(CNET) -- Microsoft has applied for a patent on metered, pay-as-you-go computing.
Under a Microsoft proposal, consumers would receive heavily discounted PCs, then pay fees for usage.
U.S. patent application number 20080319910, published on Christmas Day, details Microsoft's vision of a situation where a "standard model" of PC is given away or heavily subsidized by someone in the supply chain. The end user then pays to use the computer, with charges based on both the length of usage time and the performance levels utilized, along with a "one-time charge."
Microsoft notes in the application that the end user could end up paying more for the computer, compared with the one-off cost entailed in the existing PC business model, but argues the user would benefit by having a PC with an extended "useful life."
"A computer with scalable performance level components and selectable software and service options has a user interface that allows individual performance levels to be selected," reads the patent application's abstract. The patent application was filed June 21, 2007.
"The scalable performance level components may include a processor, memory, graphics controller, etc. Software and services may include word processing, email, browsing, database access, etc. To support a pay-per-use business model, each selectable item may have a cost associated with it, allowing a user to pay for the services actually selected and that presumably correspond to the task or tasks being performed," the abstract continues.
Integral to Microsoft's vision is a security module, embedded in the PC, that would effectively lock the PC to a certain supplier.
- - - - - -
Geez ... now you wouldn't even OWN the PC or OS, you'd just be RENTING it - and losing a variety of legal rights in the process ... like to any 'personal' info perhaps or the right to object to MS snooping on your net usage as if it were Homeland-S .......
Of course MS could then SELL that info - even to Homeland ...
PCs are dirt cheap. Buy one. Buy a slightly USED one from a forclosure sale or something. Then put LINIX on it ... Ubuntu/Kubuntu is good, so is Fedora and Suse - they've finally reached a level of ease and slickness comparable with Winders ... and they're FREE.
> (CNET) -- Microsoft has applied for a patent on metered, pay-as-you-go > computing.
> Under a Microsoft proposal, consumers would receive heavily discounted > PCs, then pay fees for usage.
> U.S. patent application number 20080319910, published on Christmas > Day, details Microsoft's vision of a situation where a "standard > model" of PC is given away or heavily subsidized by someone in the > supply chain. The end user then pays to use the computer, with charges > based on both the length of usage time and the performance levels > utilized, along with a "one-time charge."
> Microsoft notes in the application that the end user could end up > paying more for the computer, compared with the one-off cost entailed > in the existing PC business model, but argues the user would benefit > by having a PC with an extended "useful life."
> "A computer with scalable performance level components and selectable > software and service options has a user interface that allows > individual performance levels to be selected," reads the patent > application's abstract. The patent application was filed June 21, > 2007.
> "The scalable performance level components may include a processor, > memory, graphics controller, etc. Software and services may include > word processing, email, browsing, database access, etc. To support a > pay-per-use business model, each selectable item may have a cost > associated with it, allowing a user to pay for the services actually > selected and that presumably correspond to the task or tasks being > performed," the abstract continues.
> Integral to Microsoft's vision is a security module, embedded in the > PC, that would effectively lock the PC to a certain supplier.
> - - - - - -
> Geez ... now you wouldn't even OWN the PC or OS, you'd > just be RENTING it - and losing a variety of legal rights > in the process ... like to any 'personal' info perhaps or > the right to object to MS snooping on your net usage as > if it were Homeland-S .......
Or M/S telling you what other apps they'll allow you to use with their software, cuz they'll still own the O/S. Those old DRM issues again.
> Of course MS could then SELL that info - even to Homeland ...
They'd probably require logging onto their site every time you boot up to tell them you aren't authorizing them to sell information about what you're about to do that session.
> PCs are dirt cheap. Buy one. Buy a slightly USED one from > a forclosure sale or something. Then put LINIX on it ... > Ubuntu/Kubuntu is good, so is Fedora and Suse - they've > finally reached a level of ease and slickness comparable > with Winders ... and they're FREE.
Darn, this must be a really awful idea if yer against it...
Actually, a company I worked for was thinking about using shared s/w via a file server (some kind of Office-like s/w). I warned not to go that route, they never did, but it was the late '80s so it was more the case that the technology wasn't there yet.
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 10:27:12 -0600, nys999 <nys...@yahoo.com> wrote: >b...@barrk.net (Blackwater) wrote in news:4959fe52.1327953 >@news.east.earthlink.net:
>> (CNET) -- Microsoft has applied for a patent on metered, pay-as-you-go >> computing.
>> Under a Microsoft proposal, consumers would receive heavily discounted >> PCs, then pay fees for usage.
>> U.S. patent application number 20080319910, published on Christmas >> Day, details Microsoft's vision of a situation where a "standard >> model" of PC is given away or heavily subsidized by someone in the >> supply chain. The end user then pays to use the computer, with charges >> based on both the length of usage time and the performance levels >> utilized, along with a "one-time charge."
>> Microsoft notes in the application that the end user could end up >> paying more for the computer, compared with the one-off cost entailed >> in the existing PC business model, but argues the user would benefit >> by having a PC with an extended "useful life."
>> "A computer with scalable performance level components and selectable >> software and service options has a user interface that allows >> individual performance levels to be selected," reads the patent >> application's abstract. The patent application was filed June 21, >> 2007.
>> "The scalable performance level components may include a processor, >> memory, graphics controller, etc. Software and services may include >> word processing, email, browsing, database access, etc. To support a >> pay-per-use business model, each selectable item may have a cost >> associated with it, allowing a user to pay for the services actually >> selected and that presumably correspond to the task or tasks being >> performed," the abstract continues.
>> Integral to Microsoft's vision is a security module, embedded in the >> PC, that would effectively lock the PC to a certain supplier.
>> - - - - - -
>> Geez ... now you wouldn't even OWN the PC or OS, you'd >> just be RENTING it - and losing a variety of legal rights >> in the process ... like to any 'personal' info perhaps or >> the right to object to MS snooping on your net usage as >> if it were Homeland-S .......
> Or M/S telling you what other apps they'll allow you to > use with their software, cuz they'll still own the O/S. > Those old DRM issues again.
>> Of course MS could then SELL that info - even to Homeland ...
> They'd probably require logging onto their site every time > you boot up to tell them you aren't authorizing them to > sell information about what you're about to do that session.
>> PCs are dirt cheap. Buy one. Buy a slightly USED one from >> a forclosure sale or something. Then put LINIX on it ... >> Ubuntu/Kubuntu is good, so is Fedora and Suse - they've >> finally reached a level of ease and slickness comparable >> with Winders ... and they're FREE.
> Darn, this must be a really awful idea if yer against it...
> Actually, a company I worked for was thinking about using > shared s/w via a file server (some kind of Office-like s/w). > I warned not to go that route, they never did, but it was > the late '80s so it was more the case that the technology > wasn't there yet.
Well, "thin clients" were in ... for awhile anyway ... in cheap-ass corporate circles. Save money by giving the proles a closed-up wimp-box that was naught but a terminal for an expensive, annually-licenced, MicroSoft ultraserver.
Sounded great ... except that the MicroSoft servers were, well, MicroSoft - and screwed-up all the time at great expense and lost productivity. More than a few companies noticed that their bacon was saved, in part at least, by those despised heathen Linux boxes their IT guys maintained as a sort of hobby ....
Linux wasn't ready for prime-time on the Ma & Pa desktop in the 80s or 90s ... but it WAS something caffeine-saturated geeks could turn into really relaible servers for relative pocket-change.
The "thin client" is OUT now ... but M$ has a way to make money off their replacements - in the form of "cloud computing". You'd love it, very "communistic" ... your expensive PC gets dragged down to the level of everyone elses by becoming a cog in a distributed-processing environment (yea, 'Cloud' had a real name before M$ pretended it invented the idea).
The idea is to turn the whole corporate intranet (at the very least) into one giant supercomputer - everyones jobs carefully split-up, coordinated, spied-upon and re-assembled by, you guessed it, anually-licenced MicroSoft software :-)
Oops ! "Network Bandwidth" ... that nasty term ! Unless everybody goes fiber-optic (which M$ will probably sell) the machine-machine chatter will be SO slow that whatever job you were doing could be done much faster if it just ran on your own PC instead of 500 other PCs.
But the pointy-haired bosses WILL buy the hype. Count on it - Bill is.
It's hard to disagree with anything you said. I'm see that the old saying 'business is business' still holds good at MS. "It's not what the client wants? What do we care?"
I'm not a kneejerk anti-Microsoftian, far from it, but their relative hegemony, while good for standardisation, always leaves itself open to this sort of rip off. I hope, if ithappens, that the public disdain it as they have done with Vista.
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 10:27:12 -0600, nys999 <nys...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>b...@barrk.net (Blackwater) wrote in news:4959fe52.1327953 >>@news.east.earthlink.net:
>>> (CNET) -- Microsoft has applied for a patent on metered, pay-as-you-go >>> computing.
>>> Under a Microsoft proposal, consumers would receive heavily discounted >>> PCs, then pay fees for usage.
>>> U.S. patent application number 20080319910, published on Christmas >>> Day, details Microsoft's vision of a situation where a "standard >>> model" of PC is given away or heavily subsidized by someone in the >>> supply chain. The end user then pays to use the computer, with charges >>> based on both the length of usage time and the performance levels >>> utilized, along with a "one-time charge."
>>> Microsoft notes in the application that the end user could end up >>> paying more for the computer, compared with the one-off cost entailed >>> in the existing PC business model, but argues the user would benefit >>> by having a PC with an extended "useful life."
>>> "A computer with scalable performance level components and selectable >>> software and service options has a user interface that allows >>> individual performance levels to be selected," reads the patent >>> application's abstract. The patent application was filed June 21, >>> 2007.
>>> "The scalable performance level components may include a processor, >>> memory, graphics controller, etc. Software and services may include >>> word processing, email, browsing, database access, etc. To support a >>> pay-per-use business model, each selectable item may have a cost >>> associated with it, allowing a user to pay for the services actually >>> selected and that presumably correspond to the task or tasks being >>> performed," the abstract continues.
>>> Integral to Microsoft's vision is a security module, embedded in the >>> PC, that would effectively lock the PC to a certain supplier.
>>> - - - - - -
>>> Geez ... now you wouldn't even OWN the PC or OS, you'd >>> just be RENTING it - and losing a variety of legal rights >>> in the process ... like to any 'personal' info perhaps or >>> the right to object to MS snooping on your net usage as >>> if it were Homeland-S .......
>> Or M/S telling you what other apps they'll allow you to >> use with their software, cuz they'll still own the O/S. >> Those old DRM issues again.
>>> Of course MS could then SELL that info - even to Homeland ...
>> They'd probably require logging onto their site every time >> you boot up to tell them you aren't authorizing them to >> sell information about what you're about to do that session.
>>> PCs are dirt cheap. Buy one. Buy a slightly USED one from >>> a forclosure sale or something. Then put LINIX on it ... >>> Ubuntu/Kubuntu is good, so is Fedora and Suse - they've >>> finally reached a level of ease and slickness comparable >>> with Winders ... and they're FREE.
>> Darn, this must be a really awful idea if yer against it...
>> Actually, a company I worked for was thinking about using >> shared s/w via a file server (some kind of Office-like s/w). >> I warned not to go that route, they never did, but it was >> the late '80s so it was more the case that the technology >> wasn't there yet.
> Well, "thin clients" were in ... for awhile anyway ... in > cheap-ass corporate circles. Save money by giving the proles > a closed-up wimp-box that was naught but a terminal for an > expensive, annually-licenced, MicroSoft ultraserver.
> Sounded great ... except that the MicroSoft servers were, well, > MicroSoft - and screwed-up all the time at great expense and > lost productivity. More than a few companies noticed that their > bacon was saved, in part at least, by those despised heathen > Linux boxes their IT guys maintained as a sort of hobby ....
> Linux wasn't ready for prime-time on the Ma & Pa desktop in > the 80s or 90s ... but it WAS something caffeine-saturated > geeks could turn into really relaible servers for relative > pocket-change.
> The "thin client" is OUT now ... but M$ has a way to make > money off their replacements - in the form of "cloud > computing". You'd love it, very "communistic" ... your
No doubt you hope so, given your rethug demand for "Total Information Awareness" you aren't fooling me.
> expensive PC gets dragged down to the level of everyone > elses by becoming a cog in a distributed-processing > environment (yea, 'Cloud' had a real name before M$ > pretended it invented the idea).
Heh, one interesting scenerio might be a virus designed to mutate, running in that cloud...mutating, Imagine if Heinlein's idea of a large enough computer system that evolved consciousness were prescient...
> The idea is to turn the whole corporate intranet (at the > very least) into one giant supercomputer - everyones jobs > carefully split-up, coordinated, spied-upon and re-assembled > by, you guessed it, anually-licenced MicroSoft software :-)
Ingenious I sez...demanding to be paid for spying on everyone. Use ta'be freelance spy got paid when they sold what they knew. M/S wants money on both sides of the event.
> Oops ! "Network Bandwidth" ... that nasty term ! Unless > everybody goes fiber-optic (which M$ will probably sell)
Even f/o has a practical limit
> the machine-machine chatter will be SO slow that whatever > job you were doing could be done much faster if it just > ran on your own PC instead of 500 other PCs.
Reminds me of some powerpoint presentations, more time is spent on choosing fonts and colors than on optimizing data presentation.
Also an old scifi story of the guy who figured out a way to not need a gaint computer (well, it was the fifties). He figured out how to add and subtract in his head.
> But the pointy-haired bosses WILL buy the hype. Count > on it - Bill is.
> >It's hard to disagree with anything you said. I'm see that the old > >saying 'business is business' still holds good at MS. "It's not what the > >client wants? What do we care?"
> >I'm not a kneejerk anti-Microsoftian, far from it, but their relative > >hegemony, while good for standardisation, always leaves itself open to > >this sort of rip off. I hope, if ithappens, that the public disdain it > >as they have done with Vista.
> Well ...
> Note that instead of fixing Vista (or fixing the bugs in XP) > they instead spent megabucks on huge ad campaigns to try and > convince everybody that Vista is great. Reminds me of the > big automakers who just made more SUV ads instead of > re-tooling for efficient vehicles.
What is wrong with Vista, that's it's a pig? Just buy a bigger boat.
-- "Oh, I'm broke." "Take another mortgage, don't give in." "I thought you were broke. Where did you get all that money from?" "Don't question me." "Where did you get it?" "I borrowed it from the bank." "Well, you can't do that, that's cheating." "Listen you little stoat, I own Park Lane, I can borrow as much bloody money as I like." ~Joanna Lumley and Julia Sawalha, "Absolutely Fabulous"
>> >It's hard to disagree with anything you said. I'm see that the old >> >saying 'business is business' still holds good at MS. "It's not what >> >the client wants? What do we care?"
>> >I'm not a kneejerk anti-Microsoftian, far from it, but their >> >relative hegemony, while good for standardisation, always leaves >> >itself open to this sort of rip off. I hope, if ithappens, that the >> >public disdain it as they have done with Vista.
>> Well ...
>> Note that instead of fixing Vista (or fixing the bugs in XP) >> they instead spent megabucks on huge ad campaigns to try and >> convince everybody that Vista is great. Reminds me of the >> big automakers who just made more SUV ads instead of >> re-tooling for efficient vehicles.
> What is wrong with Vista, that's it's a pig? Just buy a bigger > boat.
Duh. What logic. Lemme give give you one small example. XP came with a fax application built in. Vista,not only dropped the fax module, but third party fax s/w either does not work or works poorly. Vista is not 3rd party friendly. Is it a flaw or a feature?
So I compose on my Vista machine and use a.......um...er floppy drive to move a fax message to my laptop. Why don't I compose on my laptop? Cuz the damn USB subsystem on goddamned Gateway laptop crashes the system randomly.
So I bough a replacement...with Vista...If it ain't Gateway screwing the customer, it's Megacrap. Ya freaking can't win. (Hint: don't touch Gateway products, the components are too damn cheap and begin failing right after the warrantee expires. My first machine was a 1991 era Gateway, when Gateways were rock solid hardware.)
I once did use Linux, late '90s version. But rolling over to Linux today is, for me, a hassle right now not worth the effort.
> >> >It's hard to disagree with anything you said. I'm see that the old > >> >saying 'business is business' still holds good at MS. "It's not what > >> >the client wants? What do we care?"
> >> >I'm not a kneejerk anti-Microsoftian, far from it, but their > >> >relative hegemony, while good for standardisation, always leaves > >> >itself open to this sort of rip off. I hope, if ithappens, that the > >> >public disdain it as they have done with Vista.
> >> Well ...
> >> Note that instead of fixing Vista (or fixing the bugs in XP) > >> they instead spent megabucks on huge ad campaigns to try and > >> convince everybody that Vista is great. Reminds me of the > >> big automakers who just made more SUV ads instead of > >> re-tooling for efficient vehicles.
> > What is wrong with Vista, that's it's a pig? Just buy a bigger > > boat.
> Duh. What logic. Lemme give give you one small example. > XP came with a fax application built in. Vista,not only > dropped the fax module, but third party fax s/w either > does not work or works poorly. Vista is not 3rd party > friendly. Is it a flaw or a feature?
Linux is so unfriendly with software that you are supposed to recompile it from source if you get a new version. Windows doesn't usually make that happen.
> So I compose on my Vista machine and use a.......um...er > floppy drive to move a fax message to my laptop. Why don't > I compose on my laptop? Cuz the damn USB subsystem on > goddamned Gateway laptop crashes the system randomly.
Compose? You mean fax messages or are we talking about music or usenet posts? Shouldn't your notebook be networked to your main machine? What does that have to do with USB?
> So I bough a replacement...with Vista...If it ain't > Gateway screwing the customer, it's Megacrap. Ya freaking > can't win. (Hint: don't touch Gateway products, the > components are too damn cheap and begin failing right > after the warrantee expires.
I think that E-machines is part of Gateway. They at least use them in some way for support. So I've always hated Gateway 2000.
> My first machine was a > 1991 era Gateway, when Gateways were rock solid hardware.)
> I once did use Linux, late '90s version. But rolling > over to Linux today is, for me, a hassle right now not > worth the effort.
I think you'd likely find that a live disk would just boot up and flat out work. There are problems, but remarkably often not with the install, assuming you aren't required to make a soft modem work.
-- "Oh, I'm broke." "Take another mortgage, don't give in." "I thought you were broke. Where did you get all that money from?" "Don't question me." "Where did you get it?" "I borrowed it from the bank." "Well, you can't do that, that's cheating." "Listen you little stoat, I own Park Lane, I can borrow as much bloody money as I like." ~Joanna Lumley and Julia Sawalha, "Absolutely Fabulous"
>> "Bill Bonde { No matter what happens, it's caused by global warming )" >> <tributyltinp...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in >> news:495C73AC.3CDC639A@yahoo.co.uk:
>> >> >It's hard to disagree with anything you said. I'm see that the old >> >> >saying 'business is business' still holds good at MS. "It's not what >> >> >the client wants? What do we care?"
>> >> >I'm not a kneejerk anti-Microsoftian, far from it, but their >> >> >relative hegemony, while good for standardisation, always leaves >> >> >itself open to this sort of rip off. I hope, if ithappens, that the >> >> >public disdain it as they have done with Vista.
>> >> Well ...
>> >> Note that instead of fixing Vista (or fixing the bugs in XP) >> >> they instead spent megabucks on huge ad campaigns to try and >> >> convince everybody that Vista is great. Reminds me of the >> >> big automakers who just made more SUV ads instead of >> >> re-tooling for efficient vehicles.
>> > What is wrong with Vista, that's it's a pig? Just buy a bigger >> > boat.
>> Duh. What logic. Lemme give give you one small example. >> XP came with a fax application built in. Vista,not only >> dropped the fax module, but third party fax s/w either >> does not work or works poorly. Vista is not 3rd party >> friendly. Is it a flaw or a feature?
> Linux is so unfriendly with software that you are supposed to > recompile it from source if you get a new version. Windows doesn't > usually make that happen.
Right. You have to wait for the vendor to sell you a Vista version of their XP-compatible software.
>> So I compose on my Vista machine and use a.......um...er >> floppy drive to move a fax message to my laptop. Why don't >> I compose on my laptop? Cuz the damn USB subsystem on >> goddamned Gateway laptop crashes the system randomly.
> Compose? You mean fax messages or are we talking about music or
Duh? You don't "compose" when you write (ie., Composition: ....5 : an intellectual creation: as a : a piece of writing; especially : a school exercise in the form of a brief essay....)?
Judging by your posts, ya gotta point thar, bunky...
> usenet posts? Shouldn't your notebook be networked to your main > machine?
Mighty free with other people's money, aren't you?
>> So I bough a replacement...with Vista...If it ain't >> Gateway screwing the customer, it's Megacrap. Ya freaking >> can't win. (Hint: don't touch Gateway products, the >> components are too damn cheap and begin failing right >> after the warrantee expires.
> I think that E-machines is part of Gateway. They at least use them > in some way for support. So I've always hated Gateway 2000.
>> My first machine was a >> 1991 era Gateway, when Gateways were rock solid hardware.)
>> I once did use Linux, late '90s version. But rolling >> over to Linux today is, for me, a hassle right now not >> worth the effort.
> I think you'd likely find that a live disk would just boot up and > flat out work. There are problems, but remarkably often not with > the install, assuming you aren't required to make a soft modem > work.
Right, the install is easy...all the problems surface when ya try to do something. Now, what did I say?
My laptop has an 80GB hard drive, so I was adding 250GB externals via USB. But the subsystem went bad. So I moved my 200GB of music to a 500GB HD I added to my tower. So things have settled down to an acceptable level of frustration. I don't need to network my laptop for a once or twice a month fax. Nor buy a external fax/modem whose s/w is Vista compatible. See, I don't believe in buying stuff just to have the shiniest toys on the block, YMMV.
> >> "Bill Bonde { No matter what happens, it's caused by global warming )" > >> <tributyltinp...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in > >> news:495C73AC.3CDC639A@yahoo.co.uk:
> >> >> >It's hard to disagree with anything you said. I'm see that the old > >> >> >saying 'business is business' still holds good at MS. "It's not > what > >> >> >the client wants? What do we care?"
> >> >> >I'm not a kneejerk anti-Microsoftian, far from it, but their > >> >> >relative hegemony, while good for standardisation, always leaves > >> >> >itself open to this sort of rip off. I hope, if ithappens, that the > >> >> >public disdain it as they have done with Vista.
> >> >> Well ...
> >> >> Note that instead of fixing Vista (or fixing the bugs in XP) > >> >> they instead spent megabucks on huge ad campaigns to try and > >> >> convince everybody that Vista is great. Reminds me of the > >> >> big automakers who just made more SUV ads instead of > >> >> re-tooling for efficient vehicles.
> >> > What is wrong with Vista, that's it's a pig? Just buy a bigger > >> > boat.
> >> Duh. What logic. Lemme give give you one small example. > >> XP came with a fax application built in. Vista,not only > >> dropped the fax module, but third party fax s/w either > >> does not work or works poorly. Vista is not 3rd party > >> friendly. Is it a flaw or a feature?
> > Linux is so unfriendly with software that you are supposed to > > recompile it from source if you get a new version. Windows doesn't > > usually make that happen.
> Right. You have to wait for the vendor to sell you a Vista > version of their XP-compatible software.
Perhaps. But the reality is that Windows has done a pretty good job of allowing the reuse of old binaries.
> >> So I compose on my Vista machine and use a.......um...er > >> floppy drive to move a fax message to my laptop. Why don't > >> I compose on my laptop? Cuz the damn USB subsystem on > >> goddamned Gateway laptop crashes the system randomly.
> > Compose? You mean fax messages or are we talking about music or
> Duh? You don't "compose" when you write (ie., Composition: > ....5 : an intellectual creation: as a : a piece of > writing; especially : a school exercise in > the form of a brief essay....)?
I didn't know what sort of composition you were referring to.
> Judging by your posts, ya gotta point thar, bunky...
My posts kick your posts straight to the Moon, Alice.
> > usenet posts? Shouldn't your notebook be networked to your main > > machine?
> Mighty free with other people's money, aren't you?
Did we mention money? No, we didn't mention money at all. Mighty odd to bring up money in a recession, porc chop.
> >> So I bough a replacement...with Vista...If it ain't > >> Gateway screwing the customer, it's Megacrap. Ya freaking > >> can't win. (Hint: don't touch Gateway products, the > >> components are too damn cheap and begin failing right > >> after the warrantee expires.
> > I think that E-machines is part of Gateway. They at least use them > > in some way for support. So I've always hated Gateway 2000.
> >> My first machine was a > >> 1991 era Gateway, when Gateways were rock solid hardware.)
> >> I once did use Linux, late '90s version. But rolling > >> over to Linux today is, for me, a hassle right now not > >> worth the effort.
> > I think you'd likely find that a live disk would just boot up and > > flat out work. There are problems, but remarkably often not with > > the install, assuming you aren't required to make a soft modem > > work.
> Right, the install is easy...all the problems surface when ya > try to do something. Now, what did I say?
Problems like what?
> My laptop has an 80GB hard drive, so I was adding 250GB externals > via USB. But the subsystem went bad. So I moved my 200GB of music > to a 500GB HD I added to my tower. So things have settled down to > an acceptable level of frustration. I don't need to network my > laptop for a once or twice a month fax. Nor buy a external fax/modem > whose s/w is Vista compatible. See, I don't believe in buying stuff > just to have the shiniest toys on the block, YMMV.
I'm not advocating buying things. Most of this stuff people will just give away because they can't figure out how to make it work or something. I haven't figured that out. It would seem like you'd want your laptop to commuincate with the tower so you could listen to your music files.
-- "Oh, I'm broke." "Take another mortgage, don't give in." "I thought you were broke. Where did you get all that money from?" "Don't question me." "Where did you get it?" "I borrowed it from the bank." "Well, you can't do that, that's cheating." "Listen you little stoat, I own Park Lane, I can borrow as much bloody money as I like." ~Joanna Lumley and Julia Sawalha, "Absolutely Fabulous"
> >> >It's hard to disagree with anything you said. I'm see that the old > >> >saying 'business is business' still holds good at MS. "It's not what the > >> >client wants? What do we care?"
> >> >I'm not a kneejerk anti-Microsoftian, far from it, but their relative > >> >hegemony, while good for standardisation, always leaves itself open to > >> >this sort of rip off. I hope, if ithappens, that the public disdain it > >> >as they have done with Vista.
> >> Well ...
> >> Note that instead of fixing Vista (or fixing the bugs in XP) > >> they instead spent megabucks on huge ad campaigns to try and > >> convince everybody that Vista is great. Reminds me of the > >> big automakers who just made more SUV ads instead of > >> re-tooling for efficient vehicles.
> >What is wrong with Vista, that's it's a pig? Just buy a bigger > >boat.
> Heh .... I wonder who gets kickbacks from the sales of > bigger boats ?
I don't know. There seems to be an adversarial relationship between some of the hardware companies and Microsoft. That might not be true with the ones that Microsoft chooses to give better secret deals to. One thing I wouldn't do today is buy a machine that couldn't take 20gig of RAM or something like that. This 4gig and yer out crap is worthless.
-- "Oh, I'm broke." "Take another mortgage, don't give in." "I thought you were broke. Where did you get all that money from?" "Don't question me." "Where did you get it?" "I borrowed it from the bank." "Well, you can't do that, that's cheating." "Listen you little stoat, I own Park Lane, I can borrow as much bloody money as I like." ~Joanna Lumley and Julia Sawalha, "Absolutely Fabulous"
> >> Oops ! "Network Bandwidth" ... that nasty term ! Unless > >> everybody goes fiber-optic (which M$ will probably sell)
> > Even f/o has a practical limit
> A serious limit if there's only one plug in the back of > your PC. But they aren't gonna mention that ...
Ubuntu boots fine over the network I have. There's a slight hesitation. And I suspect the amount of RAM you give yourself locally can matter. But it's not impractical. There's also no hard drive sound so that can matter. I'm only at 100 meg too. You can get gig ethernet.
> >> the machine-machine chatter will be SO slow that whatever > >> job you were doing could be done much faster if it just > >> ran on your own PC instead of 500 other PCs.
> > Reminds me of some powerpoint presentations, more time is > > spent on choosing fonts and colors than on optimizing > > data presentation.
> Image over substance ... the mantra of our age.
What would you need to distribute as a home user? I guess you could do colour correction on your 10,000 pictures from your recent trip to Cuba.
-- "Oh, I'm broke." "Take another mortgage, don't give in." "I thought you were broke. Where did you get all that money from?" "Don't question me." "Where did you get it?" "I borrowed it from the bank." "Well, you can't do that, that's cheating." "Listen you little stoat, I own Park Lane, I can borrow as much bloody money as I like." ~Joanna Lumley and Julia Sawalha, "Absolutely Fabulous"
>> >> >It's hard to disagree with anything you said. I'm see that the old >> >> >saying 'business is business' still holds good at MS. "It's not what the >> >> >client wants? What do we care?"
>> >> >I'm not a kneejerk anti-Microsoftian, far from it, but their relative >> >> >hegemony, while good for standardisation, always leaves itself open to >> >> >this sort of rip off. I hope, if ithappens, that the public disdain it >> >> >as they have done with Vista.
>> >> Well ...
>> >> Note that instead of fixing Vista (or fixing the bugs in XP) >> >> they instead spent megabucks on huge ad campaigns to try and >> >> convince everybody that Vista is great. Reminds me of the >> >> big automakers who just made more SUV ads instead of >> >> re-tooling for efficient vehicles.
>> >What is wrong with Vista, that's it's a pig? Just buy a bigger >> >boat.
>> Heh .... I wonder who gets kickbacks from the sales of >> bigger boats ?
>I don't know. There seems to be an adversarial relationship between >some of the hardware companies and Microsoft.
Yet note that when you go purchase your 'bigger boat', it's gonna come with OEM Vista ON it already ... which Dell or whomever has PAID Microsoft for. Degrading performance = new PC = more sales for Microsoft.
>> >> Oops ! "Network Bandwidth" ... that nasty term ! Unless >> >> everybody goes fiber-optic (which M$ will probably sell)
>> > Even f/o has a practical limit
>> A serious limit if there's only one plug in the back of >> your PC. But they aren't gonna mention that ...
>Ubuntu boots fine over the network I have. There's a slight >hesitation. And I suspect the amount of RAM you give yourself >locally can matter. But it's not impractical. There's also no hard >drive sound so that can matter. I'm only at 100 meg too. You can >get gig ethernet.
Booting a PC from a local server - ie creating a run-time image of the OS in your RAM - is one thing. Bona-fide distributed processing is something else entirely. The volume of traffic increases faster than the number of connected computers. The finer the jobs are sliced up, the worse it becomes ... indeed you may wind up in a situation where packet routing overhead is using up more time and bandwidth than the actual good info you're trying to pass around.
It's why parallel processing is only a kludge, not a solution. With modern chip-fab technology, it would be possible to squeeze dozens, maybe a hundred, old 8086/186/286-equivalent processors onto a single die.
You'd think a hundred processors could get a job done much faster than a single processor - but with the exception of a few very special cases, it doesn't work that way. Overhead and limits on how fine-'grained' you can make a program make one uber-processor better than a hundred little ones (99.9% of the time).
In practice in the real world, the advantages of parallel processing pretty much run out at eight processors. Not even much dif between four and eight. Things like 3-D video games CAN sometimes be sliced up into hundreds of parallel, simple, mathematical operations - and there are specialized processors made to facilitate video games - but MOST computing, especially business computing, won't benifit from parallelization - much less low-bandwitch 'cloud' approaches.
>> >> the machine-machine chatter will be SO slow that whatever >> >> job you were doing could be done much faster if it just >> >> ran on your own PC instead of 500 other PCs.
>> > Reminds me of some powerpoint presentations, more time is >> > spent on choosing fonts and colors than on optimizing >> > data presentation.
>> Image over substance ... the mantra of our age.
>What would you need to distribute as a home user? I guess you could >do colour correction on your 10,000 pictures from your recent trip >to Cuba.
That's it, there's rarely ANY advantage - for YOU. However there IS advantage for anyone who wants a piece of what you're doing ... and plans to make money from what they get. The lord of the cloud is powerful ....
> >> >> >It's hard to disagree with anything you said. I'm see that the old > >> >> >saying 'business is business' still holds good at MS. "It's not what the > >> >> >client wants? What do we care?"
> >> >> >I'm not a kneejerk anti-Microsoftian, far from it, but their relative > >> >> >hegemony, while good for standardisation, always leaves itself open to > >> >> >this sort of rip off. I hope, if ithappens, that the public disdain it > >> >> >as they have done with Vista.
> >> >> Well ...
> >> >> Note that instead of fixing Vista (or fixing the bugs in XP) > >> >> they instead spent megabucks on huge ad campaigns to try and > >> >> convince everybody that Vista is great. Reminds me of the > >> >> big automakers who just made more SUV ads instead of > >> >> re-tooling for efficient vehicles.
> >> >What is wrong with Vista, that's it's a pig? Just buy a bigger > >> >boat.
> >> Heh .... I wonder who gets kickbacks from the sales of > >> bigger boats ?
> >I don't know. There seems to be an adversarial relationship between > >some of the hardware companies and Microsoft.
> Yet note that when you go purchase your 'bigger boat', it's > gonna come with OEM Vista ON it already ... which Dell or > whomever has PAID Microsoft for. Degrading performance = > new PC = more sales for Microsoft.
That's a reasonable point. Many people don't need a new computer and really just need their current one reinstalled.
-- "Oh, I'm broke." "Take another mortgage, don't give in." "I thought you were broke. Where did you get all that money from?" "Don't question me." "Where did you get it?" "I borrowed it from the bank." "Well, you can't do that, that's cheating." "Listen you little stoat, I own Park Lane, I can borrow as much bloody money as I like." ~Joanna Lumley and Julia Sawalha, "Absolutely Fabulous"
> >> >> Oops ! "Network Bandwidth" ... that nasty term ! Unless > >> >> everybody goes fiber-optic (which M$ will probably sell)
> >> > Even f/o has a practical limit
> >> A serious limit if there's only one plug in the back of > >> your PC. But they aren't gonna mention that ...
> >Ubuntu boots fine over the network I have. There's a slight > >hesitation. And I suspect the amount of RAM you give yourself > >locally can matter. But it's not impractical. There's also no hard > >drive sound so that can matter. I'm only at 100 meg too. You can > >get gig ethernet.
> Booting a PC from a local server - ie creating a run-time > image of the OS in your RAM - is one thing. Bona-fide > distributed processing is something else entirely. The > volume of traffic increases faster than the number of > connected computers. The finer the jobs are sliced up, > the worse it becomes ... indeed you may wind up in a > situation where packet routing overhead is using up > more time and bandwidth than the actual good info > you're trying to pass around.
Certainly if you are trying to do that with your word processor. But if you have video you are compressing, something like that, I suspect you'll see improvement.
> It's why parallel processing is only a kludge, not > a solution. With modern chip-fab technology, it would > be possible to squeeze dozens, maybe a hundred, old > 8086/186/286-equivalent processors onto a single die.
> You'd think a hundred processors could get a job done > much faster than a single processor - but with the > exception of a few very special cases, it doesn't work > that way. Overhead and limits on how fine-'grained' > you can make a program make one uber-processor better > than a hundred little ones (99.9% of the time).
I've been advocating multi-proc-on-die computing since the early Pentiums. I said I'd prefer four 486DX-100s instead of 1 P5-75. As I recall, the die would be about the same size. Regarding cutting things up, I think you are wrong in some sense because a current day OS is already cut up with many slices doing many things. It's silly to attempt to combine that into one processor which then, if you can believe this, tries to divide things back up again to pipeline everything to allow out of sequence or speculative execution. There might be a limit to the number of procs on a die but we aren't anywhere near that limit today. If you look at your OS, you might have a hundred processes and giving each one of them a 2GHz computer can only speed things up overall. Of course this assumes massive amounts of on die cache. If many processes, for example the anti-virus suite, are simply loaded once and then operated with hardware protection on the side, this means your overall performance might not take much of a hit at all.
> In practice in the real world, the advantages of > parallel processing pretty much run out at eight > processors. Not even much dif between four and eight. > Things like 3-D video games CAN sometimes be sliced > up into hundreds of parallel, simple, mathematical > operations - and there are specialized processors > made to facilitate video games - but MOST computing, > especially business computing, won't benifit from > parallelization - much less low-bandwitch 'cloud' > approaches.
Most people are trying on a word processor. That doesn't need much of anything. Long ago they ran out of things to add to Word. Now they just change the interface to confuse people and change the file format so you have to upgrade or your version of Word won't work with everyone else's.
> >> >> the machine-machine chatter will be SO slow that whatever > >> >> job you were doing could be done much faster if it just > >> >> ran on your own PC instead of 500 other PCs.
> >> > Reminds me of some powerpoint presentations, more time is > >> > spent on choosing fonts and colors than on optimizing > >> > data presentation.
> >> Image over substance ... the mantra of our age.
> >What would you need to distribute as a home user? I guess you could > >do colour correction on your 10,000 pictures from your recent trip > >to Cuba.
> That's it, there's rarely ANY advantage - for YOU. However > there IS advantage for anyone who wants a piece of what > you're doing ... and plans to make money from what they get. > The lord of the cloud is powerful ....
Not if we refuse to believe.
-- "Oh, I'm broke." "Take another mortgage, don't give in." "I thought you were broke. Where did you get all that money from?" "Don't question me." "Where did you get it?" "I borrowed it from the bank." "Well, you can't do that, that's cheating." "Listen you little stoat, I own Park Lane, I can borrow as much bloody money as I like." ~Joanna Lumley and Julia Sawalha, "Absolutely Fabulous"
>> >> Oops ! "Network Bandwidth" ... that nasty term ! Unless >> >> everybody goes fiber-optic (which M$ will probably sell)
>> > Even f/o has a practical limit
>> A serious limit if there's only one plug in the back of >> your PC. But they aren't gonna mention that ...
> Ubuntu boots fine over the network I have. There's a slight > hesitation. And I suspect the amount of RAM you give yourself > locally can matter. But it's not impractical. There's also no hard > drive sound so that can matter. I'm only at 100 meg too. You can > get gig ethernet.
>> >> the machine-machine chatter will be SO slow that whatever >> >> job you were doing could be done much faster if it just >> >> ran on your own PC instead of 500 other PCs.
>> > Reminds me of some powerpoint presentations, more time is >> > spent on choosing fonts and colors than on optimizing >> > data presentation.
>> Image over substance ... the mantra of our age.
> What would you need to distribute as a home user? I guess you could > do colour correction on your 10,000 pictures from your recent trip > to Cuba.
I have no idea what your rationale was for that statement, I was referring to presentations that had to be reworked because my manager (defense contractor) didn't think the division VP would be suitably impressed. I was once amused by a department head who spent a morning developing an "impressive" spreadsheet, juggling fonts, size, colors.
> "Bill Bonde { No matter what happens, it's caused by global warming )" > > What would you need to distribute as a home user? I guess you could > > do colour correction on your 10,000 pictures from your recent trip > > to Cuba.
> I have no idea what your rationale was for that statement, I was > referring to presentations that had to be reworked because my > manager (defense contractor) didn't think the division VP would > be suitably impressed. I was once amused by a department head > who spent a morning developing an "impressive" spreadsheet, > juggling fonts, size, colors.
I was referring to the material posted by B1ackwater: "Image over substance ... the mantra of our age." We are discussing "cloud computing" which he defined partly as being able to distribute your computer requirements across many systems, which wouldn't need to be local. I wondered what the average home user would use that for. I could only think of the 10K pics you recently took on your Reise to Cuba.
-- "Oh, I'm broke." "Take another mortgage, don't give in." "I thought you were broke. Where did you get all that money from?" "Don't question me." "Where did you get it?" "I borrowed it from the bank." "Well, you can't do that, that's cheating." "Listen you little stoat, I own Park Lane, I can borrow as much bloody money as I like." ~Joanna Lumley and Julia Sawalha, "Absolutely Fabulous"
> "Bill Bonde { No matter what happens, it's caused by global warming )" > <tributyltinp...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >Blackwater wrote:
> >> On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 19:43:00 +0000, "Bill Bonde { No matter what > >> happens, it's caused by global warming )" > >> <tributyltinp...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >> >> Oops ! "Network Bandwidth" ... that nasty term ! Unless > >> >> >> everybody goes fiber-optic (which M$ will probably sell)
> >> >> > Even f/o has a practical limit
> >> >> A serious limit if there's only one plug in the back of > >> >> your PC. But they aren't gonna mention that ...
> >> >Ubuntu boots fine over the network I have. There's a slight > >> >hesitation. And I suspect the amount of RAM you give yourself > >> >locally can matter. But it's not impractical. There's also no hard > >> >drive sound so that can matter. I'm only at 100 meg too. You can > >> >get gig ethernet.
> >> Booting a PC from a local server - ie creating a run-time > >> image of the OS in your RAM - is one thing. Bona-fide > >> distributed processing is something else entirely. The > >> volume of traffic increases faster than the number of > >> connected computers. The finer the jobs are sliced up, > >> the worse it becomes ... indeed you may wind up in a > >> situation where packet routing overhead is using up > >> more time and bandwidth than the actual good info > >> you're trying to pass around.
> >Certainly if you are trying to do that with your word processor. > >But if you have video you are compressing, something like that, I > >suspect you'll see improvement.
> Um ... no.
> Too much info in video.
> That means too much data passed around = bandwidth issues.
It might take some hours to compress a DVD. A meg a second is 3.6gig an hour so you are looking at that rate as being enough to send around a DVD in about an hour or two.
> >> It's why parallel processing is only a kludge, not > >> a solution. With modern chip-fab technology, it would > >> be possible to squeeze dozens, maybe a hundred, old > >> 8086/186/286-equivalent processors onto a single die.
> >> You'd think a hundred processors could get a job done > >> much faster than a single processor - but with the > >> exception of a few very special cases, it doesn't work > >> that way. Overhead and limits on how fine-'grained' > >> you can make a program make one uber-processor better > >> than a hundred little ones (99.9% of the time).
> >I've been advocating multi-proc-on-die computing since the early > >Pentiums. I said I'd prefer four 486DX-100s instead of 1 P5-75. As
> Indeed possible ... but the advantage of many soon disappears.
Of four? I think clearly that it was better than, so it's better now. And finally they are doing this.
> >I recall, the die would be about the same size. Regarding cutting > >things up, I think you are wrong in some sense because a current > >day OS is already cut up with many slices doing many things.
> But it's all "internal" ... hardware registers, hardware > pipelines, fast onboard cache, shared memory spaces ....
> Very different from spewing it all out over even > gigabit, or terabit, network through one port.
That's true but we are talking about two things, your "cloud computing" and the idea of multi-proc-on-die computing. Clearly the latter is ready for prime time.
> >It's > >silly to attempt to combine that into one processor which then, if > >you can believe this, tries to divide things back up again to > >pipeline everything to allow out of sequence or speculative > >execution. There might be a limit to the number of procs on a die > >but we aren't anywhere near that limit today. If you look at your > >OS, you might have a hundred processes and giving each one of them > >a 2GHz computer can only speed things up overall. Of course this > >assumes massive amounts of on die cache. If many processes, for > >example the anti-virus suite, are simply loaded once and then > >operated with hardware protection on the side, this means your > >overall performance might not take much of a hit at all.
> It all SEEMS that way ... but, in practice, it generally fails. > Google the literature.
Explain why I can't run Norton Antivirus on a core entirely in cache.
> REAL-life ... eight processors on a die are roughly the best > you'll get unless you're doing tons of weird math - molecular > simulations and such.
The best compared to what, compared to taking time sliced processes, putting them together and sending them to a processor that then cuts them up to parallelize them? They are naturally parallel.
> >> In practice in the real world, the advantages of > >> parallel processing pretty much run out at eight > >> processors. Not even much dif between four and eight. > >> Things like 3-D video games CAN sometimes be sliced > >> up into hundreds of parallel, simple, mathematical > >> operations - and there are specialized processors > >> made to facilitate video games - but MOST computing, > >> especially business computing, won't benifit from > >> parallelization - much less low-bandwitch 'cloud' > >> approaches.
> >Most people are typing on a word processor. That doesn't need much > >of anything.
> Almost nothing. I wrote a fair one in x86 assembler back > in the mid 80s just for the hell of it - similar capabilities > to 'WordStar'. Suprisingly little code ... and no point in > parallelization.
I don't disagree. I was just looking at what I think is a 386 laptop with 24meg of ram. I don't get it but the battery still seems to hold a charge, I think. I might set it up with a word processor. It would be fine.
> I suppose the issue is "What IS 'business computing' ?".
> Not molecular dynamics, that's for sure ...
> Yet the MONEY is in 'business computing'.
> And 'video games' for the home user.
> Different requirements.
> >Long ago they ran out of things to add to Word.
> Crappy program. Use WordPerfect instead. Makes Word look > like a grade-school project ...
The standard is Word. If you need to create complicated nonsense and view it on Word, better use Word. Of course there are different versions of Word.
> >Now > >they just change the interface to confuse people and change the > >file format so you have to upgrade or your version of Word won't > >work with everyone else's.
> On to their tricks, I see ... :-)
Of course. I can't stand Microsoft. I'm viewing this message on a network boot of Ubuntu which is VNCed to a machine running XP.
> >> >> >> the machine-machine chatter will be SO slow that whatever > >> >> >> job you were doing could be done much faster if it just > >> >> >> ran on your own PC instead of 500 other PCs.
> >> >> > Reminds me of some powerpoint presentations, more time is > >> >> > spent on choosing fonts and colors than on optimizing > >> >> > data presentation.
> >> >> Image over substance ... the mantra of our age.
> >> >What would you need to distribute as a home user? I guess you could > >> >do colour correction on your 10,000 pictures from your recent trip > >> >to Cuba.
> >> That's it, there's rarely ANY advantage - for YOU. However > >> there IS advantage for anyone who wants a piece of what > >> you're doing ... and plans to make money from what they get. > >> The lord of the cloud is powerful ....
> >Not if we refuse to believe.
> Belief is irrelevant - for you.
> It's what they make your pointy-haired BOSS believe.
I hope that Jim Jones isn't running things.
-- "Oh, I'm broke." "Take another mortgage, don't give in." "I thought you were broke. Where did you get all that money from?" "Don't question me." "Where did you get it?" "I borrowed it from the bank." "Well, you can't do that, that's cheating." "Listen you little stoat, I own Park Lane, I can borrow as much bloody money as I like." ~Joanna Lumley and Julia Sawalha, "Absolutely Fabulous"
> "Bill Bonde { No matter what happens, it's caused by global warming )" > <tributyltinp...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >Blackwater wrote:
> >> On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 19:35:06 +0000, "Bill Bonde { No matter what > >> happens, it's caused by global warming )" > >> <tributyltinp...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >Blackwater wrote:
> >> >> "Bill Bonde { No matter what happens, it's caused by global warming )" > >> >> <tributyltinp...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >> >> >It's hard to disagree with anything you said. I'm see that the old > >> >> >> >saying 'business is business' still holds good at MS. "It's not what the > >> >> >> >client wants? What do we care?"
> >> >> >> >I'm not a kneejerk anti-Microsoftian, far from it, but their relative > >> >> >> >hegemony, while good for standardisation, always leaves itself open to > >> >> >> >this sort of rip off. I hope, if ithappens, that the public disdain it > >> >> >> >as they have done with Vista.
> >> >> >> Well ...
> >> >> >> Note that instead of fixing Vista (or fixing the bugs in XP) > >> >> >> they instead spent megabucks on huge ad campaigns to try and > >> >> >> convince everybody that Vista is great. Reminds me of the > >> >> >> big automakers who just made more SUV ads instead of > >> >> >> re-tooling for efficient vehicles.
> >> >> >What is wrong with Vista, that's it's a pig? Just buy a bigger > >> >> >boat.
> >> >> Heh .... I wonder who gets kickbacks from the sales of > >> >> bigger boats ?
> >> >I don't know. There seems to be an adversarial relationship between > >> >some of the hardware companies and Microsoft.
> >> Yet note that when you go purchase your 'bigger boat', it's > >> gonna come with OEM Vista ON it already ... which Dell or > >> whomever has PAID Microsoft for. Degrading performance = > >> new PC = more sales for Microsoft.
> >That's a reasonable point. Many people don't need a new computer > >and really just need their current one reinstalled.
> Yea, with Win-2k, XP, SUSE or Kubuntu ....
> Not Vista.
Vista is a pig. That's what provoked my "Jaws" reference. But I'm not convinced that it doesn't work as well as XP. The question is does it do anything better enough to warrant wasting that much RAM when you could be using it for virtulizing something less bloated? I'm so not convinced that I'd look back at Win98SE to get a tight fit. For processes that didn't require Windows, something light in Linux is far better since it might be supported. I don't know the answer there though. But Vista isn't so much evil as it is boring. The main reason it's worth bothering with is so that you won't look too confused looking for the many things they moved yet again from XP. Doesn't this remind you of the nonsense with Word?
-- "Oh, I'm broke." "Take another mortgage, don't give in." "I thought you were broke. Where did you get all that money from?" "Don't question me." "Where did you get it?" "I borrowed it from the bank." "Well, you can't do that, that's cheating." "Listen you little stoat, I own Park Lane, I can borrow as much bloody money as I like." ~Joanna Lumley and Julia Sawalha, "Absolutely Fabulous"
On Dec 30 2008, 5:56 am, b...@barrk.net (Blackwater) wrote:
> (CNET) -- Microsoft has applied for a patent on metered, pay-as-you-go > computing.
> Under a Microsoft proposal, consumers would receive heavily discounted > PCs, then pay fees for usage.
Well, for the recursively uneducable in science looneytune-ville. that's mostly because invented Microsoft invented neo-AT&T, not neo- Computers. The people with progessive computational brains and minds invented GPS, Fiber Optics, CD+rw, CD-rom, CD-ram, DVD-cr, DVD-rom, DVD-ram, HDTV and Flatscreens. Adaptive Pv Cell Arrays, Laser-Guided Phasors, On-Line Publishing, USB, XML, Post Ford Batteries, All-In-One Printers, Post GM Holograms, Digital-Terrain-Mapping, and Autonomous Vehicles.
> U.S. patent application number 20080319910, published on Christmas > Day, details Microsoft's vision of a situation where a "standard > model" of PC is given away or heavily subsidized by someone in the > supply chain. The end user then pays to use the computer, with charges > based on both the length of usage time and the performance levels > utilized, along with a "one-time charge."
> Microsoft notes in the application that the end user could end up > paying more for the computer, compared with the one-off cost entailed > in the existing PC business model, but argues the user would benefit > by having a PC with an extended "useful life."
> "A computer with scalable performance level components and selectable > software and service options has a user interface that allows > individual performance levels to be selected," reads the patent > application's abstract. The patent application was filed June 21, > 2007.
> "The scalable performance level components may include a processor, > memory, graphics controller, etc. Software and services may include > word processing, email, browsing, database access, etc. To support a > pay-per-use business model, each selectable item may have a cost > associated with it, allowing a user to pay for the services actually > selected and that presumably correspond to the task or tasks being > performed," the abstract continues.
> Integral to Microsoft's vision is a security module, embedded in the > PC, that would effectively lock the PC to a certain supplier.
> - - - - - -
> Geez ... now you wouldn't even OWN the PC or OS, you'd > just be RENTING it - and losing a variety of legal rights > in the process ... like to any 'personal' info perhaps or > the right to object to MS snooping on your net usage as > if it were Homeland-S .......
> Of course MS could then SELL that info - even to Homeland ...
> PCs are dirt cheap. Buy one. Buy a slightly USED one from > a forclosure sale or something. Then put LINIX on it ... > Ubuntu/Kubuntu is good, so is Fedora and Suse - they've > finally reached a level of ease and slickness comparable > with Winders ... and they're FREE.
|
