Do not buy a Skylake cpu

[aedipuss]

you might want a skylake cpu rather than the upcoming kabylake cpu as microsoft is only going to support windows 10 on any upcoming cpus. even skylake will only have windows 7 and 8.1 support until 2017 rather than the older cpus getting support until 2020/2023.

[usually_quiet]

SiliconDust would have been open to writing a suitable player for Linux too, but unfortunately existing Linux distros do not provide a built-in protected path for playback like the other operating systems do. Without a protected path for playback, a player app won't pass Cable Labs certification.

This statement is grossly misleading, it may be what the company has said but it conveniently ignores the fact that one of the basic founding ideas behind Linux distros is that nothing is "built-in". Linux is built around the idea of choice. If the company really wanted to they could code a proprietary closed source player player that ran on Linux (the GPL does not forbid that no matter what anyone will claim) that included the built-in content protection needed.

It took a while for Google to get a working Netflix-sanctioned Netflix solution for Ubuntu and some of its forks. http://secureknow.com/how-to-guides/netflix-on-linux/ Silicondust is a small company, without Google's resources. They funded this project via Kickstarter.

The solution above won't work for SiliconDust's player app because it is for HTML5. SiliconDust needs to develop a solution for MPEG-2 and H.264 (to a much smaller extent) using DTCP-IP content encryption and a protected path from HDD to graphics card output, but Linux offers them nothing already in place that would help them with that. Windows and Android do offer them something that makes what they want to do much easier and less expensive.

You seriously need a realty check. It always comes down to the same thing with you. An insane world view where all companies no matter how small should spend however much money it takes to support a tiny community of users who are accustomed to getting most of their software for free.

[usually_quiet]

I remember though, back in the days when IE ruled the world, I had to browbeat people into trying a tabbed browser (usually an IE shell as it was before Firefox existed), or at least one that'd let you disable ActiveX. Then Firefox came along and things changed. It gives me hope that maybe one day when it comes to the OS we run, something similar might happen.

There is no browser ballot here in the US, and yet Chrome is the number one browser here and Safari is number three. http://www.zdnet.com/article/the-most-u-s-popular-web-browsers/ These products succeeded because they were more appealing in some way to large segments of the public than IE. Existing Linux distros have not given the public what it wants.

Browser ballot?
I don't live in the U.S.
Firefox was released about 4 years before Chrome. It was for a time the main/only alternative to IE.
I expressed a hope another OS might come along and find a user base the way alternative browsers to IE have.
I don't really understand what the point you're making might be.

Not that I had the slightest intention of started a debate over browsers, but .....
http://www.zdnet.com/article/the-most-u-s-popular-web-browsers/
Safari's surprisingly high rating is almost certainly because DAP 's top level numbers don't distinguish between desktop and mobile-based browsers. 67.5 percent of visitors to the government's web site used a desktop, while 24.9 percent used a smartphone and 7.6 percent visited with a tablet.

If every single PC came with a button to switch to Linux when it booted, maybe the world would be a different place.

Looking close at IE, which unlike Chrome, Firefox, and Safari, tends to have multiple versions out, you'll see that IE 11 is easily the most popular edition with 14.8 percent of users. Curiously, it's followed by IE 9 at 5.5 percent, then IE 8.0. at 3.3 percent and only then do you find IE 10 with 3 percent. IE 7 then comes in next to last with 1.7 percent.

Would that support my point that a lot of people just use whatever comes installed on the computer?
Or what ends up installed on their computer after running Windows update?

The E.U. mandated that Microsoft include a browser ballot/browser menu in Windows so that users had to make a choice as to which browser they would use and so would not simply use IE by default.

Chrome is more popular in the US than all versions of IE put together in spite of it not being the Windows default browser. Many Safari users would be using an Apple product, but not all Safari users own an Apple product. My nephews used Safari with Windows. Firefox is number 4 on the list. My point is that the lack of a feature in the US which forces people to choose their browser has not stopped large numbers of people from choosing to use something other than Microsoft's browser on their Windows system.

[ackboo]

You seriously need a realty check. It always comes down to the same thing with you. An insane world view where all companies no matter how small should spend however much money it takes to support a tiny community of users who are accustomed to getting most of their software for free.

I don't believe desktop linux can really be a thing anytime soon, too much distro fragmentation. However appliance linux is a thing now, any company could use linux as a base and create a DVR that does what you need. With some luck that investment could trickle down to the desktop. And then Richard Stallman would hunt down these users and lecture them to death.

Blackmagic's davinci or nvidia's iray server are proof that linux can provide low cost turnkey solutions for some niche markets, this will continue and certainly be accelerated by that move from microsoft. Companies don't like to be forced to upgrade.

The goal of mozilla through firefox was to obtain open standards for the Web, mission accomplished and we all benefit from this. We would benefit from open standards for the desktop, maybe some day.

and in a bit of sacrilegious twist I have it themed out to look like Win 8.

I knew a guy that would have burned you at the stake for this. Beware of open source zealots ^^

[usually_quiet]

You seriously need a realty check. It always comes down to the same thing with you. An insane world view where all companies no matter how small should spend however much money it takes to support a tiny community of users who are accustomed to getting most of their software for free.

I don't believe desktop linux can really be a thing anytime soon, too much distro fragmentation. However appliance linux is a thing now, any company could use linux as a base and create a DVR that does what you need. With some luck that investment could trickle down to the desktop. And then Richard Stallman would hunt down these users and lecture them to death.

It will take more than luck. TiVos, which have CableLabs certification, run a customized version of Linux, although these products are not cheap. The cost of certification testing from CableLabs for recording and watching copy-once protected content would prevent a lot of competitors from entering this niche market. As an example I have seen $75K posted as the cost of certifying SiliconDust's HDHomerun DVR software.

[hello_hello]

Chrome is more popular in the US than all versions of IE put together in spite of it not being the Windows default browser.

So your claim is that people switched from using IE to other browsers, but for some reason that'll never happen when it comes to the OS? You've drawn a line in the sand?

Firefox probably paved the wave for whatever the current ballotless browser favourite might be, because at the time Firefox was released IE was a tabless, insecure piece of crap and people were ready for something new. If IE didn't come with Windows how many people would be using it compared to the other browsers, even today? Are you saying if every computer sold in the last 10 years had come with both Windows and Linux installed, things wouldn't be different?

Just because an alternative to Windows hasn't set the world on fire yet, doesn't mean it won't happen one day, or that the alternatives aren't any good. All it takes is enough people to want something different and a large part of the herd will probably follow. The majority of people tend to use whatever comes installed on their computer, so they use Windows, but saying only a few people switching to Linux is all that'll ever happen might be like having predicted in 2005 that only a few people will switch to an IE alternative, or being confident Windows Mobile will always be the dominant mobile OS. You never know.

[usually_quiet]

Chrome is more popular in the US than all versions of IE put together in spite of it not being the Windows default browser.

So your claim is that people switched from using IE to other browsers, but for some reason that'll never happen when it comes to the OS? You've drawn a line in the sand?

No. My claim is that after so many years Linux should be more popular if it were something that truly met the needs of and and matched the abilities of more than a small percentage of personal computer users.

Are you saying if every computer sold in the last 10 years had come with both Windows and Linux installed, things wouldn't be different?

Yes. If Linux was not still pretty much a geek's OS it would have already become popular on its own. All someone needs to do is download the live version of some Linux distro to try it out. If Linux were truly ready for prime time, word of mouth would have been enough, just as it was with third-party browsers.

[Just because an alternative to Windows hasn't set the world on fire yet, doesn't mean it won't happen one day, or that the alternatives aren't any good. All it takes is enough people to want something different and a large part of the herd will probably follow. The majority of people tend to use whatever comes installed on their computer, so they use Windows, but saying only a few people switching to Linux is all that'll ever happen might be like having predicted in 2005 that only a few people will switch to an IE alternative, or being confident Windows Mobile will always be the dominant mobile OS. You never know.

People are not sheep. Plenty of people are open to something different, Witness the wide acceptance of of Android, which is based on Linux, as well as iOS on phones and tablets, However, at the same time traditional Linux distros have not enjoyed much success, even though many people have heard of Linux and it is easy enough to try without actually installing it.

[ackboo]

People are not sheep. Plenty of people are open to something different, Witness the wide acceptance of of Android, which is based on Linux, as well as iOS on phones and tablets, However, at the same time traditional Linux distros have not enjoyed much success, even though many people have heard of Linux and it is easy enough to try without actually installing it.

To try android people have to buy an android device, the OS is preinstalled, there are no legacy apps, no old habits. Android devices are appliances.

For most people, PCs are appliances as well, they know how to power it on and click the internet icon. Sometimes they know how to use the software that came with their sewing machine in 2001.
Reliable hardware support for linux is something new, and it still isn't perfect. Linux doesn't look like what they are used to and since they already have something that works they don't see the point. People don't use windows, they use firefox on windows, they don't need firefox on linux.
You can't compare an OS install to a browser install. The software is free but it takes time and willpower to learn new things. Also, using windows software of questionable origin is appealing to some. With firefox people had an incentive, Desktop linux is still too fragmented and flaky. An ubuntu that looked just like win XP or win 7 could have an user base if that sewing machine software could still be useful.

Depending on what steam does on linux gamers might have a serious option, that's a good start.

[hello_hello]

No. My claim is that after so many years Linux should be more popular if it were something that truly met the needs of and and matched the abilities of more than a small percentage of personal computer users.

That'd be despite the fact Windows comes installed on every PC, you've already paid for it (Windows doesn't cost extra) and the reality of it is, the most common/popular software runs on Windows, much of it only on Windows.

Yes. If Linux was not still pretty much a geek's OS it would have already become popular on its own.

I'd disagree with that, but even if you could claim Linux is still a geeks OS, maybe that'd be different too if it'd come pre-installed on every PC for the past 10 years.

People are not sheep. Plenty of people are open to something different, Witness the wide acceptance of of Android, which is based on Linux, as well as iOS on phones and tablets, However, at the same time traditional Linux distros have not enjoyed much success, even though many people have heard of Linux and it is easy enough to try without actually installing it.

People are sheep. And they're open to something different. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Look at the Chrome browser.
It doesn't mean everyone wants to be the only one running a particular OS, but once you reach a tipping point, more software becomes available, more people use it.....
Android is in fact a good example. It came along when there wasn't a good alternative. There was Apple, or there was Windows Mobile, which really sucked. Android filled a gap and was readily accepted. People didn't wait around for Microsoft to fix Windows. To this day, there's very little interest in using Windows on a mobile device. Either that's because it's a bad mobile OS, or people can be sheep.

I'm not saying it'll happen tomorrow. It might take a few more years of Microsoft treating Windows users like crap before more people start to think about change. Before Win10 I hadn't seriously contemplated running Linux. Last night I downloaded a few distros to try. Even if I decide to make the switch it'll be slow. At least one PC will probably still dual boot XP for the foreseeable future and the new one will run Win7, at least initially, but I think you'd have to be particularly brave, or even particularly foolish, to predict what we'll all be using in five or ten years time. Anything's possible.

[pandy]

ReactOS may began to be important player soon - not just ubiquitous curiosity...

That's one that I have been keeping my eye on but I don't think it will get anywhere, as soon as it offer a viable alternative to Windows in the form of being to use Windows drivers and run Windows software I have no doubt MS will shut it down, either by threatening them with lawsuits or just throwing a bunch of cash at them to go away.

Well... i assume you are right but this is open source software and i'm almost sure that overall Microsoft will fail to totally prevent people from using it - i assume that it will be more like FUD campaign that it insecure etc. and maybe they will start attacking systems with ReactOS to prove this claim but not sure if this will be good for Microsoft from marketing perspective.
More important is that at some point ReactOS may attract attention not only MS but also other vendors and at some point MS may be not able to prevent this avalanche... Till now MS played quite smart in terms of marketing strategy but it looks that with new management they may reach wall sooner than they expect...

Once again to point - i'm a Windows user that seriously regret Windows 2000 - forced to move to XP but never amused, now forced to move on Windows 7 but i'm disappointed totally and for sure not interested in newer MS products - from my perspective Windows 7 is the last MS OS i can use... and to be honest... i don't need anything from MS.

[usually_quiet]

No. My claim is that after so many years Linux should be more popular if it were something that truly met the needs of and and matched the abilities of more than a small percentage of personal computer users.

That'd be despite the fact Windows comes installed on every PC, you've already paid for it (Windows doesn't cost extra) and the reality of it is, the most common/popular software runs on Windows, much of it only on Windows.

The OS is software and there is more than one OS that can run on a PC. People choose alternative software to what was originally installed on their PC every day. If Linux truly met the needs and abilities of most people, more people would use Linux. ...and yes the fact that the vast majority of the most common/popular software does not have a Linux version would be part of the reason why Linux does not meet the needs of most people. Having Linux pre-installed and selectable via a button won't necessarily fix that by itself. People would still have to choose to run Linux.

Yes. If Linux was not still pretty much a geek's OS it would have already become popular on its own.

I'd disagree with that, but even if you could claim Linux is still a geeks OS, maybe that'd be different too if it'd come pre-installed on every PC for the past 10 years.

Windows is not the only OS that can run on a PC. The fact that Windows comes pre-installed does not prevent someone from installing Linux at no additional cost, if Linux were a better choice for their needs and abilities. It isn't hard to install Linux. Getting it to work with all your devices and finding software that will let you do everything that you used to do with your Windows application software is the problem. You have to be prepared to leave some devices and most application software behind to use Linux, without necessarily having comparable replacements available.

People are not sheep. Plenty of people are open to something different, Witness the wide acceptance of of Android, which is based on Linux, as well as iOS on phones and tablets, However, at the same time traditional Linux distros have not enjoyed much success, even though many people have heard of Linux and it is easy enough to try without actually installing it.

People are sheep. And they're open to something different. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Look at the Chrome browser.
It doesn't mean everyone wants to be the only one running a particular OS, but once you reach a tipping point, more software becomes available, more people use it.....
Android is in fact a good example. It came along when there wasn't a good alternative. There was Apple, or there was Windows Mobile, which really sucked. Android filled a gap and was readily accepted. People didn't wait around for Microsoft to fix Windows. To this day, there's very little interest in using Windows on a mobile device. Either that's because it's a bad mobile OS, or people can be sheep.

Windows phones were/are a bad product. Microsoft has not been able to build a good OS for phones. If they built a better product, they would have a larger market share. Part of Microsoft's problem has been a lack of decent apps.

[hello_hello]

Okay..... even if Linux came installed on every PC for the last ten years, still nobody would use it, there wouldn't be more software for it, and the fact that most people use Windows now must mean everybody will be running Windows on their PC's until the sun turns into a red giant and swallows the planet. Nothing will ever change. Microsoft can do whatever they like for the rest of time, and then for a couple of millennia after that, and they'll never put most people off using Windows. What was I thinking....

[usually_quiet]

To try android people have to buy an android device, the OS is preinstalled, there are no legacy apps, no old habits. Android devices are appliances.

I don't know about the old habits part. There were already mobile devices in existence before Android entered the market. Yes mobile devices are appliances, but there are mobile devices running an operating system other than Android. If people who tried Android had disliked it, they would have replaced their Android device with another mobile device running a different OS as soon as the opportunity presented itself. Microsoft has so far failed in this area, particularly for phones. Their OS does not offer people what they want.

[hello_hello]

I don't know about the old habits part. There were already mobile devices in existence before Android entered the market. Yes mobile devices are appliances, but there are mobile devices running an operating system other than Android. If people who tried Android had disliked it, they would have replaced their Android device with another mobile device running a different OS as soon as the opportunity presented itself. Microsoft has so far failed in this area, particularly for phones. Their OS does not offer people what they want.

There were mobile devices, then Apple came along and changed everything completely. Android filled the non-Apple gap. There was effectively nothing else. Of course if people who bought Android devices didn't like it, they wouldn't have kept using it or buying Android devices, but for the moment that's what most people prefer, and it certainly showed just how much loyalty people have to Microsoft. I had a Windows Mobile phone with it's stylus and scrollbars and I had to connected it to a desktop using ActiveSync for which there should have been a class action against Microsoft for unnecessary stress, but now I have an Android phone. Obviously it doesn't mean mobile devices won't ever change again. It did and people now use Android when not so long ago it didn't even exist. It changed when it came to the browser many people use. But not the desktop OS..... apparently.

[usually_quiet]

Okay..... even if Linux came installed on every PC for the last ten years, still nobody would use it...

If we are talking about one of the traditional Linux distros, I think that is true. ...and which version of Linux would that be? There are so many.

The problems that affect Linux would still affect it even if it were pre-installed on every PC in the last 10 years and if people could choose to run Linux or Windows by simply clicking a button (as you originally wrote). Most would still prefer Windows even after trying both.

and the fact that most people use Windows now must mean everybody will be running Windows on their PC's until the sun turns into a red giant and swallows the planet. Nothing will ever change. What was I thinking....

Yes, change will come slowly if it comes at all. ...and I predict that if people move away from Windows to an OS based on the Linux kernel, it will be to a commercial product, not to one of the traditional Linux distros controlled by a community that is against DRM and not particularly welcoming to closed source software.

[hello_hello]

Yes, change will come slowly if it comes at all. ...and I predict that if people move away from Windows to an OS based on the Linux kernel, it will be to a commercial product, not to one of the traditional Linux distros controlled by a community that is against DRM and not particularly welcoming to closed source software.

I guess we'll just have to wait for that magic commercial product that'll come pre-installed on PCs and cause hardware manufacturers to write drivers for Linux and release software that runs on it, or however it'll work.

[ackboo]

.and I predict that if people move away from Windows to an OS based on the Linux kernel, it will be to a commercial product

I tend to agree, Mandriva tried that and failed for a lot of different reasons. They lost me when they imposed kde 4.0, breaking everything in the process. A commercial linux with no bleeding edge shiny and a serious approach to desktop hardware support would have me as a customer.
You could argue that this is what osx already is, not based on linux but on BSD.

[ackboo]

I guess we'll just have to wait for that magic commercial product that'll come pre-installed on PCs

Don't wait ^^
http://www.dell.com/learn/uk/en/ukbsdt1/campaigns/dell-linux-ubuntu-en

You will learn soon enough about the little quirks of the current linux ecosystem, most of them won't be a problem for you. Regular joes however see these quirks as an huge regression, and rightly so. Windows offers 20 years of backward compatibility and some of the best software, plus no blinking rectangle on a black background. Linux is not there yet.

[sophisticles]

That'd be despite the fact Windows comes installed on every PC, you've already paid for it (Windows doesn't cost extra) and the reality of it is, the most common/popular software runs on Windows, much of it only on Windows.

The price of the Windows license is rolled up in the cost of the PC but that doesn't mean it's free or that you haven't paid anything extra for it. For years MS would license Windows to OEMs like Dell with the agreement that they would not sell a pc without Windows pre-installed, you couldn't buy a computer from them without paying the "Microsoft tax", to this day it's not possible to buy certain models from Dell without an MS OS pre-installed. However certain smaller OEMs, Like Puget allow you to purchase a system with a MS OS pre-installed and you the price is dropped by $100-$200.

Bill Gates was a very shrewd business man, from the start he cut anti-competitive deals with hardware vendors that ensured his OS became the dominant OS by virtue of being the only choice that consumer had and thus the only OS that many people even know exist.

MS has also cut deals with Linux vendors that it saw as a threat, before RedHat created the Fedora spin they used to offer a very sweet desktop OS, I was using back in the day with Ximian gnome, a nice fork of the Gnome project. Redhat announced a licensing deals with MS where MS agreed to purchase an unspecified number of Redhat licenses for their server version, and shortly thereafter Redhat announced it was leaving the desktop market, it's distro would be available only for enterprise customers under licensing terms similar to Windows and it would be spinning off it's desktop offering to the community under the Fedora brand. Perhaps not coincidently about 10 years ago Redhat became the world's first BILLION dollar a year Linux company.

But, if you want to see what a first class Linux desktop looks like, download something like Scientific Linux or any of the other distros that are built from the RH Enterprise source, or try Suse Enterprise edition.

[SameSelf]

Another reason not to buy Skylake:

http://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-updates-support-policy-new-cpus-will-require-windows-10/

[usually_quiet]

Another reason not to buy Skylake:

http://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-updates-support-policy-new-cpus-will-require-windows-10/

That change in policy was already noted in this thread in post #13.

[SameSelf]

You must be a lot of fun at parties.

[usually_quiet]

You must be a lot of fun at parties.

...and you must be hoot at parties. Standing there in a group of other people, ignoring most of the conversation, then repeating what somebody else said a few minutes back. That is always good for a laugh.

[SameSelf]

Did you add any ranch to that word salad?

[usually_quiet]

Just what I always wanted, my very own unpaid proofreader. I don't mind, really.