Same here with a Surface Pro 4. Lots of little bugs that I'd never expect in an Apple device. Weird keyboard issues, random screen shutoff, DPI issues, etc. Luckily, Windows Updates have been fixing the issues a handful at a time, but this means that initial impressions will suffer. Hopefully they get their QA issues sorted out.
Why not? A strong premium hardware manufacturer is needed pretty badly right now in the PC industry. The last one standing is Lenovo, and most of its product line is shameful garbage. When manufacturers compete on merit, everyone wins.
That may be true, but there is clearly an argument against that premium manifacturer being the already giant corporation that licenses the os run on 95% of those machines.
If it were startup I'd say 'more power to them', even if they only shipped machines with windows preinstalled.
You've got a point there, but I don't see this as a huge deal if they don't begin to abuse their position. Which they might, but I'll reserve my judgement until there's something to judge.
Fair enough, I don't judge the Surface machines as something bad per se, I simply don't pine for a world were the only decent hardware to run Windows is made by MS (which the too often abysmal quality of other OEMs may lead us to). Maybe I'm being a little paranoid, I guess.
FWIW, I would argue something similar wrt the Apple tv: abusive practices or not, I would not be happy to see one of the world's wealthiest corporation become a key player in yet another market (if anything because of Apple's sketchy history wrt to open formats).
Strong premium hardware makers would be nice, but not if they're Microsoft, because their hardware is necessarily tied to their crappy keylogger-infested OS.
And how exactly would other manufacturers compete with MS hardware anyway, while still offering MS's software on them? They'd be doomed to failure since MS can just jack up the price of Windows for them, so you'd be stuck with a single HW/SW maker, and back to a PC monopoly or something pretty close to it (since so much business software still requires Windows).
If you want healthy competition for PC hardware, it's never going to happen if MS takes over that space. Of course, it seems to be going downhill anyway, so I'm not sure what the solution is, but between the hardware makers throwing in the towel or crappifying their products, Windows becoming worse than ever with Metro and spyware and reported incompatibility with existing software, and lack of inroads for Linux into the OS space to provide some real competition (partly because of application compatibility, and partly because of too much fragmentation esp. for desktop environments; thanks a lot Gnome team), things are not looking good.
I think he meant in terms of being the best option available. You would have a hard time arguing that Windows is significantly better than competitors like RHEL in the corporate space. For gaming, on the other hand, no other OS comes close to offering the selection that Windows has, at least for now.
The bright side is that no-one holds onto their phones as long as they hold onto their PCs. A given phone has a ~2 year lifespan thanks to carriers subsidizing upgrades. Now if only they would stop selling Android 2.x phones.
The "Iron Dome" is an anti-missile system. Artillery shells are a lot harder to shoot down. Last I heard, the US military was working on a laser-based system to heat the shells mid-flight and cause them to detonate prematurely. I don't know if this technology is mature enough for actual use, or if it's likely to be deployed to SK.
I think the goal of a darknet is more to prevent censorship than to ensure privacy. As you said, any untrusted nodes could easily reveal a user's location and intent.
I would much prefer a network that piggybacks on the existing infrastructure and poses as innocuous traffic through stenography or encryption.
