JRowley

That's entirely different, for one it wasn't 'use only once games' you could still buy pre-owned games from people, but only once could a game be sold again, not only that but it was to solve the demands by publishers to stop the recycling of a single license over and over. It has nothing to do with a completely locked down windows operating system for the sake of a subscription model to access the store, something even Apple haven't been stupid enough to enforce.

That is a ridiculous statement to make, they would never make such a decision just to force a subscription model, they would lose Billions in order to gain Millions. Microsoft are not that stupid.

The subscription model wouldn't work as people would just revert to a regular online store to sell the app rather than the windows store. Also if a developer wanted to target the mobile platform and desktop, you would write your app to perform well on the mobile platform, and the desktop app would just perform better by virtue of the hardware.

Having one store across the Windows platform is Big Brother to you? I've never heard that one before... All I can see is that it makes developing apps for Windows alot easier, it makes having multiple Windows devices alot easier to use and is generally a big plus for the store.

I think them unifying the store is one of the best things they could have done, to be perfectly honest. What's worrying about it for you?

Edugeek - Windows 10

There is only the media center pack available, chances are you already have it? Regarding Windows 10 I think in general it looks good, though it's the same as Windows 7 in some sense, it's everything Windows 8 should have been in the first place, little refinements to the design. My big hope is that they fix alot of the issues with it being used in the work place, like ditching the requirement for a Microsoft Account, or altering it to accept an Office 365 account or simply a domain connected account. That requirement in Windows 8 has never made sense in the work place.

Indeed that's what I meant by real issues, there are still difference, and will continue to be difference but unless your doing something extremely specific you would never know. It's not like you could tell using a blind test if a CPU was AMD or Intel provided the chips produced the same performance.

I don't think the AMD/Intel compatibility thing has been a real issue for the best part of 20 years.

Admittedly this does force the issue, sites will have to modernise, though I disagree with Chrome's method. Basically if your an enterprise user and you need to use OWA at home, you can no longer use Chrome unless you've had the GPO pushed to the device, this is a ludicrous way of doing it. Firefox have had the foresight to announce it's removal next year which allows for modernisation to take place without immediately effecting users, this is the right way to do it. I fully understand the need to keep up, and obviously this had to be removed at some stage to enforce the standard, but this is a very poor approach to take to the issue especially given they knew it was primarily enterprise users who will be effected. Isn't Google's slogan still "Don't be evil"? It's still in their code of conduct so you would assume so. Seems that doesn't apply to none Google enterprise companies.

Yes, their statistics show a sharp decline from 0.03% February to about 0.006% in August. The data is collected from Chrome's opt in usage statistics, so these figures are purely based on Chrome user's experiences. So this is likely not representative given this effects mostly enterprise users who likely have not opted in.

Yes sorry, disregard that. It was present in the W3C HTML5 standard up until April 2014 when it was deprecated, what strikes me is the speed at which main stream browsers have acted to comply with this particular part of the standard when there are whole chunks of their own proprietary spec active, that has never been standard. Not to mention the fact that almost all HTML5 implementations are based on the 2012 draft and not the April 2014 standard, so I would imagine there is a large amount of changes they should be making immediately if they wish to comply with it. Nevermind one that is used almost exclusively by enterprise users and makes up a fraction of pages.

Microsoft is the one following the standards here, Chrome and Firefox are not: HTML5 Differences from HTML4 Please disregard the above.

That's considered destroyed these days? 90% of the data on that drive is still readable. My suggestion is to contact a company like Shred on Site | Paper Shredding & Confidential Secure Document Destruction Services to Shred It they can do a one day visit and can do industrial shredding (ie. hard drives), please note I have never used this particular company.

I would argue that the glove should be designed to fit the hand, in this case Chrome is the glove. A web browser, that has chosen not to support a specific design used not only by OWA but many web apps, is no longer fit for purpose. This coming from someone who uses Chrome as their main browser both at work and at home, very disappointing. They may well argue that only 0.006% of pages use it, but they are almost all essential pages for enterprise users, they need only make it a GPO controlled config option and default it off. There's no need to remove it completely, better to improve on it and provide an upgrade path for sites depending on it than try and force it out.

My biggest concern here is simply the lack of QA or even worse a lack of caring regarding the results of QA. These devices are tested to destruction in extremes, and they never tried to bend one? Surely they must have done testing for this and found that a fairly low amount of force can be used to bend the device.

I have just suggested Ubiquiti Airvision/Video to replace our existing ageing CCTV system, very good hardware and software.

As with software updates, they are installed on a need only basis. So if you have a completely up to date Windows 8 pc and one which requires updates, if they are in the same group for deployment the up to date pc will report that it is compliant for each update pushed to it, where as the other one will report back that it needs the update, and so it will download the updates and then install them during a maintenance window, or asap depending on how you have it configured. I don't have much more experience regarding updates myself, but since you have configured Endpoint for your windows clients you should have an Automatic Deployment Rule configured already, my advice would be to study that and understand how it works and then try to configure a new rule for a test group. From the looks of it you effectively need to configure a filter to determine which updates to install (this could simply be Product "Windows 7"), and then configure your scheduling. You will also need to configure a deployment package for your updates. Once that's done it should automatically download the updates on the server according to your filter, update the deployment package and then push out the updates to the specified collection according to your schedule. Sorry it's a bit of a vague description of the process, I've never done it myself, and if anyone else can explain better/correct me then please do.

This is where we buy most of our kit from, simply can't afford to get new stuff these days.

Their T&C have contained this since the launch of the BETA client, it was a big deal years ago. I am not surprised in the slightest that they decided to act on it. A pathetic excuse of a company only interested in pushing profit margins. More than happy to Spy in order to sell marketing information no doubt to third parties and for their own uses, and more than happy to completely ruin any franchise in the pursuit of profit.

I suspect so, there's also windows in that room so ventilation helps a bunch I expect.

Typically I believe you should spread them out if possible, however failing that having them all on one server is ok provided you have a spare DC which can seize the roles in the event of the primary falling apart, though seizing is something you should avoid if possible.

That's how we did it, it's not that bad as you can then control who has access to it and restrict when and where it can be logged in.

That turkey ddos was pretty mental, I had to pause it to let it catch up, turns out that doesn't help as much as you would think since it then tries to visually show all of the hacks since you paused it at the same time when your resume.

Germany just launched a volley at America, that was crazy to see! Having said that it appears China just started nuking Seattle which was an even bigger sustained attack than the German one. I must say, enjoying this more than I probably should be.