Silent_Buddha
Legend
I have them in Quick Launch so that I don't have to have those specific applications in the Start menu.
Regards,
SB
I have them in Quick Launch so that I don't have to have those specific applications in the Start menu.
Regards,
SB
hoom
Veteran
Oh you have it set with the icons all showing, text/titles disabled?
I always used Quicklaunch with the icons hidden in the fly-out so Pin to Start is same number of clicks but without taking up any Taskbar real-estate.
yes also they are small so they take up 2 spots from running programs, I have 12 icons there now but I saw now that I dont use all thes eprograms anymore.
D
Deleted member 2197
Guest
Microsoft extends plot to hide Windows 10 Local Accounts setup to rest of the world
February 20, 2020
February 20, 2020
https://mspoweruser.com/microsoft-extends-plot-to-hide-windows-10-local-accounts-setup-to-rest-of-the-world/We reported in September last year that Microsoft was trying to force Windows 10 users into setting up their PCs using Microsoft Accounts by hiding the already small option to use a local account. At the time the “feature” was confined to USA, but now WindowsUnited reports that the missing Local Account option has also extended to Germany.
Windows 10 users are still able to trick Windows into offering the option by unplugging their device from the internet during Setup, for example pressing the Flight Mode button and reloading the option page. Even then Microsoft works to steer users away from Local Accounts.
If you don’t mind giving Microsoft the power to erase your PC, an online account, of course, has its advantages, such as being able to reset your password from the cloud.
A local account has other advantages over a Microsoft account, however, such as increased privacy and not being tied to an online identity which itself can be hacked.
So many codecs, so little memory...
How does AV1 compare with H.265 (HVEC) or the recently finalized H.266 (VVC)? From quick reads it seems AV1 is more efficient than H.265/HVEC. So this is good that its gaining support, where as not much has been using H.265 while I see a lot of H.264 videos.
I wonder if they sorted out the license dispute yet.
A search show https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/h266-av1-evc-three-new-video-codecs-fully-explained/
How does AV1 compare with H.265 (HVEC) or the recently finalized H.266 (VVC)? From quick reads it seems AV1 is more efficient than H.265/HVEC. So this is good that its gaining support, where as not much has been using H.265 while I see a lot of H.264 videos.
I wonder if they sorted out the license dispute yet.
A search show https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/h266-av1-evc-three-new-video-codecs-fully-explained/
AV1 reportedly offers an average of 30% savings in bandwidth over HEVC — but potentially as much as 40%.
Why would we need AV1 if VVC is more efficient? Well, one big reason is money. AV1 is royalty-free, which means anyone is free to use it without paying a dime. VVC, on the other hand, requires a paid license.
Netflix has already started to use AV1 in a limited capacity when streaming to Android devices
Sisvel, an entity that owns or holds the rights to many technology patents, claims that AV1 is not royalty-free and has set up a site that sells AV1 licenses. The argument is that AV1 was built on top of some of Sisvel’s intellectual property (IP) — as well as the IP of other companies that have joined with Sisvel — and therefore cannot be free from licensing fees.
Why would we need AV1 if VVC is more efficient? Well, one big reason is money. AV1 is royalty-free, which means anyone is free to use it without paying a dime. VVC, on the other hand, requires a paid license.
Netflix has already started to use AV1 in a limited capacity when streaming to Android devices
Sisvel, an entity that owns or holds the rights to many technology patents, claims that AV1 is not royalty-free and has set up a site that sells AV1 licenses. The argument is that AV1 was built on top of some of Sisvel’s intellectual property (IP) — as well as the IP of other companies that have joined with Sisvel — and therefore cannot be free from licensing fees.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Much like MPG, DTS, Dolby, DVD, BluRay, etc. you license products being sold or distributed to consumers, not the consumers themselves. In most cases, it isn't a consumer that is violating patent laws WRT to these types of things but the manufacturers or producers of products containing these things.
There are, of course, always examples where that doesn't apply and licenses are sold directly to consumers. For example, when Microsoft switched to a model of charging people to enable DVD playback directly through Windows versus paying for the license for all users of Windows regardless of whether a user ever used the built in DVD playback capabilities of Windows.
However, even then it isn't exactly a user paying for a license. Microsoft is still paying for the license, but users are paying Microsoft to enable it at which point MS then pays to license it for that user's copy of Windows.
The same applies for how MS approaches Dolby Atmos for Headphones on Windows. Rather than paying the license for all users of Windows, they instead only pay the license for users that explicitly say they want to use it via purchasing the capability to enable it's use on their copy of Windows.
Regards,
SB
hoom
Veteran
You do not become rich by giving every patent troll everything they want.
after today i rebooted my windows 10 due to a new update, it become like this
so weird. it 100% reproducible simply by rebooting.
so weird. it 100% reproducible simply by rebooting.
If your choice is engage in a legal battle that will bankrupt your company or pay a license fee you do, that's why patent trolls go after small companies who are struggling
Like Netflix and Youtube?
Similar threads
