101–110 of 328 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, but it uses their Hyper-V hypervisor, which is limited to the Pro and Enterprise versions for no reason other than money.
What other reason would there be to put an advanced feature in a more expensive version of something?
Only Microsoft would come up with a new security feature and then intentionally and arbitrarily limit its availability to the most expensive version of their OS. This is the same company that thinks putting ads in the fucking file explorer is appropriate on an OS they charge hundreds and hundreds of dollars for.
Sandboxie has been providing similar functionality on versions of Windows since XP: https://www.sandboxie.com/ It's probably nowhere near as elegant as the Windows 10 feature, but it should be very handy if you have older versions of Windows!
Only Microsoft would come up with a new security feature and then intentionally and arbitrarily limit its availability to the most expensive version of their OS. This is the same company that thinks putting ads in the fucking file explorer is appropriate on an OS they charge hundreds and hundreds of dollars for.
While your statement is reasonable, it's interesting seeing a Mac user complain about things being too expensive. Is it fundamentally worse to overcharge for software over the hardware?
None of this is good, for anybody involved. IT security is like vaccines, it only works if everybody's got them. This one of my biggest issues with the current "ads let us have free software" defense of the advertising craze. Ads let us segregate users based on what features they can afford not to have, and unfortunately for most laypeople it's security and privacy that's on the chopping block.
What a mess. Typed from my iPad Pro.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm pretty sure that's not the only alternative... some others include a Chromebook, an iPad, a MacBook, or even installing a Linux distro and setting it up for them such that they don't need to use the CLI to accomplish the things they want to do. But honestly, my opinion is that Windows 10 is not as fragile as earlier versions of Windows were.
If the parents' problem is that they install random software, that's not going to help them. I have seen MacBooks with twenty spyware browser extensions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot (most?) of the hardware Home runs on doesn't support hardware virtualization.
Effectively all x86_64 hardware from the last 10+ years supports hardware virtualization, so I can't agree.
Only Microsoft would come up with a new security feature and then intentionally and arbitrarily limit its availability to the most expensive version of their OS. This is the same company that thinks putting ads in the fucking file explorer is appropriate on an OS they charge hundreds and hundreds of dollars for.
While your statement is reasonable, it's interesting seeing a Mac user complain about things being too expensive. Is it fundamentally worse to overcharge for software over the hardware?
Am I the only one who doesn't see where the roughly $1000 price gap between the Honor Play and the newest(?) iPhone XS Max?. Their brand is really not worth that much to me anyhow.
"iPhone: About 1250 EUR, Honor Play: About 320 EUR" [1]
[1] https://www.gsmarena.com/compare.php3?&idPhone2=9230&idPhone...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While your statement is reasonable, it's interesting seeing a Mac user complain about things being too expensive. Is it fundamentally worse to overcharge for software over the hardware?
It seems to me that no matter what happens two classes of users are going to be created: those that can pay for security and those that cannot. Ultimately Apple's pricing means all their users are first class - hence security as a bread-and-butter feature on their platforms. In MSFT's case they're going to have low and high cost consumers, so they segment those users into the two relevant classes. None of this is goo…
Yeah... Good luck running the latest version of iOS on an older iPhone. (Many are still have a 5/6 and you really don't want to update those if you value a reasonable experience and latency.)
Only Microsoft would come up with a new security feature and then intentionally and arbitrarily limit its availability to the most expensive version of their OS. This is the same company that thinks putting ads in the fucking file explorer is appropriate on an OS they charge hundreds and hundreds of dollars for.
I believe it's because the virtualization support is only limited to those versions. I might be wrong though.