>I thought part of the point of UAC was to virtualize many of the filesystem parts of being an administrator so you could install programs without actually being administrator

No, it's the other way around. UAC removes lots of privileges of an administrator from the administrator until they explicitly approve them.

So, if a normal user tries to install some system software, they won't be allowed to. If an administrator tries to install it, they will be prompted 'are you sure this is OK?' first.

It's essentially Microsoft's way around the problem of lots of Windows users always running as administrator. Now, they can run as administrator and be reasonably safe, as long as they don't blindly accept any UAC prompts...

> They allow me to decide what I want to install, and what I want to do with it. That is something MS has long ago taken away away from their customer base, and people like you see nothing wrong it.

What? When?

I can install anything I want, and do anything with it that it can do. I'm not sure what you think Microsoft have done, but, although they may have done quite a few dubious things, they haven't restricted what you can install and what you can do with it.

Microsoft haven't made Windows so you can't install Oracle, or Domino Server, or Firefox. They could if they wanted, and THAT would be bad, but you can install anything you want, even if it's a competitor to Microsoft.

In fact, it may be 'safer for the world' if Microsoft DID restrict what you could install.... (less viruses/trojans :) )

The main thing that people seem to complain about with Microsoft is that they charge money for their software, and they try to stop people pirating their software. ZOMG!

(PS - If you are complaining about an Adobe nag screen, complain to Adobe, not about Microsoft...)

I'm not sure what this 'software' is that you're talking about.

All DRM is is a way of encrypting data and restricting who can decrypt it. The 'software' (like Media Player/whatever) is the decrypting software. It can't decrypt the data (the music/videos) unless it has the key. It's not Microsoft's fault you haven't got the key. If they didn't supply you with the decrypter (WMP), people would quite rightly complain.

You may as well say that if you have encrypted your disk, you can't read it unless you use the decryption software and have the key.

All DRM is doing is saying telling the computer who has the right to access (decrypt) certain files which have been 'DRMed' by the content creator.

If content has not been DRMed then even the most DRM-aware OS would not restrict you from doing something with it.

Hacking a DLL and expecting the app to work is nothing to do with DRM, it's either Adobe's copy protection scheme or a buggy DLL. The whole article is just 'dumb user' nonsense. Whoever wrote that obviously thinks they know about computers, but really haven't got a clue.

Really?

In the UK, our local RSPCA branch will sell you a domesticated rescue cat, but they'll GIVE you an 'stable & farm cat' (ie a feral cat) for you to keep in your farmyard. Feral cats are much harder to house, so they are glad to give them to anyone who has the space, and wants them as pest controllers and will take care of them.

http://www.rspca-huddersfield.org.uk/cats.html
"The deal - Permanent rodent control of barns & outbuildings in exchange for a cosy corner to sleep, daily food & water, regular worming & a humane end when the time comes.

There is no charge for these cats."

Basically, with feral cats they have two choices, kill them or give them to someone who wants a mousetrap and will look after it accordingly. If you cared about cats, which would you do?

But most cats don't want to kill on the initial pounce, that's boring, they want to play for three hours as various limbs drop off, and innards start trailing outside, until eventually the poor thing gives up the ghost (or its head gets ripped off). That's much more fun (except for the owner who has to find all the bits left all over the house, hopefully before babies start putting them in their mouths... BTDTGTT...)

One of our cats killed a stoat once, I'm pretty sure they're more vicious than rats. The cat was injured afterwards, but nothing too serious, the vet just cleaned up the wound and let it heal itself.

However, just having cats who chase mice will help to keep rats & mice away as they don't like the stress and will go elsewhere unless there's something really tempting near your cabling (eg old pizzas). (If the cats are too lazy to chase mice, they don't have any effect at all). If you got chased by a tiger every time you went out of your house, you'd probably want to move as well!

Nonsense.

We got two kittens about 9 years ago, their mother was a feral cat who died while the kittens were still VERY small. (All the kittens except the two we got had starved). I seriously doubt they had been taught anything by their mother.

They were wonderful mousers (and 'molers', and, on one occasion 'stoaters' as well).

The drawback was, as has previously been mentioned by other people, they did like bringing mice into the house. Sometimes they were dead, as presents for us, other times they obviously thought we didn't get enough exercise and brought us a nice live one for us to play with...

We have just got a new kitten, and that has a wonderful instinct for catching mice as well although it lived in a cat rescue (sans mice) from birth. Just this last week we managed to bring a mouse into the house in a bag of logs, and although it didn't catch it (I think it was 'supermouse', it moved so darned quickly!) we could always tell where it was (the kitten would sit for hours staring at the piece of furniture that the mouse was behind), and if it moved (by the mad rush as the kitten would chase after it as it shot down the stairs at 300 miles an hour). (We caught the mouse in a mousetrap this morning, phew)

It's different from a monopoly's position in that you can just go out and buy a different phone. One that does essentially the same thing. (Or a different MP3 player or a different computer). You can't just go out and buy a non-Microsoft version of Windows.

So, if you don't like the product tying, do what I do, and stay clear of Apple. You don't lose out (except from iTunes trashing your computer, and a more rapidly decreasing bank balance). I wouldn't say that product tying is 'bad', but I do think it's stupid (Apple obviously disagree, and they may be in a strong enough position for it to work for them). I'd be more willing to consider Apple products if there wasn't the tying, but I don't think they'll be losing sleep because of a few people who choose what to buy based on that rather than visual appeal or keeping in with the crowd.

(You could say that Windows isn't a monopoly, there's Linux and MacOS in competition - but the courts don't see it that way)