I like the Windows 7 taskbar.
However, the rumours that future Xbox versions will only work if you're connected to the internet are stronger than ever: The Next Xbox Will Require An Internet Connection To Start Games, Sources Say | Kotaku Australia.
What other things, in future, will require a permanent internet connection? Office 365? Windows?
Good grief, fellow forumeers. Rumors = Speculation. They're nothing based on fact. Why in the world would we want to get caught up in what an author wants to speculate on? What? He/She can't find something sensible to write about? How about writing something with facts behind it. We may learn something then.
Are companies, including MS, attracting us to the cloud? Of course they are. Are they forcing us to the cloud as some seem to think? I don't see it. Not as long as we have a choice. We continue to have a choice, so far as MS and others are concerned. Two main reasons. #1 We can install the OS on a drive to be native. #2 We can still choose a local account within that OS. If or when we don't have those choices, then we have a big problem IMO.
If you wired a device to the internet, then you are using the cloud in one form or another. To what extent you want to use that continues to be a choice. The internet itself is a cloud. If we use it, then we voted for the cloud. Most use email, IM, news sites, search engines, internet phone, or some other internet "conveniences".
Personally I use my Live account to sign into my PC. I find it a very convenient feature. Although I don't have another 8 device or Windows phone 8 at this time, I plan on getting a few, especially the phone. The systems will conveniently sync. Some may use a local account. That's a personal choice that remains. I don't see MS "forcing" anyone, nor do I think they ever will.
Just one example of how the internet has changed the world. The U.S. postal system is $millions in debt. Why? Because snail mail is becoming obsolete. More and more people are using the internet with email (and attachments), internet fax, and shopping. Their package delivery is basically what's keeping them afloat, although there's more competition in that department.
BTW, the U.S. government is attempting to introduce a system called Super WiFi, although it's truly not "WiFi". Their main reasoning is to allow more poor people to use the internet. Those that cannot afford the luxury. Some industries, especially cellphone companies are fighting this. Why? Because all of us will have the convenient and free feature of internet calling. Google, Apple, MS, and other technology companies are fighting for it. Why? Because when new technology is introduced then more technology is spawned.
Lol! Is "used games" (or "borrowing" software) a convenient way of saying "piracy"? "Borrowing" software has never been, nor do I think it will ever be allowed. I wouldn't blame a game software company or any other software company for blocking those who want to pirate. It's stealing plain and simple. We all have possessions we've accumulated in life. We don't like it when they're stolen, especially those we use in our trade.
One may read about Super WiFi here for starters:
Super Wi-FiSuper Wi-Fi, or IEEE 802.22 and IEEE 802.11af as it is technically known, is a term coined by the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to describe a wireless networking proposal which the FCC plans to use for the creation of longer-distance wireless internet.  The use of the trademark "Wi-Fi" in the name has been criticized because it is not based on Wi-Fi technology or endorsed by the Wi-Fi Alliance. 
Instead of using the 2.4 GHz radio frequency of Wi-Fi, the 'Super Wi-Fi' proposal uses the lower-frequency white spaces between television channel frequencies.  These lower frequencies allow the signal to travel further and penetrate walls better than the higher frequencies previously used. 
The FCC's plan is to allow those white space frequencies to be used for free, as happens with Wi-Fi and Bluetooth.
It appears you have not considered that in some countries the citizens may have a legal right to buy/sell second hand games.
I have not bought, or could I possibly buy all software created in the world as anyone else possibly can. Subsequently I do not know, nor can anyone else know all the terms under which all software is sold. Nor could I possibly know all the laws of all the countries in the world. I'm a U.S. born citizen. I pretty much have a sense of what U.S. law is and I try to keep up with it, otherwise my butt gets into trouble. From what I know (for the most part) software and/or licenses are not transferable via a sale here. I can't speak for the rest of the world, but people here like to get paid for what they create, no matter what we do professionally.
Would it be fair to say that it is an industry standard that usually one does not purchase the software, being that it is an intangible product, but rather that one purchases the license to install and use that software? If so, is it fair to say that most EULAs specify that the software licenses are non-transferable?
IMO, if a country deems that it is legal to resell either the software itself or the license is transferable via a sale, then I would think the original software company should be compensated in some way. Perhaps a percentage of the sale would be fair. Like I stated, people like to get paid for what they create. No way is this world nor should it become a "free ride" for anyone.
Last edited by HippsieGypsie; 05 Apr 2013 at 13:05.
Maybe Google is ahead of the curve afterall with its Chromebook and everything available from the cloud.