I have similar doubt with tablets for a number of reasons. I have tried a number of different tablets including an iPad2 and a couple of Android devices (7" & 10") The primary problem with them is they are very restrictive and awkward to use. Data entry into any of the devices is beyond a joke. Half the screen is taken up by a on screen keyboard with the response suitable for one finger typing. The screens are TINY! Irrelevant of resolution the 10" form factor is too small. Fine for playing a simple game or watch a low quality movie on the move but thats it. Why can't we get a 13" or 15" tablet (or larger). Also due to the touch input, on screen buttons and menus are gigantic. We'll have a small screen with oversize buttons on it so even less data can be displayed, and then we'll pop up a keyboard over half the screen? Computing power is equivalent to 5 to 10 year old technology. Running 1 GHz with 512 MB of RAM? Hence the reason for Simplified "Apps" rather than full applications! They simply don't have the processing power. (yet) There is very limited extended life or expandability with tablets. You WILL have a 10" screen or smaller, 64GB storage or less, limited applications, no expandability, etc. Finally there are solutions to some problems, external keyboard, external storage, external mouse, external expansion docks, . . . .. . In other words get a laptop or netbook and run REAL software, or a suitcase to carry all the extras needed. Out of the 3 devices I bought the only one I use now is the Acer iconia primarily to watch youtube or play little games on when lounging around. The others are sitting in the old tech junk box gathering dust. Tablets are a throw away device that are currently trendy, but I can't see them replacing office computers, servers, network installations, serious home computers, development, or commercial systems. They are like a peripheral addon to a real computers. A toy to many! I am waiting for the Surface Pro type machines to come out that can run REAL software, and MAYBE that will replace my secondary laptop if it has at least a 13" screen, but will definitely not replace the desktop in the foreseeable future.

If some one want to copy your software then I believe you should let them to a degree. It can generate sales. The main project I was involved with used email service to send an activation and product options based upon the generated userid and payment receipt! UserID generate from hardware, receipts that are unique, and some simple mathematics and well placed calls. This worked well because the company was also the primary sales outlet. Even so, setting up a system to verify software based on UID is not to difficult with modern technologies. Making software that is good, and value for money is by far the best method of sales in comparison to overpriced, bloated bugware. I'd avoid any form of dongles, copy protected CD's etc as these do nothing but aggrevate the customer, and decrease the potential of sales. If you want to go with commercial systems then theres items like CopyMinder, CrypKey, Exe Lockdown, Logic Protect and ShareGuard are a few that were getting around. Personally, creating your own protection, licencing system would be the best and probably safest bet.

Judah Himango wrote:

You didn't address a single point I made earlier

Thats because you seem to want to greater effort in attacks against me because I don't agree with Microsoft than state a logical point. I think YOUR the one in a fantasy world.

Judah Himango wrote:

Your arguments hold no truths for working people who write software for Windows for a living.

People working in the REAL world of software development have to stick to budgets and time constraints and the end user does not give a rats about UAC and other Vista problems, they just want software to work. UAC IS a WORK AROUND that means that us REAL DEVELOPERS who don't have 100s of co workers and endless budgets, have to cope with. YES I AGREE WITH YOU - WE HAVE TO LEARN TO GET ON WITH UAC, but we shouldn't have to!

Even if 90% of users ignore it, as you say, that's 10% better security than XP.

WHat about the 90% allowing all these so called nasties in? Fatalities of war? My statements, comments and personal thoughts on UAC (and Vista in general) are based on reports from Microsoft, (Sorry Micro$oft), Synaptic, Numerous User groups, and personal info gain from ACTUALLY using it, programming and the feedback and dramas brought on by the company I work for. NOT because I'm some half-baked Microsoft loving, fan boy, who can't handle any criticism to the almighty GOD that IS MICROSOFT! Final comment - Open your eyes to the real world, and though it may be hard to admit, but Microsoft IS NOT perfect, and everything they do, IS NOT necessarily for the best for all users. No, there not the EVIL empire, but they are definitely not heaven! If your really concerned about security, run linux or OSX. (Professional non biased security personell state that Linux (and OSX) is far more secure.) Lastly - Get a life!

Your obviously a one eyed Microsoft devotee. (There is only one way, The Microsoft way! - YOU WILL COMPLY!) I forgot that Microsoft doesn't make any money from software such as Windows, OneCare security, software maintenance contracts, etc. They get all their money from selling cookies I presume. No reason to want people to upgrade continuously! Anyway Thanks for your comical and cynical view. (Very Mature!) Seriously though, here is a quote from Micro$oft! (Like the $ sign ;) ) Microsoft says "UAC is not for security. The User Account Control (UAC) feature in Windows Vista isn’t intended to set security boundaries, after all." "Because the boundaries defined by UAC and Protected Mode IE are designed to be porous, they can't really be considered security barriers" Microsoft themselves don't even treat UAC as a serious security feature. As far as developers are concerned then they must fall in line with Microsofts demands if they are to develop on Vista. End of story. (Malware authors can, so time for regular developers to take it on! ;))

As all good users do, I have a backup image on DVD! Complete with Windows, Office, Firefox etc and associated utils I use. I also have a CD with data I find useful such as my documents, and bookmarks etc. Total restoration of Windows takes approximately 45 to 50 minutes including format of drive. Give 10 minutes to make a coffee and dump my docs back on! ;)

I agree with you fully. Business etc have information to protect and loss of information can mean loss of money - not good business practices to lose money.

If you believe all the hype from MS and friend then your in serious danger unless you update every second day, and buy the latest software etc. I've been hit with minor annoyances in the past but realistically even the worst virus case is no more than a minor inconvenience to most. I'm not saying to switch off virus programs, but to many people, the need for them is not necessarily critical. If my system ever gets badly infected then I'll simply spend an hour, re-install windows and appropriate software and away I go again. (Minor inconvenience?)

and ZUNE!

I have been involved with computers and development for many years and one thing that I have never had a major problem with is security. The big paranoia of modern computers is security. Firewalls, antivirus, passwords, encryption systems etc etc. My main computer runs kapersky antivirus and sits behind a firewall and I have very little dramas. (I run adaware occasionally to get rid of minor spyware etc.) My second machine is connected directly to the net, and has no antivirus, is never update from Windows XP SP2 original CD, has no password, run full admin account all the time and is the machine I do my main leasurely surfing on. I wanted to see see how many thousands of viruses I could get. The machine was used for everthing from little games , internet surfing, testing software etc. (RAn like a dream compared to the other. Far less problems like DLLs occupying wrong memory locations, other MS update fiascos.) Anyway, after 6 months I ran Kapersky over it. It retrieved 2 viruses, both embedded in some screen savers that had been downloaded. (Can't be right, so I ran a couple of online virus checkers - nothing found!) I ran adaware and it retrieve 133 threats, 99% being tracking cookies and similar. The point is, I don't keep my list of bank accounts and passwords on my computer, I don't have super secret info, I'm just an average Joe, who does a bit of programming and plays around with the net. IF someone broke into my machine that might be able to see a letter I wrote to the local sporting club, or my email enquiring about a new digital camera etc but nothing I'd be particullarly concerned about. (Like most regular users, I guess.) I was surprised as I was expecting hundreds of viruses and system failure within a week but after 6 months - nothing! (Not even DLL location errors!) It makes me wonder!

I fully agree with you. Since Microsofts started using malware and virus type intervention with updates hiding programs and their "genuine advantage" fiasco marking 6 of 18 work machines as non-genuine, I have ALL automatic updates turned off on all computers. I then select the ones I want, if any, have a lot less issues. We removed Vista from all new business machines and loaded XP (and a couple of Ubuntus-hooray!) and have no problems now! My Personal machine runs full admin in vista (Hidden admin account[^]) I have a lot of compatability issues - but thats Vista in general - but no security problems. (I still run XP 95% of the time - it works and is far better for development.)

UAC, in its implimintation, IS the biggest security vulnerability because it endlessly pops up useless messages, that 90% of end users ignore! Just hit okay and continue! - No one takes any notice, its just an annoyance that people who know how to, just turn off! IF microsoft was ever to get serious about security, then simply lock out the admin access to general users. Bad luck that 95% of all software won't run. Developers would soon then rewrite software to be secure and compatable because they'd have to if they stick with MS. In a couple of years Windows could then be a semi secure system. - It'll never happen! MS won't do this because it would mean they didn't make countless billions off insecure software. Linux and apple got it right, microsoft won't. "Vista - the WOE starts now!"

Microsofts BIG security fix for windows - Annoy the users and blame the developers! UAC IS NOT A SECURITY FIX- MS even state that! So why not remove the annoyance and create secure programs from the start? - Linux can, Apple can, Microsoft can't!

I work for a small company and of its 24 computers currently in operation, zero will be upgraded to Vista in the coming 12 months. Part of the reason is overall cost, estimated to be between 7 and 9 thousand, and the other is no forseeable benefit to the operation of the company. If we had to pay for extra licences every time we upgrade a computer, we'd be lucky to see 6 months per PC per licence. We've recently switched to a linux server on X2s, and are seriously looking at linux alternatives for basic operations due to increased costs from Microsoft. If M$ are that stupid, then I hope they completely fail. They are killing Vista before they get a chance to sell it! Daz Who will benefit the most from Vista? Apple and Linux!

The interface is almost cartoony. Its cluttered and too reliant on special effects and glitter rather than useability. General use is far more complicated than need be and although it will probably be fine for the home use with the effects and airy fairy looks, it will definately not be on the high list of needs in the business and corporate. Not clear and clean enough!

Reports also state that the price would be around $100.00 per year! to get started. A little steep for the hobbyist developer.

Christian Graus wrote:

So, what are you using then ?

We use Visual C and Visual Basic ! C++ for COM, VB for UI, DB, and Control!

Christian Graus wrote:

Wow - that's 5% of your code !!

.01% of errors can crash a system and take countless man hours to fix! (Time is money!) To what benefit will converting all this code ? So it can do EXACTLY what its been doing for nearly 12 months without a problem! :confused: Can you please point me to where I can get the DirectX 8 SDK for Net 2? We can only use parts of it through Interop at the moment! DirectX 9 and its coding standard, changes every 3 months and of course is not compatable with DX8. DirectX 10 is unlikely to be compatable with DirectX 9 - its not the microsoft way! Whats the point of changing to a system that will need to be changed in less than 12 months! Net 2 is almost defunk now! NetFX (Net 3.0) is already available. DirectX 9 is near death with 10 on the horizon and a completely new presentation framework! :sigh: There has not been one single item of technology or programming requirement that we have needed and not been able to do with VS 6 at this stage. :-> The next big leap will be to Vista (SP1 at least) and will require NetFX SP6, DirectX 10d and Visual Studio 2008 ! Why not think and work smart? New stuff - New environment! Old stuff - Old environment! Easy, Efficient, Productive and Compatable! - Unheard of terms in software development in many cases! :omg:

I agree with you Anna. I use VS 2003 at home (and VS 6) Visual studio 6 required breaking down major projects into sections but far cleaner and easier to use! -(Also maintained compatability) VS 2005 is typical bloatware and annoyingly slow to use. The second point is that nothing remain compatable. We started converting DirectX routines to DX9 using Feb SDK and VS2005. We then upgraded to June SDK to find none, zero, nada, of the original source would compile without minor rewrites. My suggestion to management was to wait until Vista and appropriate development tools are out before committing to changes that are inappropriate. We are currently setting up a Vista BETA machine to experiment with and to start familiarising with NetFX. Wait and get VS2007 and do a complete rewrite to suit WinFX (Net 3):-D

No where did I mention VC6! We do use it for some code but not all! (COM Mainly!)

Christian Graus wrote:

How much of your VC6 code even compiled under VC2005 ?

One particular object - used to synchronise network data between clients and validate basic security and access was converted. - 7,500 lines of code - 392 errors and warnings. We have approximately 40 ActiveX components similar to do! :sigh: Wrapping COM objects to maintain compatability until they can be rewrit! '2nd major problem! DirectX 8 code is not compatable with VS 2005 - (Nor Vista we believe!) Also not compat with DX9. (But DX9 is not compatable with DX9 :confused: changes every 3 month SDK - modern standards in action! :wtf:) We've used VB6, VC6 and DirectX 8 for 3 years with very little changes required. - Now thats a standard!:-> Time is money!

My work recently aquired the Visual Studio 2005 after a number of years of avoiding 2002 and 2003 net upgrades thinking that they need to upgrade to the new new system - Cause VISTA is coming? Typical bosses with too much money and little grey matter didn't realise that all the resources developed over the last 10 years are now defunk and of little use to anyone because they simply are'nt compatable. Anyway, enough said on that, I get paid by the hour so who gives a hoot. I'll spend the next numerous years updating software to suit a by then out of date system... Self preservation employment at its best!!! After 2 months of trying to use VS2005 its now become apparent that our computers can't handle it! Upgrade them too :doh:;) $$$$$$$ We now find that code is actually slower now so we need to re invent the wheel to keep things running smoothly! :sigh: We find out that all this is unlikely to be compatable with Vista..... :~ $$$$$$$$$ Start again when its released with a new budget :wtf:$$$$$$$$ Unofficially - 90% of the code going out for "NEW" software is written on VS 6 (Hidden under the NET to keep the bosses and accountants happy! - Justify the expense! ;) And the big question everyone asks! Why is software so expensive ? :rolleyes:

We upgraded to VS 2005 and recently down graded back to VS2003 VS2005 is okay on highend systems but next to useless on lowend. Far too slow, too bloated. Also not compatable with net1.1 stuff. FX (Net3) will be out soon so net 2 is really a waste of effort. We are waiting for Vista, Longhorn or Windows 2007, whatever they decide to call it, to actually be released before we again waste money and time upgrading. 70% of development is still done on Visual Studio 6. It works! Good deals can be found for Visual Studio 2003.