Before everyone starts to shit on Microsoft - chrome os did exactly the same thing. Microsoft can do whatever they want with their own hardware/os combination.
[QUOTE=Megalan;52180862]Before everyone starts to shit on Microsoft - chrome os did exactly the same thing. Microsoft can do whatever they want with their own hardware/os combination.[/QUOTE]
I don't really see how these things would exempt Microsoft from getting shit on. Consumers criticizing an unsatisfactory product or service experience can happen regardless of precedent/competitive alternative or the legality of the service/product.
[QUOTE=Megalan;52180862]Before everyone starts to shit on Microsoft - chrome os did exactly the same thing. Microsoft can do whatever they want with their own hardware/os combination.[/QUOTE]
Except Chromebooks are $180-$450 and they are designed entirely to run on the totally different Chrome OS. You can install plain Linux but it is not officially supported.
The Surface Laptop is $1000-$2200 (overpriced already for its specs) and can totally run full Windows due to the fact that you can upgrade it for free throughout 2017, and then you have to pay another $50.
Very different. It's like the WinRT problem in the original Surfaces, but with the added "fuck you, pay us more" of Windows 7 Starter.
I probably should have been more specific: before people starts to shit on Microsoft that they are not allowing third-party browser/search. I agree that the surface laptop/win 10s combo is a really weird one but this time there is nothing wrong with that they are doing from legal point of view.
[QUOTE=Megalan;52181007]I probably should have been more specific: before people starts to shit on Microsoft that they are not allowing third-party browser/search. I agree that the surface laptop/win 10s combo is a really weird one but this time there is nothing wrong with that they are doing from legal point of view.[/QUOTE]
I don't think anyone here is arguing that it's illegal.
It's just an abysmally stupid decision.
[QUOTE=Snowmew;52180957]Except Chromebooks are $180-$450 and they are designed entirely to run on the totally different Chrome OS. You can install plain Linux but it is not officially supported.
The Surface Laptop is $1000-$2200 (overpriced already for its specs) and can totally run full Windows due to the fact that you can upgrade it for free throughout 2017, and then you have to pay another $50.
Very different. It's like the WinRT problem in the original Surfaces, but with the added "fuck you, pay us more" of Windows 7 Starter.[/QUOTE]
First half of your post is on base, second half is uninformed. Windows RT was an entire different processor architecture, google would have had to make a custom build of chrome for it. You can't run native applications on a different processor architecture without emulation.
[QUOTE=Elspin;52181238]First half of your post is on base, second half is uninformed. Windows RT was an entire different processor architecture, google would have had to make a custom build of chrome for it. You can't run native applications on a different processor architecture without emulation.[/QUOTE]
There are both ARM and x86 Chromebooks? I don't get your point.
If you mean being unable to run Win32 applications on Windows RT, that's a given. But Windows RT was still gimped by only allowing a whitelist of apps that could only be removed through exploits, which totally killed any app development that [I]could[/I] have happened.
[QUOTE=Dr. Evilcop;52181903]There are both ARM and x86 Chromebooks? I don't get your point.
If you mean being unable to run Win32 applications on Windows RT, that's a given. But Windows RT was still gimped by only allowing a whitelist of apps that could only be removed through exploits, which totally killed any app development that [I]could[/I] have happened.[/QUOTE]
Someone with a windows rt tablet confirmed in another thread that that was easily turned off, the real problem is the processor architecture. Still, even if it was limited completely to the windows store, there'd be nothing stopping google from releasing chrome on it afaik? They did it for iOS.
I was clearly talking about windows rt anyhow, no idea why you started talking about chromebooks.
Is this going to affect my Surface 4? I got it ~2 yearsish ago.
[QUOTE=revan740;52182115]Is this going to affect my Surface 4? I got it ~2 yearsish ago.[/QUOTE]
No, windows 10 s is the problem here. You might be able to opt to switch to windows 10 s as an "upgrade" but idk why you would
[QUOTE=Elspin;52182058]Someone with a windows rt tablet confirmed in another thread that that was easily turned off, the real problem is the processor architecture. Still, even if it was limited completely to the windows store, there'd be nothing stopping google from releasing chrome on it afaik? They did it for iOS.
I was clearly talking about windows rt anyhow, no idea why you started talking about chromebooks.[/QUOTE]
I'm just gonna correct you here, chrome for iOS is a travesty. It uses the same underlying engine as safari through an apple-made component, WKWebView, instead of the blink rendering engine. It's fundamentally a safari reskin/frontend.
More on-topic, this is a really silly decision. SURE, it's their right to make this decision, but considering the difference between windows S and regular ol' windows is just $50, and all the lockdowns are in place just because Microsoft wills it, this just looks like an anti-consumer cash grab. I wonder what they were thinking, though, as I'm sure this was debated internally.
[QUOTE=Megalan;52180862]Before everyone starts to shit on Microsoft - chrome os did exactly the same thing. Microsoft can do whatever they want with their own hardware/os combination.[/QUOTE]
proot or chroot or whatever you want, but ChromeOS isn't locked to the point where it's not possible to do anything about it. In fact, it's pretty straight forward these days to do whatever the hell you want on your Chromebook, without having to "jailbreak" it or put it into developer mode or anything. This is a practice that is doable on older Chromebooks as well. This is not going to happen on these systems.
[QUOTE=Elspin;52181238]First half of your post is on base, second half is uninformed. Windows RT was an entire different processor architecture, google would have had to make a custom build of chrome for it. You can't run native applications on a different processor architecture without emulation.[/QUOTE]
Oh I know full well what WinRT was because I used it. But the point is that RT was confined to store apps, as is Win10 S. It's just that unlike RT, S has literally no point to the restriction other than vague claims of battery life.
Take the shitty fuck-you of the gimped Win7 Starter and add the store-only restriction of RT, and you've got Win10 S. Which is really incredibly offensive when it's sold on a four-figure laptop that has the specs of laptops half the price.
[QUOTE=PacificV2;52182547]I'm just gonna correct you here, chrome for iOS is a travesty. It uses the same underlying engine as safari through an apple-made component, WKWebView, instead of the blink rendering engine. It's fundamentally a safari reskin/frontend.[/QUOTE]
Nothing to correct, I said they could and did do it, I didn't say they did a good job v:v:v
[QUOTE=Elspin;52182058]Someone with a windows rt tablet confirmed in another thread that that was easily turned off, the real problem is the processor architecture. Still, even if it was limited completely to the windows store, there'd be nothing stopping google from releasing chrome on it afaik? They did it for iOS.
I was clearly talking about windows rt anyhow, no idea why you started talking about chromebooks.[/QUOTE]
That would be Sam, and to my recollection he was only able to break that limitation like within the last year or two. As in years after Windows RT was already a failure. It's also a security exploit so even if it had been available early on in Windows RT's life the mass majority of the user base probably wouldn't even know about it.
The problem with anyone wanting to develop for the Windows store is the Windows store is awful and nobody wants to use it. It's a completely arbitrary restriction that gives it the same problem as Windows RT, except worse in principle because there's no good reason for it and you have to pay $50 to (legally) remove it.
Why does everyone think that the Surface Laptop is the only laptop with Windows 10 S?
[URL="http://www.gizbot.com/mobile/news/acer-hp-launch-two-laptops-with-windows-10-s-price-feature-and-more/articletrending-pf1001-040457.html"]
Acer and HP just announced 2 laptops and both are 299.[/URL]
Also, the upgrade from Windows 10 S to Win10Pro is free if you're a student.
[QUOTE=FlandersNed;52182909]Why does everyone think that the Surface Laptop is the only laptop with Windows 10 S?
[URL="http://www.gizbot.com/mobile/news/acer-hp-launch-two-laptops-with-windows-10-s-price-feature-and-more/articletrending-pf1001-040457.html"]
Acer and HP just announced 2 laptops and both are 299.[/URL]
Also, the upgrade from Windows 10 S to Win10Pro is free if you're a student.[/QUOTE]
Because an arbitrarily gimped copy of Windows at least makes more sense on a $299 laptop than a $1,000+ laptop
windows s makes perfect sense on cheap laptops for an educational setting. its meant to compete with chromebooks.
putting it on a near 1000 dollar laptop is insulting though, sounds as useless and overpriced as that 1000 dollar chromebook pixel
I'm paying for the OS, what I use on it is my business.
Make it free and then you can do this kind of shit, otherwise fuck off.
[QUOTE=Dr. Evilcop;52183205]Because an arbitrarily gimped copy of Windows at least makes more sense on a $299 laptop than a $1,000+ laptop[/QUOTE]
I agree with this. This makes more sense for schools; my school bought MacBook Airs for students since the government has a laptop program and subsidises those costs so in the end it's the same.
This really makes me want to get windows 10 S. Yep.
[QUOTE=GHOST!!!!;52183482]I'm paying for the OS, what I use on it is my business.
Make it free and then you can do this kind of shit, otherwise fuck off.[/QUOTE]
Then get the proper license. Win 10 S is primarily made for use in the education sector with inbuilt limitations designed to stop kids/students/workers from bloating up the computer with random installations.
[QUOTE=Snowmew;52180957]Except Chromebooks are $180-$450 and they are designed entirely to run on the totally different Chrome OS. You can install plain Linux but it is not officially supported.
The Surface Laptop is $1000-$2200 (overpriced already for its specs) and can totally run full Windows due to the fact that you can upgrade it for free throughout 2017, and then you have to pay another $50.
Very different. It's like the WinRT problem in the original Surfaces, but with the added "fuck you, pay us more" of Windows 7 Starter.[/QUOTE]
The Surface is such a nice thing, too. It's a shame it's so over priced. If it was reasonably priced then we'd be talking
[QUOTE=TheTalon;52185329]The Surface is such a nice thing, too. It's a shame it's so over priced. If it was reasonably priced then we'd be talking[/QUOTE]
SP4 prices right now are actually pretty reasonable, but it's difficult not to look at 2-in-1s from other manufacturers. Dell has a ton of them and I've been seriously considering upgrading from my S3. Microsoft is really dragging its feet with the 5th gen and if it turns out to be a disappointment, there's going to be a pretty big exodus from the Surface line.
[QUOTE=Prism;52185164]Then get the proper license. Win 10 S is primarily made for use in the education sector with inbuilt limitations designed to stop kids/students/workers from bloating up the computer with random installations.[/QUOTE]
Pretty much this. If I had a dollar for every employee computer I remoted into with "coupon printer" installed, I would be able to retire today. People here seem to overestimate the intelligence of the average user.
[QUOTE=Prism;52185164]Then get the proper license. Win 10 S is primarily made for use in the education sector with inbuilt limitations designed to stop kids/students/workers from bloating up the computer with random installations.[/QUOTE]
Then why are they selling it on a $1,000+ laptop being marketed to the general populace and not just education and business sectors?
More to the point, if kids/students/workers are able to do that, it's the fault of the IT staff for not properly administrating user rights and restrictions, not Window's fault.
[QUOTE=Dr. Evilcop;52186452]Then why are they selling it on a $1,000+ laptop being marketed to the general populace and not just education and business sectors?[/QUOTE]
Literally to make the laptop idiot proof. You can upgrade to Windows 10 Pro for free.
[QUOTE=Megalan;52180862]Before everyone starts to shit on Microsoft - chrome os did exactly the same thing. Microsoft can do whatever they want with their own hardware/os combination.[/QUOTE]
I don't grant that exemption on the basis that [b]you aren't renting the fucking thing.[/b] Your point would only make sense if the machine was still Microsoft's property. But it's not. Anyone who gets a Surface has bought it. They own the thing. It is [b]their property[/b]. Not Microsoft's. Not a third party's. [b]Theirs[/b].
It's your computer, it's your right to use whatever fucking browser and search engine you damn well please. It'd be no different than if Whirlpool forced you to use Tide detergent in their washing machines, or if Honda required you to buy Yokohama tires, or your new John Deere riding mower would only run if it detected Shell gasoline in the tank.
What MS are doing here is six kinds of bullshit, no ifs ands or buts. They're actively fucking over the people buying these things. For fuck's sake Apple doesn't even require you to use the iPhone's built-in web browser, you can run pretty much any major mobile browser on it with just a few buttonpresses on the App Store, and they're the poster child for walled garden inanity!
[QUOTE=TestECull;52187692]I don't grant that exemption on the basis that [b]you aren't renting the fucking thing.[/b]
It's your computer, it's your right to use whatever fucking browser and search engine you damn well please. It'd be no different than if Whirlpool forced you to use Tide detergent in their washing machines, or if Honda required you to buy Yokohama tires, or your new John Deere riding mower would only run if it detected Shell gasoline in the tank.
What MS are doing here is six kinds of bullshit, no ifs ands or buts. They're actively fucking over the people buying these things. [B]For fuck's sake Apple doesn't even require you to use the iPhone's built-in web browser, you can run pretty much any major mobile browser on it with just a few buttonpresses on the App Store, and they're the poster child for walled garden inanity![/B][/QUOTE]
apart from the fact that
a. it's not "any major mobile browser", it's safari with a different UI because apple
b. go ahead and tap a link in an email app and tell me what app opens. go ahead i'll wait
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.