming perfect for even the average user that it's not a
bad idea to already start advocating its use and raising awareness about
its existence. Considering how little people really need to learn to be
very comfortable with the system, it's a good alternative for a lot of
people who are sick of the Windows way of handling technology.

--
Silver Slimer
OpenMedia Supporter

Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Tue, 7 Oct 2014 09:04:16 -0500, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

The abillity to develop apps in a single environment for all Windows
devices is quite recent and not yet entirely implemented, but that
is the direction that MS is going (both announced and partially
implemented). The result of this capability is that developers won't
have to develop apps for any particular Windows device. Surely, the
implications of this are easy to grasp.

Yes. All your personal data will be in the "cloud", which means it'll
be stored on somebody else's computer. I can easily grasp the
implications of that.

The use of the cloud, as in "somebody-else's computer" is not required.
Perhaps you haven't seen the numerous "personal cloud" drives that one can
purchase and easily install, even lacking the knowledge that such a thing is
simply an HD in an ethernet case. The savvy user can even access it remotely
without problems. Since all of the devices have SD card, usb and ethernet
ports, it is not necssary to have a "cloud" at all.

But, none of this has to do with the apps themselves being able to run on
all Windows devices, which is what I was pointing out. One development cycle
provides apps for all devices. Hmmm... let's see if that catches on! ;-D

--
best regards,

Neil

Ken Springer wrote:
On 10/7/14 5:40 AM, Neil Gould wrote:
Caver1 wrote:
On 10/04/2014 06:01 PM, Neil wrote:
On 10/4/2014 11:13 AM, Caver1 wrote:
(Much snipped for brevity)

(And more snipped for brevity)

How is a system that you have control of contrary to getting work
done efficiently?

Most people don't need to know the inner workings of their OS
because their work is done via apps, which is why the runner-up to
Windows is Apple, which isolates the user even more.

I'm a bit unclear as to your point, here, Neil.

If most people get their work done via apps, to which I agree they
don't want to tinker with their OS. Even though they would be more
productive and/or the system would easier for them to use.

Keep in mind that the time tinkering with the OS subtracts from the time
that one is being productive, except in the very few cases where one is an
OS developer.

And if
that's the case, what difference does it make if Apple isolates the
user from the system more than MS does?

Users who are not inclined to write programs, utilities and so forth are not
affected in the least by a more restrictive OS.

If your referring to the fact there are more apps to choose from for
Windows, then I agree. Far more apps are available for Windows,
especially for specialty uses. I have a hunch there are more apps
available for OS X than is the commonly held belief by the non-OS X
users, due to unfamiliarity with OS X. That may be due to the thought
the only place you can get OS X apps is via the Apple Store. Yet some
of the more powerful/capable OS X apps are not sold there because they
violate some desire of Apple.

Savvy Mac users can certainly write their own apps, but I don't think that
is the larger Apple user base. And, I don't see anything wrong with that.

Although there are apps that have some of the functionality of MS
Office, I've not seen one that is a true competitor in any sense.
The time wasted trying to execute the same tasks that users have
done for years if not decades in MS Office drives them back to
that suite in short order.

There are a couple.

For example???

Then again most users don't need the total
functionality of MSOffice. Business or personal.

Agreed, but they do need the basics to work right or at least as the
instructions say they do, and in the open-source apps that I have
tried (or still use to help support folks), that is a problem.

Sadly, I have to agree with you about open source products. And when
the normal user wants to see change and things fixed, you are
sometimes shouted down with various reasons.

I will say, it's possible Libre Office may have had some change in
this area. I no longer user it, but the latest version I have does
have a couple of fixes for issues that drove me away.

The Open/Libre Office app is about as good as it gets, yet very simple
functions such as Search & Replace don't work as advertised. Worse, the
typical user doesn't know how to exchange data with mainstream apps beyond
the limited options in "Save As", which can be problematic. So, after a few
failed attempts at working with recipients that only use MS-Office (for
example), they go out and buy the apps that their colleagues or clients use.

In short, MS doesn't have to "capture market", they just don't have
to lose a lot of what they already have, and that isn't as big a
task as it might seem. Remember, MS is a primarily software
company.


MS is starting to lose portions in large chunks. The mobile market
is a long way from MS's capture. Being that users usually stick
with what they first use MS will never capture it.

MS is primarily a software company, and their foray into hardware is
aimed at expanding the market for their software, so you'd have to
look at the sales of software to make such a determination. What
software is challenging MS-Office's market share, for example? Their
direction is clear, and once users have the ability to run the same
MS softwre on all their devices, the sales of Wiindows-based
hardware will increase. I doubt that MS' hardware -- Surface, Nokia
phones, etc. -- will be the largest volume, but that has never been
an issue for MS.

And their move towards doing everything on the "cloud" in general is,
IMO, another reason tablets and phones can takeover the majority.
Just like the days when you had a dumb terminal on your desk and the
"power" was in the basement, that power is now in the cloud with MS's
or someone else's servers.

Or their own "personal cloud", as wi-fi enabled drives are called.

--
best regards,

Neil

Ken Springer wrote:
On 10/7/14 11:02 AM, Neil Gould wrote:
Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Tue, 7 Oct 2014 09:04:16 -0500, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

The abillity to develop apps in a single environment for all
Windows devices is quite recent and not yet entirely implemented,
but that is the direction that MS is going (both announced and
partially implemented). The result of this capability is that
developers won't have to develop apps for any particular Windows
device. Surely, the implications of this are easy to grasp.

Yes. All your personal data will be in the "cloud", which means
it'll be stored on somebody else's computer. I can easily grasp the
implications of that.

The use of the cloud, as in "somebody-else's computer" is not
required. Perhaps you haven't seen the numerous "personal cloud"
drives that one can purchase and easily install, even lacking the
knowledge that such a thing is simply an HD in an ethernet case. The
savvy user can even access it remotely without problems. Since all
of the devices have SD card, usb and ethernet ports, it is not
necssary to have a "cloud" at all.

I've not heard of these "personal cloud" drives.

They are simply drives in a wi-fi casing. Google "personal cloud drives" to
see a bunch, as in:
http://www.computerworld.com/article...re--there--eve
rywhere--3-personal-cloud-storage-systems.html

--
best regards,

Neil

On 10/07/2014 07:40 AM, Neil Gould wrote:
Caver1 wrote:
On 10/04/2014 06:01 PM, Neil wrote:
On 10/4/2014 11:13 AM, Caver1 wrote:
(Much snipped for brevity)

MS has lost nearly $2 billion on the Surface since it has been on
the market. MS is hoping to turn that loss into aleast a break
even.

Perhaps their vision is larger than that. The Surface introduced
the idea of
a Windows-based tablet that offered features beyond those
available from iStuff and Androids. Now, Windows-based tablets are
coming onto the market
at very low prices, for example the Winbooks that run from $99 for
a 7" basic tablet to $199 for a 10" full version. Something had to
kick-start that market, and since MS' main business is the
software, once could
see the
investment in the Surface as a marketing expense that will be
recouped by the sales of other products running Windows OS and
software.


Just like MS to sell at a loss to try to capture the market. Don't
think it will work this time.
My daughter paid $219 for a 10" Asus Android tablet. $199-$219 not
a big difference. She does her office work, manipulates images and
more with it without unlocking. Unlock it and you can install
anything you want and have complete control. Can't unlock Windows
and have control.


The number of Windows users that have ever wanted to "unlock" the OS
is not worth caring about. For most Windows users the primary
requirement for those users is that they can get work done
efficiently. Managing an "unlocked" system is contrary to that
requirement.

I do believe that unlock was in reference to Android not Windows.

Yes, you were referring to Android users, and I was pointing out the
irrelevance of such a thing to Windows users.

Why is it irrelevant? It was a comparison. You cannot have control of
your Windows phone or tablet. You can with Android and Apple.
In other words you can control whether or not an app can't send your
personal information back to their servers or not. You can also stop gps
tracking in apps that don't really need it. Most of all of them do one
or the other and some both. You can also get rid of factory installed
apps that you don't want. You can't with Windows.

How is a system that you have control of contrary to getting work done
efficiently?

Most people don't need to know the inner workings of their OS because their
work is done via apps, which is why the runner-up to Windows is Apple, which
isolates the user even more.

I agree that most user don't need to or shouldn't. Is that a reason for
stopping all?
Apple is quite a bit worse at dumbing down their products than MS.

Although there are apps that have some of the functionality of MS
Office, I've not seen one that is a true competitor in any sense. The
time wasted trying to execute the same tasks that users have done for
years if not decades in MS Office drives them back to that suite in
short order.

There are a couple.

For example???

Then again most users don't need the total
functionality of MSOffice. Business or personal.

Agreed, but they do need the basics to work right or at least as the
instructions say they do, and in the open-source apps that I have tried (or
still use to help support folks), that is a problem.

You didn't choose the right programs. Linux is just as functional and
reliable as Windows and in several case more so.
Most of the recovery cds for troubled Windows systems are Linux based.
If Linux software is so unusable why is it used by business,
governments, militaries, NASA, scientific and medical research...
Do you really think that they would use software that doesn't really work?

In short, MS doesn't have to "capture market", they just don't have
to lose a lot of what they already have, and that isn't as big a
task as it might seem. Remember, MS is a primarily software company.


MS is starting to lose portions in large chunks. The mobile market is
a long way from MS's capture. Being that users usually stick with what
they first use MS will never capture it.

MS is primarily a software company, and their foray into hardware is aimed
at expanding the market for their software, so you'd have to look at the
sales of software to make such a determination. What software is
challenging MS-Office's market share, for example? Their direction is clear,
and once users have the ability to run the same MS softwre on all their
devices, the sales of Wiindows-based hardware will increase. I doubt that
MS' hardware -- Surface, Nokia phones, etc. -- will be the largest volume,
but that has never been an issue for MS.



Has nothing to do with hardware. The software is what is being talked
about. There are several software markets. Mobile, desktops, severs,
cloud...
Canonical is also a software company. Canonical(Ubuntu) is also selling
phones, just no tablets.
Not the sale of the use of. There is Linux software that is sold which
is mostly aimed at the business market. The majority is free so sales
cannot be used as a measurement.
MS is starting to loose users in large chunks not just individual users.
Businesses, governments, schools and organizations are starting to leave
Windows and MS for Linux.

--
Caver1

On Tue, 7 Oct 2014 12:02:34 -0500, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

The abillity to develop apps in a single environment for all Windows
devices is quite recent and not yet entirely implemented, but that
is the direction that MS is going (both announced and partially
implemented). The result of this capability is that developers won't
have to develop apps for any particular Windows device. Surely, the
implications of this are easy to grasp.

Yes. All your personal data will be in the "cloud", which means it'll
be stored on somebody else's computer. I can easily grasp the
implications of that.

The use of the cloud, as in "somebody-else's computer" is not required.
Perhaps you haven't seen the numerous "personal cloud" drives that one can
purchase and easily install, even lacking the knowledge that such a thing is
simply an HD in an ethernet case. The savvy user can even access it remotely
without problems. Since all of the devices have SD card, usb and ethernet
ports, it is not necssary to have a "cloud" at all.

Even if you were to use a "personal cloud", rather than the default
remote one that Microsoft coaxes you to set up, and you were, as you
suggest, savvy, and contacted it remotely, what mechanism would you
need to use to do this?

You may not be using somebody else's computer, but somebody else's
network doesn't strike me as a whole lot more secure.

And that's just the savvy users. Supposing you're a celebrity, and not
savvy, and you have a load of nude pictures of yourself....?

Rod.