This isn't news
Prominent tech people upgrade their computers all the time.
139 posts • joined 8 Nov 2011
That's basically how insurance works.
This article is retarded, SQL instances basically hog cores due to the nature of their workload, the more physical hardware you use the more you pay for it's that simple.
The smarter choice is to avoid it altogether and use elastic instances but the idiot that write this wants to do the typical reg thing and bash Microsoft again.
Ofcom are a poor regulator IMO, not fit for purpose and never will be, they all need sacking!
They are deliberately allowing ISP's to use terms like "unlimited", "best service" and "ultra fast" in their advertising and never ask those companies to ensure they can be held accountable for that.
I know that this is really the job of the ASA but when it comes to broadband, if you sign up you're in for a year minimum with no recourse most of the time and all the ISP has to do is move a few numbers around on a computer to force that fact.
It's time that contract terms and advertising reflected the actual performance of ISP's (e.g. I pay for what i get, and if i have an open complaint for more than 7 days in a month I should get that month free) not what they want from the customer (wallet jail-time).
... the irony here ...
I have 300mbit fiber broadband from IFNL, it's crazy fast, and they just advertise their packages as "fast fiber broadband" ... has TT or any of these other ISP's ever been that restrained in their advertising?
Maybe it's time we start buying the worst advertised broadband packages and the most expensive ones.
So, citing an example, lets say something like a DDOS attack using a botnet is the problem ...
Lets say I'm a hacker and have at my fingertips access to said botnet.
I give said botnet a command.
All bots in my net follow that command.
No 1 single ISP can solve the problem as my bots can be anywhere on the internet and the net is something I created, and you (as the "victim" of my attack) are the only one that really sees the full scope of what actually went on.
Am I missing something here or is putting pressure on ISP's to solve the unsolvable just forcing our own bills up as consumers with no actual results (given that the problem is not a solvable one)?
So how would this work?
Your ISP reports all the various machines involved in my attack to "something" that holds a blacklist type thing?
Over time MY ISP remains in complete good standing, all the ISP's that host my many bots are affected by this "ranking system ?!?!?!".
The reality is the source of the attack was my home machine, but from your point of view the source of the attack was the many machines that took part.
From the point of the many ISP's involved in attacking you it's normal reasonable traffic.
So who points the finger at me (the real cause!)?
It seems to me that all cyber security related efforts are working on the effects not the cause, but tracking the cause is an extensive and complex task that would require a large data center and packet tracing information from the complete set of ISP's involved in this attack + some insane AI that could trawl this data.
Or did I miss something?
I once asked a client this, and was told "because it can do literally anything".
Ok I said, great, we have an OData API and you want to send us some data, here's the url, off you go.
The response was simply ... "erm, well SAP can do that but it would cost us $50k to get SAP to talk to us about their OData plugin, and then probably another $100k to buy it."
My response was simply ... well SAP can't do shit then can it, it only does what you pay them for!
Our framework, might be in house developed but running our dev team in house is a ton cheaper than their ever growing SAP licences for out dated UI's and tool chains that are frankly just broken in many places.
I wish people would stop buying this crap and start to appreciate that they need a dev team in house!
I'm sure I read somewhere that London is arguably the worst place in the world to commit a crime as virtually every street corner has a cctv camera on it that the police can access at will for the purposes of investigating crime.
This, while possibly intrusive is sort of acceptable as when I am in public my actions may concern others.
However sat in my own home on my computer I am no risk to anyone so the argument is more about specifically what the question is that the police really need to answer ...
Is this person likely to be involved in a crime in the near future, or have they been in the past?
Unless the crime is a cyber crime / hack then the police are arguably have no reason to want this data from me and they better dam well justify that need!
In the event the crime in question is a cyber attack their efforts should be looking at my target to tie a data trail back to me first.
In the event that a persons online activity supports / in some way aids in a crime the focus should be on the crime not some random large pool of personal information.
In other words, given that the police already have enough to charge me for a crime then I would consider it acceptable for them to supplement their case with my digital activity but their right to dig through that activity should not just be freely available because they suspect me of something.
My reasoning being:
In the eyes of the law everyone in the UK at least is considered innocent until proven guilty, if there isn't sufficient proof for them to charge me then what right do they have to breach my privacy?
DO YOUR BLOODY JOB INSTEAD RELYING ON TECHNOLOGY TO BREACH EVERYONE'S HUMAN RIGHTS!
However, should it be possible to create a system that can automatically find proof that a crime has been or may be in the future committed and put fact with it by using such data and no actual human being can mess with, access, or even interact with this system then yeh in theory I could be ok with that.
I should note however:
Such a system would need to be able to think like a human eg (AI) be able to determine for example the contents of my pockets before I walk in to the bank, and should only send out focused snippets of actionable evidence not raw queryable data.
I would be cool with that.
But could our government / any government for that matter be trusted to build such a system?
No bloody chance!
nor would it matter on a SSL site these days
and that vpn / proxy won't help either
If the request for this information is issued to your ISP your vpn / proxied / ssl connection still has to go point to point across the ISP's network at any which point they could easily log, decrypt, manipulate, or whatever they want that request.
Unfortunately there pretty much isn't a way to be anon online any more ... there's always a trail somewhere that will lead back to you.
Yeh there's a thought @John Robson ... a network op that can't run a network properly ... jeez!
It boggles the mind what speeds they might achieve if they used the whole lot of that bandwidth for data only then just piped secure content connections down it.
Sorry about having some common sense here .... I know it's unprecedented!
Stuff like this is just plain crazy.
Why don't they basically just build a pc and stream in the same way that other online services do (eg bbc iPlayer) ... they could free up move bandwidth for use to the broadband provision and only have to deal with a single means of data handling on their network.
VM have great broadband imo but their TV service is just plain broken ... like why series links not start the recording when the show starts like sky does?
I'm tempted to drop my TV and just have the broadband.
Force all ISP's in to contractual obligation to only charge for the speed they actually deliver.
No more of this "up to" bullshit ... "You get what you pay for" applies to everything else in life so why not broadband too.
Drop in speed ... no problem, money off the bill at the same percentage and it stays there until the ISP proves the speed is better!
I agree the issue is not the ISP in most cases it's usually the "OpenJoke" network but we as consumers are told we cannot and should not interact with them, that's the job of our ISP, so lets force the ISP to apply pressure in the same way ... wholesale broadband should be charged based on actual throughput not some fictitious ideal!
I know a company that basically runs everything on Sharepoint, I also know that Microsoft runs around 100,000 websites managed by 3 guys, don't see many companies claiming that!
Newer versions of windows server "feel slower" but that's UI response, if you actually benchmark what its doing behind the scenes the apps and services on the box are usually running faster.
I've also heard a rumour that Dynamics will be seeing some major change soon potentially related to a rumour about MS looking at buying salesforce.
In short though, it's common knowledge that Microsoft is all about cloud so it wouldn't suprise me if very soon all your complaints basically become cloud based offerings where the cloud instance is either a rented azure instance or an azure instance running on you own managed server.
As for progress on the OS front, I would say MS is probably a little ahead of the curve certainly from an interop point of view ... no other OS runs on virtually hardware like windows 10 does.
Correct me if i'm wrong but linux (some versions) does exactly this already !
The concept of having multiple desktops isn't new, the question asked was more "do you want to see everything running on this desktops taskbar or just the stuff open on this desktop?"
I don't see a problem either way.
Maybe I should write an article entitled "Microsoft Hater does the usual and writes yet more biased crap".
Its also worth noting that windows is planned to be an evolutionary thing so all the feedback related stuff in windows 10 (as I understand) will likely be here after release to ensure that ALL users can provide feedback in this way.
To my mind, microsoft should focus on making the system faster, more secure, reliable, and flexible than worrying about this superficial UX stuff as we are at a point now where whatever they change on it someone will be unhappy.
I still have issues with sound card drivers constantly telling me I plugged in and removed headphones and my 4k screens flickering on and off for no reason ... those feel more important to me than "Which bar should this app appear on"
BT is a joke for sure ... but this is where ofcom should step in ... the fact that they don't says a lot about their ability as a regulator.
I'm one of the lucky few, I could have faster than I do but chose to only pay for 120Mbps as this seemed to give me more than enough bandwidth for day to life and I have a server that reports 3TB of downloading from the last month, despite this I still game, stream, make calls, use the internet without a hitch.
That said, where I used to live I paid for an "up to" 8Mbps line from BT which never hit even 1Mbps even when I hacked the hell out of my router to optimize it.
I have 2 thoughts here about broadband speeds:
1. Those living in very rural areas should accept this as being part of rural life (sorry guys but thats life, you get other perks).
2. Those living in cities should expect this level of connection as part of the "moving forward" initiative that BT and Gov are working on.
Another thought ...
Why do new estates only go up with basic copper lines laid?
Would it not make more sense to declare (perhaps with law) that all new builds force a fibre enabled exchange to serve that new estate and the exchange be hooked up to the network when building is complete.
I don't think this would cause any issues and it would save digging up roads later (say in 5 years time) to basically do what should have been done already!
Ofcom is my biggest gripe here ... thinkbroadband.com show a map of the speedtest results around the whole of the UK and you can clearly see on that map where the Virgin Media network ends and the BT one is all that is on offer.
Why are other network providers so restricted in the UK compared to BT this is so anticompetitive its not even funny any more?
Let the likes of virgin apply for and gain planning permission to expand their networks wherever they want then have BT actually have to compete to earn their income so they can be shown what real networks do instead of being given free reign to rip off UK consumers!
Having been there I feel for people in this situation, this to me simply re-affirms my position: ofcom is not fit for purpose.
2mb is enough, if those sold it actually get it but as with pretty much all BT lines we are sold "up to" a speed not "this is what you will get" type contracts.
These stats IMO mean absolutely nothing as all they prove is that BT can sell broken promises and still be seen to deliver whilst taking less money and making more profit.
At least the shareholders are happy right?
Having lived at my previous address I was lucky when I the wind blew just right so I could get 0.5 "millibits".
Living at my current address I get a connection in the top 1% of the UK from Virgin at 150Mbps and it flies.
What further cracks me up is that the cabinet sites are so tough on regulation Virgin couldn't even if they wanted to put their cables on the several new estates that jut went up which I am reliably informed get a "up to" 16Mpbs connection on BT kit.
This seems insulting to new house buyers when the estate you buy in to is brand spanking new on the edge of a migh speed network and that network legally cannot get you connected.
I agree with the thought that ISP's should only be able to charge for the ACTUAL speed they provide you not the "up to" speed they claim is possible.
In the interest of net neutrality, no connection should ever be throttled too ... this is blatant disregard for simple service levels.
It's a bit like saying "you can have all the water you want out of your taps but if you fill the bath more than once a week we as the water company have the right to slow your taps to a mere dripping".
No way would this be acceptable!
Lift the lid, allow any network provider to install cabinets where they need to in order to deliver their networks and force through regulation caps on cost to the consumer a actual speed based pricing system.
When I recently had an issue with my virgin "not so" super hub virgin sent out an engineer to swap over the boxes ...
That's a crazy waste of money.
However ... I got the opportunity to speak to him about the state of todays broadband networks and one of the things I asked him was "Why aren't virgin available in more places?", the engineer told me ...
By default when new estates are built BT copper are typically put in, any Virgin lines require long paper trails of approval before they can even consider being laid.
The process of installing new Virgin Exchanges is effectively on hold until BT get their grubby mitts on the decision, and even then BT get some say in weather Virgin can build an exchange in an area.
This is such a ridiculous state of affairs that I could only gasp that it would even be true.
The strange thing is ... I've heard this several times since!
Why is it that BT get to control the state of the UK networks?
If there was a fairer way that the likes of Virgin could come in and put up exchanges as BT do "pretty much anywhere" I htink most of the country would be looking at 100mb/s+ already.
In the town where I live thinkbroadband.com show maps of the speed test results, you can clearly see the edge of the virgin network lies where the new houses start.
Serious gov/ofcom/anyone ... sort this crap out and give the consumer a fair deal!
It feels like their focus is "get everything in the cloud" ... that has to be the result of some global scale agenda and really not everything needs to be / should be in the cloud.
If they can be innovative and make my life easier ... I'm all for it.
Nothing worth having is free these days.
What we know as the iCloud is basically amazon and azure storing a replicated copy of all of itunes.
Expensive but it works.
Needless to say there are some interesting questions raised around who actually holds / controls the data.
Most public sector services work the same way today ... Maybe not using azure but the principle is the same ... Take a site and copy it to the cloud and realtime sync any changes and you always have a working copy no matter what happens.
I see a lot of people saying "give me a device that is a tablet and a pc" but then you follow up with "charge me fora cheap tablet" ... you can't have it all, how else will the hardware that drives your requirement be paid for?
To my mind, looking at prices today, the latest iPhone that no one seems to think there's anything wrong with fits this problem exactly ... it's in the Surface Pro range for pricing but is little more than a fat phone with tablet functionality on it.
My thought being, if you want serious computing buy a serious device and pay a serious price, if you want to "sofa surf" why are you moaning that £1,000 serious tablet isn't giving you what you want?
With the Surface Pro 3 I can do everything a normal office based pc would typically be asked to do excluding hardcore workstation type tasks and all in a package no bigger than a standard tablet device. That power combined with that portability comes at a price!
Phil_Evans ... wtf you on about ... you basically just contradicted yourself ...
"I love the idea of a device that fits more than 1 of the 3 basic types we have today ..." which you then basically followed up with "... the only device on the market that fulfills that requirement is shite."
Either you want it or you don't?
My other half loves her Surface Pro.
She's not exactly a high power user or anything mostly facebook and such but there are a few apps that she needs that require a desktop OS.
Windows 8 is perfect for that, I guess it's like any platform though, you either embrace it as a whole or don't really get on board properly and will never see the benefits.
It doesn't matter how good your developers are they aren't ever going to be as good as the whole world are they?
and WTF? ... "But don't worry, our products are flawless because ... paid devs + closed source."
Yeh Microsoft are terrible for not finding every single bug in every line of code on day 1 before it goes out the door ... show me a company that ever did that and I'll admit I'm an idiot.
So you're basically saying Microsoft are crap because their code is closed source ... riiiight ... Idiot!
All I saw as "valid arguments" was ...
It's hard to use or confusing
- What are you like 5?
- Any IT professional should know how to take this sort of thing in their stride, get a clue moron.
- It took me about 10 minutes to get to grips with it, yes it's different but that doesn't mean it's bad.
- I accept that the 1 start menu "feature" aka TIFKAM isn't ideal for a desktop, but I use hotkeys when in it, rarely do I need a keyboard or mouse to get around in there.
- What was that about not being able to manage your photo library ... uh was that a TIFKAM app you complained about ... I think it was, again nothing to do with windows it's the app you hate not the OS, so don't use it or browse through images with explorer like I do then you don't need an app at all.
We don't like paying licence fees.
- tough crap deal with it, welcome to the real world.
- free stuff just isn't as good, the money makes stuff better, even ubuntu / macOS are not free these days, there's always cost it's just a question of where.
- Some manufacturers do only sell PC's with windows on yes, but that's some not the whole industry, if you can't figure out how to do a google search please stop using a PC forever.
Windows 8 UI is crap and useless because 1 menu works differently.
- as above it's called progress and you don't have to use the start menu at all in which case its still windows 7 just better.
- yeh the "whole UI is wrong" ... right ok ... its the windows 7 UI with 1 menu changed ... eh, wtf?
It interrupts me all the time (switching to TIFKAM).
- You are a minority, no one uses the start menu as much as you do, learn to use your OS properly.
- This is backed by a ton of research done by M$, which they blogged about, less than 1% of all windows usage is typically spent in the start menu, many users don't use it at all.
The beta version is buggy.
- Yeh all beta versions of all products ever made are, deal with it!
- Why am I even arguing this point?
There was once a really bad issue with IE that caused it to crash.
- And? IE is an OPTION you don't have to use it and it's still not windows 8 it's a completely different product, it nothing to do with the OS.
- You're basically complaining about a free bit of software M$ threw in you idiot.
It's not compatible with my device
- wow, 1 device don't work because that device vendor didn't update a driver ... that's not M$ fault.
- Vendors get lead times well in advance and are told the underlying specs months before any release, if they choose not to bother updating their drivers what do you really expect M$ to do about it?
So ... WTF?
I stand by my previous point ... There's nothing "majorly wrong" with windows 8 and all you haters are just hating because you like to rant and M$ is an easy target.
All morons may now proceed to down vote this post.
I see it all the time, I'm doing something on my windows PC and someone says "I tried to do that on my Mac and iTunes / Some OS feature got in my way, it's ok though coz apple is kewl".
Or the other classic:
"I downloaded these 15 different parts of the thing that does this on linux but they don't like each other due to versioning hell, this build of component x won't agree that verson of component y on this particular linux distro" ... and where's the support? Ah yes, some public forum where they basically tell you you're an idiot for not understanding why these 15 different things weren't built to work on common distros but only "obscure linux v0.0.1" instead of "BullBuntu v20".
And yet M$ put 1 menu in a place that no one uses and uproar ensues ...
Oh, the irony!
If you're going to bash M$ for something at least have a real argument backed by some actual facts that exist in the real world instead of "M$ is sh** and everything they do is sh** because I'm sheep and think it sounds cool to bash M$" ... whatever!
Windows 7 and Windows 8 are basically the same under the bonnet ... In fact windows 8 was an improvement and is superior to 7 in most areas, the only thing people seem to see though is the vomit inducing tile start menu that M$ said on day 1 ... "we did our research and found no-one uses the start menu so what's the big deal?"
... And yet I see comments like "W8 is crap" all the time ... what exactly is crap about it?
The tile based start menu, sure, because it's blatantly obvious people don't like that but 1 menu does not make an entire OS.
So, someone tell me exactly what is so crap about Windows 8 without being a total retard about it?
Show me some actual fact that says Windows 7 is a superior product, or that a Linux distro is better supported / Easier to use for the average consumer and at the same / lower cost?
Microsoft took 7, made it faster, more efficient and work on more platforms, then started working on creating a single "windows" that runs on even mobiles making development, support, and flexibility unlike any other platform on the market.
... seems to me like a bunch of people that don't use windows still don't use windows but still moan about stuff Microsoft did and was fined for in the 80's just because they can.
Also, those of you complaining you got a windows install "forced upon you" ... you really aren't that smart are you? Go buy a PC without an OS, virtually any main dealer will provide that, or better still do what I did and build a PC from scratch buying each part individually ... second thoughts don't do that, you may end up burning the house down or something.
This sys admin friend chose a large phone so he could better see the desktop he was remoting in to in order to achieve just about any task that required his urgent attention.
Phones right now are little more than a convenient lightweight portal to a proper machine weather it be in the cloud or a desktop at home.
We are way off dumping the desktop!
If this guy can do so much without his desktop I dare him to drop get rid of his macbook for just 1 week to see how productive he is.
Unless he's part of the 1% of the population that do little more than prepare and send emails I doubt he'd be able to properly do his job!
Really ... still?
This stuff cracks me up ... a currency but mostly used illegally then "illegally" goes missing from a place well known to store illegal funds and people are annoyed by this because they can no longer get access to their scam wallet?
I'd love to know why you think microsoft are so far behind???
In my opinion, if you strip away all the apps and just look at the OS windows is leagues ahead of its rivals in so many ways ...
1. The desktop version of their kernel is now running on desktops and their flagship console
2. The mobile OS "out of the box" integrates and pulls together a single view of all your contact data with no apps needed.
3. Microsoft software is useful, yeh awesome you have an iPhone or Android device but angry birds is totally pointless.
Point 2 there is a key one ... people bang on about how Apple's ITunes store has a million apps on it but only about 5 of them are any good and those 5 you absolutely must have to make IOS worth using.
I think its about time people started to understand what Microsoft are doing there before you bash a very powerful platform.
The only thing that comes even remotely close is linux ...
Android on the mobile, various distributions on various devices including desktop.
If someone out there can pull together and make this stuff all talk "smoothly" then I would be impressed.
Get a reality check!!
My windows 7 box boots in about 12 seconds.
My windows 8 box in about 3 with UEFI or whatever it is called.
I don't think "boot time" is really going to kill windows.
That "lazy code" has mostly been ripped out with most developers now writing .Net applications the API's are fairly clean and fast ... the problem is crap application developers refusing to grow up and move with the times ... Micorsoft is now suffering because it finally told people with windows 8 "No more, we've moved on and so should you!".
Good on em I say ...
Merging windows phone and RT is the most logical thing Microsoft did in a long time and look at that no mention of Ballmer anywhere ... what a suprise !!!
Ever heard of a gpu?
That's basically how tech like CUDA works on nVidia / similar devices ... i did also see (on here) that nVidia are working their way in to the HPC arena through a partnership with Dell.
Software efficiency is definately the more urgent way to go though, as a software developer myself I find that whilst my code could be really efficient it spends most it's time wating for the platform it sits on to do stuff using a fraction of the cpu and ram in the gaps between all that bloat.
It's time for a standard platform / framework that simply works instead of abstracting away the problems it causes.
My thinking being that 5th gen languages will open the door for programmers to simply "talk to the cmputer" but the real work needs to happen in lower level optimization beneath the surface.
Oh yeh that company that people love to hate ... Microsoft!!!
And yet many will make some random excuse for Sony because they are not Microsoft ... brilliant !!!
It sounds to me like the ps4 is suffering from xbox 360 syndrome ... so lets keep an eye on xbox one issues because the ps5 will likely have them in a few years time.
You gotta love how a reputation once acquired is seldom changed ...
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022